Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
48 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
edge
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 141 (10335)
05-24-2002 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
05-24-2002 4:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]Joe Meert:
Snipped all the nonsense about abiogenesis.

John Paul:
I agree. Abiogenesis is nonsense.[/QUOTE]

We have to remember that subtleties are lost on JP.

quote:
Joe Meert:
Ken Miller's response was more than adequate.

John Paul:
Not even close to adequate unless you are an evolutionist already.


Take that, Joe! JP makes another substantial comment.

quote:
Joe Meert:
Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field.

John Paul:
How many times do I have to say this- evolution isn't the debate. What is debated is the starting point, the extent and the apparent direction of evolution.


Okay! Back to the semantic debates of JP (Yawn). Remember, everyone, we have to spell everything out for JP. Simply saying "evolution" is not enough. Make sure you have all of the appropriate modifiers...

quote:
Joe Meert:
That is part of the reason that it is not under scientific debate. For other questions in evolution, there are not any answers (yet).

John Paul:
If there aren't any answers it shouldn't be taught as if there were.


Except that it does answer plenty of other questions regarding the fossil record and that astounding fossil sorting.

quote:
Joe Meert:
For abiogenesis, there are no clear cut answers, but people are thinking and testing ideas of how life got started.

John Paul:
That's great. Theoretical musing on alleged past events gets us what?


Hmm, and what exactly do you have, JP?

quote:
Joe Meert:
Basically, you are faulting science for not answering everything and rejecting out-of-hand the evidence that has been presented for evolution.

John Paul:
That is incorrect. I am faulting evolutionists for pushing something that can't be objectively tested. That's it.


JP, we quit testing evolution a long time ago. It is now accepted as a scientific fact. I hate to rain on your parade, but nobody is trying to "prove evolution" any more.

quote:
Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from closing your eyes, ears and mind to the evidence.

John Paul:
In reality my eyes, ears and mind are wide open. It is evolutionists that have theirs closed.


Ouch, a staggering rebuke!

quote:
Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from posting this same 'challenge' on every discussion board you can find. Mostly, no one can stop you from pretending your 'challenge' disproves evolution as a science.

John Paul:
All I am doing is trying to find out how to objectively test the theory of evolution. It doesn't appear that you can help me.


Hmm, let me guess. How about the same way you test ID?

quote:
Joe Meert:
What we can do, is ask you to study the literature and come back with a scientifically publishable refutation of that evidence.

John Paul:
I have studied the literature. Guess what? No one has a way to objectively test the ToE.


No, no, no, JP; not the creationist websites! Real, peer-reviewed scientific literature!

quote:
Joe Meert:
Chat board challenges such as these are limited in their utility (for either side). I'm surprised Ken Miller gave you that long of an answer since I am sure he knew you would reject anything he said anyway!

John Paul:
Glad to see you wasted your time with this non-response. Something I have come to expect from you. Ken Miller couldn't answer me if his life depended on it.


JP start with a bang. Glad to have you back wasting all of our time with this post, JP.

quote:
Does anyone care to at least try to answer the questions I posted?

(Yawn) You mean, again? We've been through all of this before JP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 4:36 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 05-27-2002 11:23 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 141 (10360)
05-25-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by degreed
05-25-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:
Isn't it a little tough to say that science will cease to exist if we allow ourselves to believe that a supernatural being had a hand in all of this?

I'm not sure who says this. In fact, many evolutionist would say the opposite.

quote:
We should continue to pursue the how and to test what we think we know.

Indeed, this is done every day. Nevertheless, we still have to proceed ahead with science, also.

quote:
Attributing creation does not preclude science.

But attributing creationism sure seems to.

quote:
Even if we were to all agree on creation, the Creator obviously used extremely precise and constant laws of physics and nature to define the universe. The science lies in continuing to further our understanding of these laws.

Many creationists agree with this.

quote:
Rather than outright denial or acceptance of a supernatural creator, we should continue to advance scientific progress.

I'm not sure who you are debating here.

quote:
For instance - here's a basic evolutionary flaw that evolutionists don't really like to talk about.

Let's assume that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, that the combination of the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, and nucleochronology techniques combine to date the universe from 11 to 20 billion years old, right?

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).


I have never heard of a species wishing to evolve. And why do you rely on 'crude' mathematical models? I guess you are not aware of what I think of models. Where do you get your input for these models? It wouldn't be speculative would it?

quote:
Just because we see a cute collection of fossils doesn't mean that we can make the huge leap over clear chaos and probability theory chasms to say that they must have evolved into each other.
Shouldn't we discuss why, in the recorded span of human history, we have never witnessed even one single example of speciation through evolution? Only extinctions...

Actually, we have witnessed speciation. I'm not sure that paleontologists would particularly like your description of their life's work as "cute," either. Where is the 'clear chaos?' Does this just mean that you don't understand it, so it is chaotic?

quote:
See? The objective data should lead us somewhere.

And they do.

quote:
In the case of the fossil record we've accumulated in the last century, i think it does.

Agreed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 2:54 PM degreed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 3:59 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 40 of 141 (10572)
05-29-2002 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John Paul
05-28-2002 7:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Lord Kelvin (also a Creationist) once said that heavier than air flight would not be accomplished- science and engineering proved him wrong (maybe he meant just in his lifetime). Edison was against Tesla's idea of alternating current, science and engineering again took over. These were ideas that could be objectively tested and verified.

So, what do you expect, JP? Do you want scientists to know everything right from the outset? This shows me that you do not understand science.

quote:
The theory of evolution takes an observation (variation in organisms) and falsely extrapolates it without the benefit of objective testing and definitely without verification.

An assertion. Show us that the the explanation is false. Why has it worked for the last 100 years. Seems to me that as an engineer you would understand that if something works, that would be one factor in favor of it being correct.

quote:
The fossil record is no ally of the ToE as about 99% does not show evolution. Yet edge thinks it has to be explained and the ToE allegedly does that (not).

If you have an alternative explanation of the fossil record, I would be glad to discuss it. Or are you saying that it is not necessary to explain the fossil record? What do you mean by not supporting the fossil record? How is this so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:06 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 141 (10582)
05-29-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John Paul
05-29-2002 4:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
JOhn Paul: Joe please go buy a vowel because it is obvious you are clueless. This is what I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy... Notice I didn't say musings as you have responded, I said Theoretical musings on past unobserved & untestable events are fine and dandy..

But, JP, from all of your posts I have read, anything that is not a 'hard' science really only consists of theoretical musings. If you have changed your mind on this, please let us know.

quote:
Methinks you have been a geologist for too long and now have rocks for brains.

Methinks you have never been a geologist, but that doesn't keep you from pontificating on the subject.

quote:
BTW, Pasteur, a Creationist, is responsible for fighting germs, not Darwin.

I love it when creationists bring up pre-Darwinian scientists and point out how they are "a creationist, by the way..." Like they had some choice? I rather think that Newton, for instance, was a naturalist who happened to also be religious. If he had been able to review the evidence for evolution, he would have embraced it. Likewise, Pasteur who railed against spontaneous generation in the context of the day. Just because these examples were religious does not mean that they were anti-evolutionary. It is disingenuous of you to infer so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 4:13 PM John Paul 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 © 2020