Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is evolution?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 106 of 122 (467270)
05-20-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Yrreg
05-20-2008 3:33 PM


Re: To learn or debate? to get the facts straight.
I really don't understand your point.
If you want to play football you can't come along and pick the ball up and then blame everyone else because you did not make the effort to learn how to play.
If you stay here long enough you will learn new things that will astound you.
I knew bugger all about cosmology 'till I came here, now I know some cool stuff. But I won't go telling Cavediver what terms he should be using because I can't be arsed to take several years to get the knowledge around the subject he has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Yrreg, posted 05-20-2008 3:33 PM Yrreg has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 107 of 122 (467271)
05-20-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Blue Jay
05-20-2008 3:30 PM


Scientists types are baffled?.
Hi Bluejay,
Bluejay writes:
This thread was started because anti-evos continuously come onto the website making off-the-wall claims about evolution that leave us science types baffled.
I assure you that it is not only the science types who are baffled. I would think that most creationists believe that evolution occurs from a micro point of view. Therefore, I don't believe that "anti-evo" would be a proper term for creationists in general. Maybe you could call them "anti-macro-evos."
Note that every creationist responding to subbie's challenge so far has included abiogenesis and Big Bang cosmology as parts of evolution.
You act as though this is the creationist's fault. I have heard many times in the past couple of weeks that most of the world is ignorant about evolution. We are not stupid. We are not uneducated in other areas. When we first come to this website, I am sure that many of us have no idea what you have in mind when you use the term "evolution."
Here is a quote from a publication from the National Academy of Science regarding origins.
The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition |The National Academies Press
quote:
The term "evolution" usually refers to biological evolution of living things. But the processes by which planets, stars, galaxies and the universe form and change over time are also types of "evolution." In all of these cases there is change over time, although the processes involved are quite different.
So you see, the little that us ignorant people have learned about evolution out in the real world has led us to believe that it includes the formation of the universe, and the origin of life. In the OP, subbie asks for a definition of evolution, and refers to the Theory of Evolution. No where in the OP does it ask for a definition of Biological Evolution.
In addition, we could be misled from the beginning. This website is titled Creation vs Evolution. When a creationist thinks about creation, they think of the creation of the heavens, earth, and all living things, including abiogenesis. When we are first introduced to the topics on this website, it includes threads for the Big Bang, Origin of Life, and Evolution. There is no reason that we would separate all of these theories or hypothesis into different categories in our minds. Creation is Creation. It includes everything.
And, on other threads, they routinely provide "evidence" against these concepts, thinking that, if they can disprove, e.g., the Big Bang, they have successfully disproven evolutionary theory.
From your background, this should seem logical to you. The creationist feels he is dealing with someone who is arguing that everything can be explained (and many times it seems must be explained) through naturalistic means. If the creationist can successfully argue that something in the area of origins required supernatural intervention, then in his mind he has defeated the argument that everything can be or must be explained naturally. Remember the creationist's mindset. Many times they lump all of these things together. Therefore, if a supernatural force was involved in one area of creation, it can easily be involved in all areas of creation. I don't think most creationists are interested in negating all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo. They only want scientists to acknowledge that a supernatural explanation is possible (even if it is not science).
Then, we have to go through this entire explanation of "what is evolution?" yet again.
Maybe the answer is to organize some definitions that newbies must read before they can register. Common terms like fact, theory, evolution, etc. I don't think it will make much difference though. If you tell a creationist that it is a "fact" that they are cousins to a monkey, I really don't think they will care what definition is being used. They will probably disagree.
Edited by Wumpini, : Added link

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 05-20-2008 3:30 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 05-20-2008 8:26 PM Wumpini has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 108 of 122 (467276)
05-20-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
05-20-2008 12:37 PM


As yet, there is no acceptable evidence of speech endowed humans prior to 6000. I am not saying anything other than that, nor am I negating any older prototype humans.
No history means no modern human imprints, no monuments, wars, nations, kings, folksongs, recipies and no 'NAMES' - the mark of a modern human. Alledged fire places, beads, cave stractchings, mass burials, agriculture, etc - do not contribute anything whatsoever to this factor.
For me, it is a mystery this was signified in Genesis with a dating specific to the year - whether this be partially or fully vindicated, still remains mysterious factor for humanity. It means 'something' yet to be defined scientifically occured on this planet close to 6000 years ago.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2008 12:37 PM Coyote has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 109 of 122 (467277)
05-20-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Larni
05-20-2008 12:38 PM


quote:
How about a place name?
No good. We can have place names for rocks on other galaxies too. Unless these names existed prior to 6000 years, and how does one evidence that?
quote:
Eridu (or Eridug, modern Tell Abu Shahrain, Iraq) was the earliest city in southern Mesopotamia, founded ca. 5400 BC.
No good. Too close, and C14 datings are not accurate to small time margins. If anything, that fig of a 400 year variation only affirms what Genesis says. Mesopotamia, which included Babylon, is already given as the first civilization, predating ancient Egypt.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
It is also not plausable that an unrecorded 5000 year period, has no transit imprints in that region.
Well I'm sorry, I confess I have no idea what this sentance means if you want something not reliant on writing.
IOW, if you are claiming modern human history dated to 10K years [some 4000 before the Genesis dating for human speech endowed history] there has to be a gradual, accumulating thread of evidences with respect populations and mental prowess advancements, say every 100 years.
quote:
This begs the question: why are you on this site? You seem to show talent only in refusing to see what other wiser people have tried really, really hard to show you.
The reverse is the case. I am agreeing with Genesis' evidenced and vindicated writings, after examing and considering all things, while others are refusing it, with no plausable counter evidence of refutation - only because it is told us by alledged wise men. If it is alledged, for example, that Australian aboriginals are 60K years old, I ask for evidence of their population figures [namely, why is it not in the trillions], and their mental prowess imprints within that period. Is that not a legitimate view?
quote:
So I ask you: if you are not here to learn or debate, what are you here for?
I am here to learn and debate. Which is different from accepting anything which does not make any sense but accepted by others. there are anomolies in the status quo, and a growing admission and realisation of it, but it has come to a stage that half the scientific community debates in a mode akin to a fundamental religious sect - attacking anyone one who disputes even on legitimate grounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Larni, posted 05-20-2008 12:38 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Larni, posted 05-20-2008 6:16 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 110 of 122 (467279)
05-20-2008 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Blue Jay
05-20-2008 3:30 PM


Re: Jargon, the need to be straight with terms
My bad for not knowing about the 300 post limits; normally, if a thread extends, it is a mark of interest. Now I have debated the variances of evolution, with legitimate arguements, as well as the novel, casino maths assumption anything exists w/o a centre or boundary, specifically - I have debated against the sole and singular example tended, namely a 'surface'; it is doubtful even if a surface can be submitted as evidence in this regard, yet I have shown even such an example fails when examined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 05-20-2008 3:30 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 111 of 122 (467281)
05-20-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 5:59 PM


So no evidence will suit you.
Fair enough.
No point in carrying on the debate, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 5:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 6:32 PM Larni has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 112 of 122 (467282)
05-20-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Yrreg
05-20-2008 3:33 PM


Re: To learn or debate? to get the facts straight.
While there is no problem with he term 'change', it can also be easily manipulated to incline with a preferred conclusion. That everything is subject to change is not possible to dispute. The evidence needed, that all life emerged from a randomity and became a complexity [entropy], is also not disputed; both these factors are introduced in the opening two verses of genesis, which is followed by the first recording of evolution [the chronological emergence of life forms].
There are agreements and differences in evolution according to Genesis and ToE. The standout differentials are inclined with Genesis being correct. But there is an undeniable phenomenon in neo science to automatically counter the differentials with what I call casino science and maths, but accepted by everyone - as if there are no brick walls and unacceptable anomolies at the conclusion of those premises.
I gave examples of such phenomenons as reciprocity, intergration and irrevocable logical evidences of an outside triggering mechanism being applicable in a finite universe - these have not even been addressed here.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Yrreg, posted 05-20-2008 3:33 PM Yrreg has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 113 of 122 (467283)
05-20-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wounded King
05-20-2008 4:38 PM


Re: The facts are all there.
Here you have only shown that you understand a thread of factors portrayed in scientific process. Nothing more, and definitely not evidencing its legitimacy. One can easily present what is percieved as a change, and that it appears to 'fit' another change elsewhere, as with a jigsaw puzzle's pieces, then positing this as the only evidence to establish numerous other factors.
But this has to ultimately be evidenced outside of a deconstructionist lab test. Now we know that this evidence of evolutionary 'change' is based on a time factor, and what is presented is millions of years being applicable, and that it is otherwise too slow to be seen. This is casino logic, and here's why.
The process of evolution is said to be an 'on-going' process, never ceasing. Do you even know what that means, or did you just fly over that term faster than a speeding bullet? FYI, in an on-going process, the time factor is irrelevent. Guess why, brainiac!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wounded King, posted 05-20-2008 4:38 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Wounded King, posted 05-20-2008 7:17 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 114 of 122 (467284)
05-20-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Larni
05-20-2008 6:16 PM


The reverse is the case. No evidence is acceptable or presented, accept the imaginary 'surface' premise. Get it right?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Larni, posted 05-20-2008 6:16 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Larni, posted 05-20-2008 8:20 PM IamJoseph has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 115 of 122 (467290)
05-20-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 6:29 PM


Re: The facts are all there.
What is this word salad meant to mean?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 6:29 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 8:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 116 of 122 (467297)
05-20-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Wounded King
05-20-2008 7:17 PM


Re: The facts are all there.
You prefer not to answer? Maybe an on-going process has no meaning whatsoever? Who is disregarding the 300 post factor here?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Wounded King, posted 05-20-2008 7:17 PM Wounded King has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 117 of 122 (467301)
05-20-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 6:32 PM


The position, not the person.
So far, all of your posts indicate that you have assumed the position of a twat on this web site.
Edited by Larni, : Added softer wording.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 6:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 8:45 PM Larni has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 122 (467303)
05-20-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Wumpini
05-20-2008 5:15 PM


Re: Scientists types are baffled?.
creation of the heavens
Can you define what you mean by 'heaven'?
Creation is Creation. It includes everything.
Then all creation stories are the same and should be clumped together as well i.e. Mythology, Paganism, Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Vodou...oh yeah and Christianity. So you see as a whole they seem to contradict each other, and because of that, it all becomes ridiculous at that point.
If the creationist can successfully argue that something in the area of origins required supernatural intervention, then in his mind he has defeated the argument that everything can be or must be explained naturally.
He can argue till he is blue in the face, proof for what he claims to be supernatural must first be established. We argue about evolution and how it works all the time simply because everything looks evolved when you look at the fossil records. Evolution was established by observation first and has since been confirmed through genetics. The supernatural has not been observed but, is in fact the interpretation of a subjective experience from a first person account that then gets passed on to others by simply invoking faith as the catalist. This is not observable proof. This is 'take my word for it, its true'.
They only want scientists to acknowledge that a supernatural explanation is possible (even if it is not science).
Define supernatural without invoking the use of the word God, however, if you HAVE to use the word God then specify which one because I tend to lump all that God mumbo-jumbo togehter.
If you tell a creationist that it is a "fact" that they are cousins to a monkey, I really don't think they will care what definition is being used. They will probably disagree.
Why?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Wumpini, posted 05-20-2008 5:15 PM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 8:43 PM onifre has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 119 of 122 (467306)
05-20-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by onifre
05-20-2008 8:26 PM


Re: Scientists types are baffled?.
quote:
Define supernatural without invoking the use of the word God,
A complexity from a random.
quote:
however, if you HAVE to use the word God then specify which one because I tend to lump all that God mumbo-jumbo togehter.
Eventually, the buck stops with ONE. The rest is mumbo jumbo.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 05-20-2008 8:26 PM onifre has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 122 (467307)
05-20-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Larni
05-20-2008 8:20 PM


Re: The position, not the person.
Does it include that there is nothing without a centre outside of a 'surface'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Larni, posted 05-20-2008 8:20 PM Larni has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024