The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Cassiterides on October 22, 2010, 08:46:27 AM
-
The fairytale of evolution just gets now even more laughable.
In his introduction to evolution and ecology class, Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale has said:
"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."
-
citation please?
-
Evolutionists
I like this wild remark.
-
If he said that then he's a fool. Squid and trees are from totally different families.
Could trees evolve to be squid-like? Then perhaps we have a different question, there are plants which thrive underwater, there are plants which move to stimuli (the venus fly-trap comes to mind) and there are plants which are rootless in water (or so I've been led to believe in the family Wolffia) if these plant attributes were to be adapted by one plant genus we could get something superficially resembling a squid.
-
Don't be stupid, in all likelyhood that is a complete quote mine where in reality he was probably saying something quite different than what is implied here.
I already found this quote on a creationist forum, and even with some additional context you can easily see that he was absolutely not saying that squid evolved from trees.
-
If he said that then he's a fool. Squid and trees are from totally different families.
Could trees evolve to be squid-like? Then perhaps we have a different question, there are plants which thrive underwater, there are plants which move to stimuli (the venus fly-trap comes to mind) and there are plants which are rootless in water (or so I've been led to believe in the family Wolffia) if these plant attributes were to be adapted by one plant genus we could get something superficially resembling a squid.
You could get exactly a squid, given a long enough period of time. Exactly 0 genes have to be reserved through the generations. The likelihood is astronomically low, but given an infinite number of planets with trees on them, I guarantee you one would evolve into a squid.
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth, the reason being is, squids are not plants. If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophyly, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plants. Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
-
Thank goodness all mutations don't have to be induced and some can be spontaneous.
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
Have you ever seen a plant evolve into something that is not a plant? Have we ever observed anything like that before? How do you know that this is even possible?
-
citation please?
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3815
-
citation please?
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3815
Fail. I ask you for a citation, because I don't necessarily trust hearsay on a forum, and what do you do? You link me to another stranger giving hearsay on another forum.
Do you have anything more substancial? A credible magazine article? A copy of his syllabus? Video? Why should I believe what some guy says somebody else said?
-
The fairytale of evolution just gets now even more laughable.
In his introduction to evolution and ecology class, Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale has said:
"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."
Please note your dishonesty here. The topic says that it happened. The quote say its possible. Very different.
Indeed, given a very long time, evolution predicts that organisms will evolve to fill niches. It would be possible, given many constraints, for something like that to happen. This is not laughable or a fairytale.
-
Google searching that phrase (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22I+think+it+is+possible+for+redwood+trees+to+evolve+into+squid%22) revealed only creationist forums.
You, sir, fail.
-
I don't understand how people can have a thought process like this.
I mean, believing in something is fine and dandy. But attacking a well supported theory with out of context quotes, Bible passages, and self reasoning? Come on.
For the sake of humanity, I hope you guys are trolls.
-
"Creationists say that evolutionists say that squid evolved from plants".
-
citation please?
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3815
Fail. I ask you for a citation, because I don't necessarily trust hearsay on a forum, and what do you do? You link me to another stranger giving hearsay on another forum.
Do you have anything more substancial? A credible magazine article? A copy of his syllabus? Video? Why should I believe what some guy says somebody else said?
An actual lecture with that quote in it was presented about halfway down that page.
http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/the-importance-of-development-in-evolution-6690/ (http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/the-importance-of-development-in-evolution-6690/)
It was lecture 7 in a series of 36.
He says it at 41:50, and there's a transcript under the video.
It's actually quite an interesting video, which I'm sure Cass has watched, as well as the rest of the series.
-
citation please?
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3815
Fail. I ask you for a citation, because I don't necessarily trust hearsay on a forum, and what do you do? You link me to another stranger giving hearsay on another forum.
Do you have anything more substancial? A credible magazine article? A copy of his syllabus? Video? Why should I believe what some guy says somebody else said?
An actual lecture with that quote in it was presented about halfway down that page.
http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/the-importance-of-development-in-evolution-6690/ (http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/the-importance-of-development-in-evolution-6690/)
It was lecture 7 in a series of 36.
He says it at 41:50, and there's a transcript under the video.
It's actually quite an interesting video, which I'm sure Cass has watched, as well as the rest of the series.
He sounds like he's lecturing to freshmen, hence the non-technical terms "redwood trees" and "squid".
-
An actual lecture with that quote in it was presented about halfway down that page.
http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/the-importance-of-development-in-evolution-6690/ (http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/the-importance-of-development-in-evolution-6690/)
It was lecture 7 in a series of 36.
He says it at 41:50, and there's a transcript under the video.
It's actually quite an interesting video, which I'm sure Cass has watched, as well as the rest of the series.
Whether Cass saw the video or not, the fact is he quoted one phrase totally out of context in several ways:
First, the previous two or three minutes of the video talk about a hypothetical thought experiment, in which ten million planets just like Earth magically have all life extinct except for one species in each planet and magically receive appropriate food. In that hypothetical situation and with some five or ten billion years to let evolution develop, Stephen Stearns believes organisms as diverse as squid and redwood trees could develop from each other.
He never says a single word about this planet and the evolution as it occurred here. He talks only about the hypothetical planets of his thought experiment.
I do not know the qualifications of Stephen Stearns but it does not matter. He has been used as a chip in the fight of creationists against scientists because he said a phrase that is easy to use out of context.
-
What I find interesting is that Cass posted a link to a thread in another forum (Evolution Fairy Tale) where his thoughts had already been ripped to shreds. Was he hoping to be revealed as wrong? First he accused somebody named geode of being dishonest and inserting the word "[Laughter]" after the phrase that Cass quote-mines here (it was in the original), he then further asserts that there is no laughter in the video. Then when revealed to be wrong about this he attempted to cover his tracks by posting some new untruths about what Dr. Stearns said.
But honesty does not seem to be the long suit of Cass. His OP makes a totally false claim that "evolutionists" say that squids evolved from redwood trees.
Dr Stearns qualifications:
http://www.yale.edu/eeb/stearns/ (http://www.yale.edu/eeb/stearns/)
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
It doesn't matter how long you have, a plant will always sire plants, in the same way that an ape will always give birth to apes. For reference I'd point out whales. These have evolved over time from their land-dwelling cousins to go back into the sea but they're still mammals, they're restricted by their ancestry, which is why they will always retain mammalian features.
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
It doesn't matter how long you have, a plant will always sire plants, in the same way that an ape will always give birth to apes. For reference I'd point out whales. These have evolved over time from their land-dwelling cousins to go back into the sea but they're still mammals, they're restricted by their ancestry, which is why they will always retain mammalian features.
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
You also should read the context in which the phrase was said. In an environment like Earth the wildly diverging evolution that Stearns was talking about is quite impossible since almost every ecologic niche is already occupied. In the circumstances about which Stearns was talking about, where all the other species were eliminated and just the redwood trees would exist, all the ecologic niches are available for cells of the tree to evolve.
And your example of whales is just plainly wrong. Whales are relatively new, having appeared just some 50 million years ago. Their 250 million year old ancestors were not mammalians (there were no mammals in the early Triassic) and their 700 million year old ancestors were not even land dwellers. The 2000 million year old ancestors of whales were most probably single celled.
Every time a great mass extinction creates an opportunity some unexpected branches of evolution appear and that is the subject of the lecture you just cannot understand. I can assure you Dr. Stearns is more intelligent than you and I together, and knows more than all FE'rs together.
-
You do realise that Cassiterides doesn't believe that light travels at all and believes instead in the 'emission' theory (light emits from our own eyes). He has a bit of a cheek to be affronted by the humorous observation about squids and trees in my opinion.
-
You do realise that Cassiterides doesn't believe that light travels at all and believes instead in the 'emission' theory (light emits from our own eyes). He has a bit of a cheek to be affronted by the humorous observation about squids and trees in my opinion.
Sadly, I am not surprised. So many angry anti-science fundamentalists are just desperately ranting against everything in science that is counter-intuitive.
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
It doesn't matter how long you have, a plant will always sire plants, in the same way that an ape will always give birth to apes. For reference I'd point out whales. These have evolved over time from their land-dwelling cousins to go back into the sea but they're still mammals, they're restricted by their ancestry, which is why they will always retain mammalian features.
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
You also should read the context in which the phrase was said. In an environment like Earth the wildly diverging evolution that Stearns was talking about is quite impossible since almost every ecologic niche is already occupied. In the circumstances about which Stearns was talking about, where all the other species were eliminated and just the redwood trees would exist, all the ecologic niches are available for cells of the tree to evolve.
And your example of whales is just plainly wrong. Whales are relatively new, having appeared just some 50 million years ago. Their 250 million year old ancestors were not mammalians (there were no mammals in the early Triassic) and their 700 million year old ancestors were not even land dwellers. The 2000 million year old ancestors of whales were most probably single celled.
Every time a great mass extinction creates an opportunity some unexpected branches of evolution appear and that is the subject of the lecture you just cannot understand. I can assure you Dr. Stearns is more intelligent than you and I together, and knows more than all FE'rs together.
Even if every niche was available then they still hold the signatures of their ancestors, it's one of the many ways we can map the biological tree of life. A better example then, than the whale would be birds who have very well-documented dinosaur ancestors and thus still hold many reptilian features. A redwood could evolve to be virtually indistinguishable from squid but they would still retain their plant ancestry.
A real-life example is the ant-mimicking beetle Labidus praedator or the Tasmanian wolf looking and behaving almost exactly like a mammalian wolf but being a marsupial.
-
You also should read the context in which the phrase was said. In an environment like Earth the wildly diverging evolution that Stearns was talking about is quite impossible since almost every ecologic niche is already occupied. In the circumstances about which Stearns was talking about, where all the other species were eliminated and just the redwood trees would exist, all the ecologic niches are available for cells of the tree to evolve.
And your example of whales is just plainly wrong. Whales are relatively new, having appeared just some 50 million years ago. Their 250 million year old ancestors were not mammalians (there were no mammals in the early Triassic) and their 700 million year old ancestors were not even land dwellers. The 2000 million year old ancestors of whales were most probably single celled.
Every time a great mass extinction creates an opportunity some unexpected branches of evolution appear and that is the subject of the lecture you just cannot understand. I can assure you Dr. Stearns is more intelligent than you and I together, and knows more than all FE'rs together.
Even if every niche was available then they still hold the signatures of their ancestors, it's one of the many ways we can map the biological tree of life. A better example then, than the whale would be birds who have very well-documented dinosaur ancestors and thus still hold many reptilian features. A redwood could evolve to be virtually indistinguishable from squid but they would still retain their plant ancestry.
A real-life example is the ant-mimicking beetle Labidus praedator or the Tasmanian wolf looking and behaving almost exactly like a mammalian wolf but being a marsupial.
You are still talking about a few tens of millions of years of evolution in the real Earth. If you do not want to read the context in which the phrase about redwood and squid was said you should not bother to comment.
The very words you use, like "a real-life example", show that you did not take a few minutes from your busy trolling life to actually read the lecture from which the phrase was taken. The transformation of a redwood tree to a squid is not from real life! It is a thought experiment taking place in a theoretical planet that is not Earth!
Whether the idea of development in Evolution was correctly explained by Dr. Stearns or not is beside the point, although he does know his subject and you have not shown you know much about Evolution. My point is that this whole discussion is taking place because people like you do not read the material from which the quotes were taken.
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
It doesn't matter how long you have, a plant will always sire plants, in the same way that an ape will always give birth to apes. For reference I'd point out whales. These have evolved over time from their land-dwelling cousins to go back into the sea but they're still mammals, they're restricted by their ancestry, which is why they will always retain mammalian features.
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
So what if the whale eventually became cold blooded? Would it still be a mammal?
The point is, there is nothing to a name.
-
The fairytale of evolution just gets now even more laughable.
In his introduction to evolution and ecology class, Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale has said:
"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."
What does your religion have to say about the value of honesty? You should be ashamed of your lies and you know it.
-
Gush, I'm dying to see whether he comes back, and what does he have to say about being proved of having told a lie :D
-
Cass seems to abandon threads he's losing in.
-
He got banned from his forum, so he is probably crying.
-
Wow really, what did he get banned for?
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
It doesn't matter how long you have, a plant will always sire plants, in the same way that an ape will always give birth to apes. For reference I'd point out whales. These have evolved over time from their land-dwelling cousins to go back into the sea but they're still mammals, they're restricted by their ancestry, which is why they will always retain mammalian features.
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
So what if the whale eventually became cold blooded? Would it still be a mammal?
The point is, there is nothing to a name.
Does it still produce milk? Has there ever been any instance where something had evolved out of it's ancestry? How do we know such a thing is even possible?
-
Wow really, what did he get banned for?
I'll have to look. All I can see is that under "group" instead of it saying "veteran member" it now says "banned".
-
I'm sure Cass is fine with his Ban. He's always touted how fair and unbiased the moderation team is over there, and how shit this board's moderation is.
-
Does it still produce milk? Has there ever been any instance where something had evolved out of it's ancestry? How do we know such a thing is even possible?
I really think the answers to those questions are in the lectures that were quoted out of context in the OP and that are linked somewhere in this thread.
Genetics is a very complex and rapidly evolving discipline, where things that were recently thought impossible are being proved correct every few years. If a planet with exactly one (arguably evolved) species and the resources to keep alive was ever created, Dr. Stearns is telling us that there is a possibility that just about all the variety of species we know of would eventually be created.
I believe his example of redwood and squid are just examples of the kind of evolution that would be expected, not the exact species that would evolve. But he definitely argues that we would get a variety of species like the one we have on Earth, where all living beings are ancestors of just one initial species but the remaining resemblance to the original being is almost lost.
But the OP is about a specific claim made against all evolutionists: that we now believe squids evolved from trees. Not a possibility, not a thought experiment, not an example of the kind of evolution that is possible. You might accept Dr. Strearn's claim or not, but you cannot accept the total change of meaning in the OP.
-
Does it still produce milk? Has there ever been any instance where something had evolved out of it's ancestry? How do we know such a thing is even possible?
I really think the answers to those questions are in the lectures that were quoted out of context in the OP and that are linked somewhere in this thread.
Genetics is a very complex and rapidly evolving discipline, where things that were recently thought impossible are being proved correct every few years. If a planet with exactly one (arguably evolved) species and the resources to keep alive was ever created, Dr. Stearns is telling us that there is a possibility that just about all the variety of species we know of would eventually be created.
I believe his example of redwood and squid are just examples of the kind of evolution that would be expected, not the exact species that would evolve. But he definitely argues that we would get a variety of species like the one we have on Earth, where all living beings are ancestors of just one initial species but the remaining resemblance to the original being is almost lost.
But the OP is about a specific claim made against all evolutionists: that we now believe squids evolved from trees. Not a possibility, not a thought experiment, not an example of the kind of evolution that is possible. You might accept Dr. Strearn's claim or not, but you cannot accept the total change of meaning in the OP.
Oh yes absolutely agree, the OP was total BS. Which is why I originally wanted a source. Now that we see the full explanation, it is apparent that the OP was extremely misleading, and dishonest.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
I thought someone like you would be used to parables. He was talking of a fictitious planet of which the only inhabitants were trees, and what might be likely to happen in such a scenario.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees.
Prove your claim.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
He said nothing of the sort, he only said in a hypethetical situation given billions of years it is possible. You are a liar. And to continue to claim that evolution states one thing evolves into another is more lying.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees.
Prove your claim.
I laughed really hard at this and I have no clue why.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
He said nothing of the sort, he only said in a hypethetical situation given billions of years it is possible. You are a liar. And to continue to claim that evolution states one thing evolves into another is more lying.
The theory of evolution claims we evolved from a molecule sized organism. So obviously evolution if it is true, would mean we at one stage evolved from a molecule organism, therefore a different kind. Yet there is no empirical scientific evidence for this claim but this is how all evolution books start our history, so who really is a liar?
-
You.
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
He said nothing of the sort, he only said in a hypethetical situation given billions of years it is possible. You are a liar. And to continue to claim that evolution states one thing evolves into another is more lying.
The theory of evolution claims we evolved from a molecule sized organism. So obviously evolution if it is true, would mean we at one stage evolved from a molecule organism, therefore a different kind. Yet there is no empirical scientific evidence for this claim but this is how all evolution books start our history, so who really is a liar?
You are. Molecules are NOT organisms. Nor has any organism ever evolved out of it's ancestry. You are a liar.
-
@marcus. I have stayed out of this thread because of my lack of knowledge in the field. One of Cassiterides problem appears to be with the way biologist definitions
such as if birds evolved from reptiles why are they not still considered reptiles. based on my interpretation of what you have said it sounds like birds should still be considered reptiles. again not my expertise that was my interpretation of what you have been saying.
-
@marcus. I have stayed out of this thread because of my lack of knowledge in the field. One of Cassiterides problem appears to be with the way biologist definitions
such as if birds evolved from reptiles why are they not still considered reptiles. based on my interpretation of what you have said it sounds like birds should still be considered reptiles. again not my expertise that was my interpretation of what you have been saying.
Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, and are still considered dinosaurs today. See Archosaur. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosauria)
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
He said nothing of the sort, he only said in a hypethetical situation given billions of years it is possible. You are a liar. And to continue to claim that evolution states one thing evolves into another is more lying.
The theory of evolution claims we evolved from a molecule sized organism. So obviously evolution if it is true, would mean we at one stage evolved from a molecule organism, therefore a different kind. Yet there is no empirical scientific evidence for this claim but this is how all evolution books start our history, so who really is a liar?
You are. Molecules are NOT organisms. Nor has any organism ever evolved out of it's ancestry. You are a liar.
So since you are saying nothing changes form, that makes you a creationist. Perpahs you are confused about your beliefs.
-
@marcus. I have stayed out of this thread because of my lack of knowledge in the field. One of Cassiterides problem appears to be with the way biologist definitions
such as if birds evolved from reptiles why are they not still considered reptiles. based on my interpretation of what you have said it sounds like birds should still be considered reptiles. again not my expertise that was my interpretation of what you have been saying.
Science is based on observation. Birds or no other animal have been observed to evolve. This is why evolution (at best) is a theory. Theories are non-proven. However given the fact evolutionists have failed since Darwin's time to prove their theory, a lot of people now consider evolution as a pseudo-science or just an outright fairytale.
-
@marcus. I have stayed out of this thread because of my lack of knowledge in the field. One of Cassiterides problem appears to be with the way biologist definitions
such as if birds evolved from reptiles why are they not still considered reptiles. based on my interpretation of what you have said it sounds like birds should still be considered reptiles. again not my expertise that was my interpretation of what you have been saying.
Linguistic boring long stuff gives the word "birds", but in a scientific context, under scientific terminology, birds are still "saurs" as in the link Marcus gave.
It's like when people confuse "theory" with Scientific theory, sometimes languages work more for commodity and conventions than for exact definitions.
-
A scientific theory by definition means something which is not proven, for if it is, it then moves into the realm of scientific fact/law.
Look up 'scientific fact' or 'scientific law' and compare to 'scientific theory'.
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
-
A scientific theory by definition means something which is not proven, for if it is, it then moves into the realm of scientific fact/law.
Look up 'scientific fact' or 'scientific law' and compare to 'scientific theory'.
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
Done. You're wrong. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Fact)
Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[12][13][14][15] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.
A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. ?Douglas Futyuma[16]
Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[16][17] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
-
A scientific theory by definition means something which is not proven, for if it is, it then moves into the realm of scientific fact/law.
Look up 'scientific fact' or 'scientific law' and compare to 'scientific theory'.
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
lol
In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
A law usually has some sort of math behind it, Such as Newton's Laws. (F = ma pretty much summing up the first two.)
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.
Should we also discount cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, set theory, acoustic theory, and the theory of relativity?
-
@marcus. I have stayed out of this thread because of my lack of knowledge in the field. One of Cassiterides problem appears to be with the way biologist definitions
such as if birds evolved from reptiles why are they not still considered reptiles. based on my interpretation of what you have said it sounds like birds should still be considered reptiles. again not my expertise that was my interpretation of what you have been saying.
You are placing too much importance on taxonomic definitions. Biology has evolved a lot in the last few decades, from a tree that divided the living beings in just animals and plants to a much better system with about 6 to 8 kingdoms. Animals like Pandas, hyenas and others are better classified now, and fungus have their own kingdom separated from plants.
While in my youth Biology was a lot more descriptive, it has become a lot more functional, and we should expect a lot more changes as the genome of more species is sequenced.
-
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
This is the old, tired argument that "evolution is just a theory". Nobody except a few creationist nuts fall in this humongous mistake.
The words "law" and "theory" are mostly used interchangeably in science. The difference is that when Newton defined his theory most scientists thought theories like these were definitive and immutable, while scientists like Einstein worked on the premise that no law or theory is completely immune to change with better knowledge.
There is no higher level of knowledge in science than "theory". And while there is always a possibility of a theory or law like Newton's laws or Darwin's theory to be totally debunked, this possibility is too low to even consider it.
We could change all the books so that Newton's laws are called "Newton's theories", but nobody considers this worth the trouble because there are so few ignorant or trolls like Cassiterides.
-
Cassiterides is like VenomFangX nostalgia. I haven't seen these arguments for two or three years (five decades in Internet years).
-
My OP was entirely the truth. Leading evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees. This shouldn't really be a surprise, since i've encountered for more crackpot claims - i.e the ''cannnabalistic ape hypothesis'' - some evolutionists in the 1970's were claiming we evolved from cannibal apes who ate each other brains.
What happens though usually is, that after certain of these wild theories come out, evolutionists then start to deny them or cover them up. This has always been the case, evolutionists have a long history of dishonesty.
Real science is based on empirical facts - things we can observe, repeat (test) in experiment etc. The claim that squids evolved from trees belongs in the realm of fairytales. No one has ever observed this transition, nor can it be tested - the same applies for the entire theory of evolution. No one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
He said nothing of the sort, he only said in a hypethetical situation given billions of years it is possible. You are a liar. And to continue to claim that evolution states one thing evolves into another is more lying.
The theory of evolution claims we evolved from a molecule sized organism. So obviously evolution if it is true, would mean we at one stage evolved from a molecule organism, therefore a different kind. Yet there is no empirical scientific evidence for this claim but this is how all evolution books start our history, so who really is a liar?
You are. Molecules are NOT organisms. Nor has any organism ever evolved out of it's ancestry. You are a liar.
So since you are saying nothing changes form, that makes you a creationist. Perpahs you are confused about your beliefs.
No, I'm saying nothing evolves out of its ancestry. Mammals will always be mammals, evolution is the reason why mammals have diversified into a multitude of different types of mammals, and they divide again and again and again, but no matter how many divisions happen they will always be classified as mammals. This has been explained to you multiple times by me and others on this forum, the fact that you continue to insist we show evidence for something evolution does not permit, even after we show you this, means you are a liar.
A scientific theory by definition means something which is not proven, for if it is, it then moves into the realm of scientific fact/law.
Look up 'scientific fact' or 'scientific law' and compare to 'scientific theory'.
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
More lies, as shown above by others a theory is not what you think it is. Scientific Facts, and Laws make up theories. Theories are there to explain the observable facts and laws. Atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory) is still a theory, but the existence of atoms and matter are a fact. Germ theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease) is made up of the facts such as germs cause illness, but it is still just a theory. Theories in science are not guesses, they are areas of study.
-
The first animals were sponges and hydras/jellyfish. Not microsized super-runts.
-
A scientific fact, is a fact which no one disputes. Therefore there is no assumption, or faith etc involved. It's just a fact, which everyone can observe.
Now compare the above to the theory of evolution.
Are any of you saying that there is no faith, assumption etc involved with evolution?
If that is the case, then why don't you inform leading evolutionary biologists?
Leading evolutionists have admitted evolution is based on inference, assumption and faith, not observable fact.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation''
- Discover, May 1981, p. 36.
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible...''
-American Scientist, Vol. 45, p. 388.
I have a whole load more.
Also the only evolutionists who claim evolution is an absolute fact and not a theory are the militant atheists (clearly several in this thread), they need evolution for their own personal reasons, not because of the evidence. Most agnostic or theistic evolutionists admit an element of faith or assumption is involved in the theory of evolution, and that it is not a proven fact.
-
A scientific fact, is a fact which no one disputes. Therefore there is no assumption, or faith etc involved. It's just a fact, which everyone can observe.
Now compare the above to the theory of evolution.
Are any of you saying that there is no faith, assumption etc involved with evolution?
If that is the case, then why don't you inform leading evolutionary biologists?
Leading evolutionists have admitted evolution is based on inference, assumption and faith, not observable fact.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation''
- Discover, May 1981, p. 36.
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible...''
-American Scientist, Vol. 45, p. 388.
I have a whole load more.
Also the only evolutionists who claim evolution is an absolute fact and not a theory are the militant atheists (clearly several in this thread), they need evolution for their own personal reasons, not because of the evidence. Most agnostic or theistic evolutionists admit an element of faith or assumption is involved in the theory of evolution, and that it is not a proven fact.
Is it a fact that the world is round?
-
Ugh.
I'm going to stop reading these threads and responses now. Nothing constructive comes from them.
-
A scientific fact, is a fact which no one disputes. Therefore there is no assumption, or faith etc involved. It's just a fact, which everyone can observe.
Now compare the above to the theory of evolution.
Are any of you saying that there is no faith, assumption etc involved with evolution?
If that is the case, then why don't you inform leading evolutionary biologists?
Leading evolutionists have admitted evolution is based on inference, assumption and faith, not observable fact.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation''
- Discover, May 1981, p. 36.
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible...''
-American Scientist, Vol. 45, p. 388.
I have a whole load more.
Also the only evolutionists who claim evolution is an absolute fact and not a theory are the militant atheists (clearly several in this thread), they need evolution for their own personal reasons, not because of the evidence. Most agnostic or theistic evolutionists admit an element of faith or assumption is involved in the theory of evolution, and that it is not a proven fact.
Please show me where your quotes substantiate your claim.
-
The first animals were sponges and hydras/jellyfish. Not microsized super-runts.
I've had nightmares about Jellyfish. Dunno know why - but the swarms I've seen in the North Sea, and the east coast off Africa, and the HUGE monsters that inhabited Durban, SA. Or Turritopsis nutricula, a potentially immortal hydra. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula#Biological_immortality)
For some reason that gives me the shivers.
Berny
Scared of jellyfish but swam with sharks
-
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
Do you concider mammals to still be reptiles? Personally, I find taxonomy to be a headache and quite useless when classifying anything other than present-day animals.
-
I'm double posting to let everyone know that you all have the deffinition of Scientific Theory wrong. The dictionary has the answers you are looking for.
-
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
Do you concider mammals to still be reptiles? Personally, I find taxonomy to be a headache and quite useless when classifying anything other than present-day animals.
Platypuss? Thats an odd thing.
Berny
Had a childrens story about a duck-billed platypus
-
I don't understand. Are you saying that the platypuss is hard to classify?
-
I don't understand. Are you saying that the platypuss is hard to classify?
An egg laying cool-blooded mammal with electroreception generally found in fish etc etc. Although a mammal it does show that many animals can stretch the bounds of species when relying on tactile views of taxidermy.
Mind you if I was Cassiterides I could say God just had some leftover bits to use up.
Berny
Wonders what a platypus would taste like
-
It could not be like any squid we have on earth,yes it could the reason being is, squids are not plants.so? If Redwoods were to evolve into squid, according to the law of Monophylyit does not have to retain any traits of the redwood, so eventually it could BE the squid gene for gene, those squid would have to be Redwoods, and therefore plantsnow you are just being pedantic. If a redwood eventually has the same genes as a squid it would "still be a plant?" . Perhaps it is possible as Chris said for a tree to evolve to resemble a squid, but it's fundamental biology would be far removed from that of a cephalopod.I am talking trillions of generation of random mutations leading to it being a squid. It would take a long time but it is possible.
It doesn't matter how long you have, a plant will always sire plants, in the same way that an ape will always give birth to apes. For reference I'd point out whales. These have evolved over time from their land-dwelling cousins to go back into the sea but they're still mammals, they're restricted by their ancestry, which is why they will always retain mammalian features.
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
You also should read the context in which the phrase was said. In an environment like Earth the wildly diverging evolution that Stearns was talking about is quite impossible since almost every ecologic niche is already occupied. In the circumstances about which Stearns was talking about, where all the other species were eliminated and just the redwood trees would exist, all the ecologic niches are available for cells of the tree to evolve.
And your example of whales is just plainly wrong. Whales are relatively new, having appeared just some 50 million years ago. Their 250 million year old ancestors were not mammalians (there were no mammals in the early Triassic) and their 700 million year old ancestors were not even land dwellers. The 2000 million year old ancestors of whales were most probably single celled.
Every time a great mass extinction creates an opportunity some unexpected branches of evolution appear and that is the subject of the lecture you just cannot understand. I can assure you Dr. Stearns is more intelligent than you and I together, and knows more than all FE'rs together.
Even if every niche was available then they still hold the signatures of their ancestors, it's one of the many ways we can map the biological tree of life. A better example then, than the whale would be birds who have very well-documented dinosaur ancestors and thus still hold many reptilian features. A redwood could evolve to be virtually indistinguishable from squid but they would still retain their plant ancestry.
A real-life example is the ant-mimicking beetle Labidus praedator or the Tasmanian wolf looking and behaving almost exactly like a mammalian wolf but being a marsupial.
No one was claiming that a redwood could evolve into a squid and have the ancestry of a squid. It is simply said that at a certain point it could share all the genes of a squid, interbreed, and basically be a squid. (though this is so unlikely we will never observe it in nature)
-
I don't understand. Are you saying that the platypuss is hard to classify?
An egg laying cool-blooded mammal with electroreception generally found in fish etc etc. Although a mammal it does show that many animals can stretch the bounds of species when relying on tactile views of taxidermy.
Mind you if I was Cassiterides I could say God just had some leftover bits to use up.
Berny
Wonders what a platypus would taste like
Actually platypuses do have an easy classification. They are among the monotremes.
-
Thank you EG. I was gunna say that.
-
A scientific theory by definition means something which is not proven, for if it is, it then moves into the realm of scientific fact/law.
Look up 'scientific fact' or 'scientific law' and compare to 'scientific theory'.
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
Blimey, lies and ignorance all in one post.
-
A scientific fact, is a fact which no one disputes. Therefore there is no assumption, or faith etc involved. It's just a fact, which everyone can observe.
Now compare the above to the theory of evolution.
Are any of you saying that there is no faith, assumption etc involved with evolution?
If that is the case, then why don't you inform leading evolutionary biologists?
Leading evolutionists have admitted evolution is based on inference, assumption and faith, not observable fact.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation''
- Discover, May 1981, p. 36.
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible...''
-American Scientist, Vol. 45, p. 388.
I have a whole load more.
Also the only evolutionists who claim evolution is an absolute fact and not a theory are the militant atheists (clearly several in this thread), they need evolution for their own personal reasons, not because of the evidence. Most agnostic or theistic evolutionists admit an element of faith or assumption is involved in the theory of evolution, and that it is not a proven fact.
And again, has someone observed the Genesis? No.
Is there any trace of the smallest evidence or scientific study about it? No.
Creation don't even reach the "theory" category, and i'm talking of the everyday meaning of the world.
Therefore, evolution is still better, more accurate, realistic, documented and studied than "a wizard did it".
You do not need faith to believe in something you can't witness (Gravity, nuclear reactions inside the sun...), but for creationism, you ONLY need faith, nothing else, that explains all!
-
A plant could resemble a squid, hunt like a squid, catch prey like a squid, even have a 'skin' like a squid but it would still be a plant.
Do you concider mammals to still be reptiles? Personally, I find taxonomy to be a headache and quite useless when classifying anything other than present-day animals.
No, mammals and reptiles had a common ancestor called an amniote. Both reptiles and mammals are amniotes today.
-
''Please show me where your quotes substantiate your claim.''
----
Evolution has never been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution cannot be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer.
Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
- PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
Since evolution is therefore non-observable, evolution rests entirely on faith since it can't be observed.
Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
- Evolution, p. 45
Since there is no actual concrete evidence for evolution, evolutionists have to start with their faith or assuming, guessing, speculating and inferring.
George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference.’’
- New Views of Evolution, p. 91.
Austin Clark: [commentating on the evolutionist view of common ancestry] ‘‘It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived…There is not the slightest basis for this assumption’’
- The New Evolution, 1930, p. 235-236
L. Harrison Matthews: [writing on Whales] ‘‘...we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference''
- The Natural History of the Whale, 1978, p. 23
In conclusion as Karl Popper famously remarked:
‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program''
-
''Please show me where your quotes substantiate your claim.''
----
Evolution has never been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution cannot be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer.
Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
- PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
Since evolution is therefore non-observable, evolution rests entirely on faith since it can't be observed.
Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
- Evolution, p. 45
Since there is no actual concrete evidence for evolution, evolutionists have to start with their faith or assuming, guessing, speculating and inferring.
George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference.’’
- New Views of Evolution, p. 91.
Austin Clark: [commentating on the evolutionist view of common ancestry] ‘‘It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived…There is not the slightest basis for this assumption’’
- The New Evolution, 1930, p. 235-236
L. Harrison Matthews: [writing on Whales] ‘‘...we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference''
- The Natural History of the Whale, 1978, p. 23
In conclusion as Karl Popper famously remarked:
‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program''
I believe that the claim you were repeatedly asked to substantiate is your claim that leading evolutionists now believe that squids evolved from trees. None of the above quotes substantiate your claim. Please try again
-
Should we also discount cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, set theory, acoustic theory, and the theory of relativity?
Umm, if your name is Cassiterides the answer is almost certainly YES!
-
Should we also discount cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, set theory, acoustic theory, and the theory of relativity?
Umm, if your name is Cassiterides the answer is almost certainly YES!
Thank you, Winston.
(http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ernie_hudson_ghostbusters_pic_.jpg)
-
Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
- PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
This is another typical ruse used by creationists, even though they know it is not true.
While it was mostly true in 2004, we now have a landmark experiment done by Richard Lenski in which several cultures of E. Coli have been followed through some 50000 generations and the first clear "beneficial" mutations are being created and observed experimentally.
There is nothing really bad with sciences that mostly have observations as its basis (like astronomy), but evidence for Evolution is now starting to be experimental as well as observed, making the possibility of total error in the theory even slimmer than ever before. If you like, the possibility that Evolution does not exist passed from inconceivable to only possible in films like Matrix.
It was only a matter of time before we could have some experimental validation for Evolution and in the following 20 or 30 years we will see experiments like Lenski's being repeated and improved on in every major university. Now that the experiment was done once and that the total mapping of the DNA of the bacteria is going cheaper and better by the day, I am pretty sure we will not even have to wait for another 30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html)
-
A scientific theory by definition means something which is not proven, for if it is, it then moves into the realm of scientific fact/law.
Look up 'scientific fact' or 'scientific law' and compare to 'scientific theory'.
Evolution is a theory which has not been proven. If it was proven, it wouldn't still be called ''the theory of'' but would be considered a law or fact. However this is not the case, and it never will be.
Theories explain facts. Theories can never be proven. Facts are observed and can be proven (epistemological arguments aside). Please stop purposely conflating the two concepts.
On the other hand, theories can absolutely be proven false. So I welcome you to present evidence that the theory of evolution is indeed false.
You might think these semantical arguments are sufficient but they are so transparent that they are laughable.
-
Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
- PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
- Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 1.
This is another typical ruse used by creationists, even though they know it is not true.
While it was mostly true in 2004, we now have a landmark experiment done by Richard Lenski in which several cultures of E. Coli have been followed through some 50000 generations and the first clear "beneficial" mutations are being created and observed experimentally.
There is nothing really bad with sciences that mostly have observations as its basis (like astronomy), but evidence for Evolution is now starting to be experimental as well as observed, making the possibility of total error in the theory even slimmer than ever before. If you like, the possibility that Evolution does not exist passed from inconceivable to only possible in films like Matrix.
It was only a matter of time before we could have some experimental validation for Evolution and in the following 20 or 30 years we will see experiments like Lenski's being repeated and improved on in every major university. Now that the experiment was done once and that the total mapping of the DNA of the bacteria is going cheaper and better by the day, I am pretty sure we will not even have to wait for another 30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/overview.html)
No, as of 2010 leading evolutionists still admit evolution is not observable. Dawkins 2009/2010 book ''the greatest show on earth'' states macro-evolution can not be observed in the lifetime of a single observer.
Dawkins can only provide examples of microevolution or minor variations (i.e in dogs), he accepts macro can not be observed.
Since macroevolution can not be observed therefore it falls outside the scientific method. This means it is not a proven fact, and it is highly acceptable to be skeptical about it.
-
No, as of 2010 leading evolutionists still admit evolution is not observable. Dawkins 2009/2010 book ''the greatest show on earth'' states macro-evolution can not be observed in the lifetime of a single observer.
Dawkins can only provide examples of microevolution or minor variations (i.e in dogs), he accepts macro can not be observed.
Since macroevolution can not be observed therefore it falls outside the scientific method. This means it is not a proven fact, and it is highly acceptable to be skeptical about it.
Do you never tire of trotting out the same old arguments? Do you never once ask yourself if actually the many, many people who take the time and trouble to repudiate your daft proclamations might have some very valid points to make? By the way, where's your evidence of all the leading evolutionists who believe that squid evolved from trees?
-
Since CREATION can not be observed therefore it falls outside the scientific method. This means it is not a proven fact, and it is highly acceptable to be skeptical about it.
Thanks for playing.
-
It can't be observed directly.
Which one of these points do you disagree with?
1. Life reproduces and dies.
2. Through reproduction, life is born with variety.
3. Such variation can increase chances of survival or decrease it.
4. If an organism is more likely to live, it is more likely to reproduce and more likely to pass on its genes.
5. Over time, beneficial variations accumulate.
6. Over time, life can change to an extent that it no longer resembles the original. If small changes can occur, there is no reason why they can't accumulate.
Lack of observation hurts creationism as much as evolution, more so even. No one has witnessed creation, so quit your whining.
-
''Please show me where your quotes substantiate your claim.''
----
Evolution has never been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution cannot be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer.
Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’
- PBS, NOW, 12/03/04.
Lets look at that quote in full context:
Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening
Now why did you leave out that middle part? Also, why did you leave out what he said right after:
it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English.
I'm sure if you post the full content of all of those quotes, you will probably find they were similarly taken out of context. Once again, you show yourself to be a liar.
-
George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference.’’
- New Views of Evolution, p. 91.
To follow the list of failed quotes by Cassiterides, the book "New Views of Evolution" was written in 1929 by a Philosophy teacher. He does not even understand Science and the Scientific Method as we understand it now, and that is clear in his misconception of the term Scientific Law, which can be seen in his book on page 3.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uNWvn7JZ68MC&pg=PA13&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=uNWvn7JZ68MC&pg=PA13&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
In 1929 the most important revision of a Scientific Law, the Theory of Special Relativity that showed that Newton's Laws are only valid at small speeds compared to the speed of light, was only nudging its way into the world of intellectuals. The reason why Einstein chose to call his work a "theory" and not a "law" was not quite familiar to philosophers.
You should wonder why most creationist's and FE'rs sources are so old.
-
It can't be observed directly.
Which one of these points do you disagree with?
1. Life reproduces and dies.
2. Through reproduction, life is born with variety.
3. Such variation can increase chances of survival or decrease it.
4. If an organism is more likely to live, it is more likely to reproduce and more likely to pass on its genes.
5. Over time, beneficial variations accumulate.
6. Over time, life can change to an extent that it no longer resembles the original. If small changes can occur, there is no reason why they can't accumulate.
Lack of observation hurts creationism as much as evolution, more so even. No one has witnessed creation, so quit your whining.
This is why I don't understand Evolution deniers. It can be proven with an almost mathematical certainty.
-
Since macroevolution can not be observed therefore it falls outside the scientific method. This means it is not a proven fact, and it is highly acceptable to be skeptical about it.
Why? Direct observation is almost completely necessary in order to determine facts. I have not directly observed you, but the evidence that you exist is overwhelming.
-
Since macroevolution can not be observed therefore it falls outside the scientific method. This means it is not a proven fact, and it is highly acceptable to be skeptical about it.
Observation need not take place only "in the moment", so your basic premise is flawed.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Who says they aren't still?
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
They are too busy evolving into Primapes.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
They are too busy evolving into Primapes.
Primates.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
They are too busy evolving into Primapes.
Primates.
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/firefox1362/Primeape.jpg)
I know, it wasn't very relevant or funny, but you can't expect me to use high quality jokes in such a low quality thread.
-
I thought it was quite funny, Chef, but then I don't require a lot of quality.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
No monkey has ever evolved into a human.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
No monkey has ever evolved into a human.
Well - why would they - it's not like we're actually all that great. We're doing a better job at wiping ourselves out than nature can ever do.
Berny
Thinks the octopus will have the next run at evolutionary greatness.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
-
If you're going to ignore all the posts which contradict yours, you might as well not post at all. I'm disappointed Cassiterides, and I wasn't expecting much.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
Exactly. Surely if evolution was real, I'd be able to see it with my own eyes. Incidentally, I've also never seen a fish evolve legs; so I suppose according to the evolutionist myth it was something that could only happen millions of years before we were able to observe it, and then suddenly and without warning or rational explanation, poof, it just stopped.
I don't know, it seems fishy to me.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
-
If you're going to ignore all the posts which contradict yours, you might as well not post at all. I'm disappointed Cassiterides, and I wasn't expecting much.
There are honest evolutionists, and i have met some - though they are a very small minority.
Honest evolutionists are men like Stephen Gould who have admitted evolution is not actually observable, and that therefore an element of faith or assumption is involved. So evolution is just a theory, not a proven fact.
If you can't accept this fact, then there is no point in entering any debate on origins.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
The basis of science is observation. Perhaps you should look up the scientific method.
If science wasn't based on observation then science could be anything we could make up i.e that trees float, the moon is made out of cheese and so on.
-
If you're going to ignore all the posts which contradict yours, you might as well not post at all. I'm disappointed Cassiterides, and I wasn't expecting much.
There are honest evolutionists, and i have met some - though they are a very small minority.
Honest evolutionists are men like Stephen Gould who have admitted evolution is not actually observable, and that therefore an element of faith or assumption is involved. So evolution is just a theory, not a proven fact.
If you can't accept this fact, then there is no point in entering any debate on origins.
You err in accusing evolutionists who don't agree with you as dishonest.
Evolution is a Scientific Fact. Deal with it.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
The basis of science is observation. Perhaps you should look up the scientific method.
If science wasn't based on observation then science could be anything we could make up i.e that trees float, the moon is made out of cheese and so on.
Not every Fact needs to be observed. Deal with it.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
Exactly. Surely if evolution was real, I'd be able to see it with my own eyes. Incidentally, I've also never seen a fish evolve legs; so I suppose according to the evolutionist myth it was something that could only happen millions of years before we were able to observe it, and then suddenly and without warning or rational explanation, poof, it just stopped.
I don't know, it seems fishy to me.
Yep, that's all true. But evolutionists are good at fooling the masses. They say that micro is just macroevolution on a larger scale of time to account for the fact no one has ever observed actual evolution in the sense of a net gain (i.e newly created features).
As far as real science is concerned (backed up by history and archeology), man has looked like man since his beginning. There is no evidence whatsoever that we were a rock, fish, ape etc. I have nothing though wrong with people believing that, i just disagree when it is labeled as scientific (when it clearly isn't).
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
The basis of science is observation. Perhaps you should look up the scientific method.
If science wasn't based on observation then science could be anything we could make up i.e that trees float, the moon is made out of cheese and so on.
Not every Fact needs to be observed. Deal with it.
Evidence? By your logic that we don't have to observe something empirically for it to be a fact do you also believe in hobgoblins, faeiries etc then?
-
If you're going to ignore all the posts which contradict yours, you might as well not post at all. I'm disappointed Cassiterides, and I wasn't expecting much.
There are honest evolutionists, and i have met some - though they are a very small minority.
Honest evolutionists are men like Stephen Gould who have admitted evolution is not actually observable, and that therefore an element of faith or assumption is involved. So evolution is just a theory, not a proven fact.
If you can't accept this fact, then there is no point in entering any debate on origins.
You err in accusing evolutionists who don't agree with you as dishonest.
Evolution is a Scientific Fact. Deal with it.
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/00000000000.jpg)
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
The basis of science is observation. Perhaps you should look up the scientific method.
If science wasn't based on observation then science could be anything we could make up i.e that trees float, the moon is made out of cheese and so on.
Not every Fact needs to be observed. Deal with it.
Evidence? By your logic that we don't have to observe something empirically for it to be a fact do you also believe in hobgoblins, faeiries etc then?
Evidence of what? No, I don't believe in hobgoblins, fairies, etc. Yes, Science can very well conclude that something is Fact without direct observation.
-
Why do creationists hold a double standard? Direct observation is necessary for evolution by not creation? Come off it.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
The basis of science is observation. Perhaps you should look up the scientific method.
If science wasn't based on observation then science could be anything we could make up i.e that trees float, the moon is made out of cheese and so on.
Science is based off of evidence, and you do not need to always directly observe something to find evidence of it. Take forensics, for example, a forensic scientist comes to a crime scene after the crime, and gathers evidence of the crime after it happens and uses deductive reasoning to determine what took place, and who is responsible. Discounting all the evidence for evolution in favor of creation is kind of like discounting all of the fingerprints, blood, footprints, etc. at a crime scene in favor of concluding that god did it.
In any case, as has been explained to you several times, evolution has been observed, directly. You never addressed this post from the other thread, where I detailed definitively that evolution, speciation, has been observed.
How do you explain observed and experimental evidence of fruit flies evolving? We have observed fruit flies evolving into entirely separate species, meaning the daughter group was no longer genetically compatible with the parent group or any other daughter group because it was an entirely new species, with different and new features that the parent species does not have. That is not "micro evolution", adaptation within a species, that is "macro evolution", also known as speciation, an entirely new species emerged. This is true even with the strictest definition of species. That is all evolution is.
Also, before you claim once again that this is not evolution because the daughter species is still a fruit fly. Show me one scientific paper or example of a reputable scientist that claims that a fruit fly will evolve into something that is not a fruit fly, or any organism evolving into anything else that is not part of the parent clade. This is called the law of Monophyly (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2412435), and evolution is not allowed to violate it.
Care to address that?
Evolution is confirmed by cellular biology, genetics, anatomy, geology, paleontology, climatology, paleoclimatology, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and taxonomy. If all of those different fields of science confirm what evolution would predict, do you really think it is a coincidence?
-
Here is a photo of the fruit flies.
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/TaylorIMMfjFruitFliesMutationsM.jpg)
Nothing changed, still a fruit fly. No evolution here.
While i opened my photobucket, here is some other stuff:
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/00000000.jpg)
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/lucy_musuem.jpg)
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/99.jpg)
-
I wasn't aware that stalactites fell into the catagory of biology. Are you saying that rocks are alive?
-
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/99.jpg)
Those aren't stalactites and nor are they big. Those are soda straws. Nice strawman.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Good point. The fact is nothing has ever been observed to evolve, therefore anyone who believes in evolution starts at faith.
I have nothing against faith, but science should have nothing to do with it. Science is about observable, repeatable facts.
False. It is not necessary to observe key steps to conclude that something is a Fact.
The basis of science is observation. Perhaps you should look up the scientific method.
If science wasn't based on observation then science could be anything we could make up i.e that trees float, the moon is made out of cheese and so on.
Not every Fact needs to be observed. Deal with it.
Evidence? By your logic that we don't have to observe something empirically for it to be a fact do you also believe in hobgoblins, faeiries etc then?
Do you think Jesus existed as a fact? Does God in fact exist? If so, have you directly and empirically observed God?
-
Do you think Jesus existed as a fact? Does God in fact exist? If so, have you directly and empirically observed God?
I empirically observe God every day, in the miracle of my existence and of the universe around me.
-
Do you think Jesus existed as a fact? Does God in fact exist? If so, have you directly and empirically observed God?
I empirically observe God every day, in the miracle of my existence and of the universe around me.
(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/9/9e/HA_HA_HA%2C_OH_WOW.jpg/500px-HA_HA_HA%2C_OH_WOW.jpg)
-
I don't get it. ???
-
Here is a photo of the fruit flies.
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/TaylorIMMfjFruitFliesMutationsM.jpg)
Nothing changed, still a fruit fly. No evolution here.
Another strawman, you are ignoring the fact that the new fruit flies were an entirely different species of fruit fly, that could interbreed with each other but no longer with the parent species. Speciation, or as you call it "macro evolution", has taken place.
You also ignored the part of that post where I asked you to provide me with any scientific paper from an evolutionist that claims that evolution expects a fruit fly to evolve into something that is not a fruit fly. When has any evolutionist claimed that one thing will evolve out of it's ancestry?
-
OMG BUT THEY LOOK TEH SAME!!!!111!!!1111! ::)
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
If the majority of American's descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? ;)
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
If the majority of American's descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? ;)
What's the relevance here, exactly?
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
If the majority of American's descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? ;)
What's the relevance here, exactly?
Just because there is a common ancestor doesn't mean that there can't be two descendants.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
If the majority of American's descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? ;)
What's the relevance here, exactly?
Just because there is a common ancestor doesn't mean that there can't be two descendants.
Nation of birth has nothing to do with evolution.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
If the majority of American's descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? ;)
Hey now. This is a debate on creationism. Your "logic" has no place here.
-
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Better question: If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Lolz. Stupid evolutionists.
If the majority of American's descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? ;)
What's the relevance here, exactly?
Just because there is a common ancestor doesn't mean that there can't be two descendants.
Nation of birth has nothing to do with evolution.
The answer to that question is very similar to the answer to pongo's.
-
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/00000000.jpg)
and yet both of these dates are thousands of times older than the creationist universe...
-
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/00000000.jpg)
and yet both of these dates are thousands of times older than the creationist universe...
It shows modern dating methods are flawed. How can one part of an animal be 29,500 years and the other 45,000?
A few other examples:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old (Science vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637).
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
-
When has any evolutionist claimed that one thing will evolve out of it's ancestry?
All the time, remember it is you guys claiming we have a fish ancestor.
So when did the fish evolve into a land walking creature. More importantly can you show the observational/empirical evidence of this evolution? Otherwise, like the rest it is just pure faith.
-
Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled ?Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska?. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950?s and 60?s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); ?flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius? (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the ?skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[?] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 ?with a beaver dam?). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed ?baby?, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said..
An answer to the old living snails: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
So when did the fish evolve into a land walking creature. More importantly can you show the observational/empirical evidence of this evolution? Otherwise, like the rest it is just pure faith.
Tiktaalik
-
An answer to the old living snails: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
Do you really expect any sane moral person to go to this link?
TalkOrigins is an atheist front set up by a transexual, all it does it attack creationists or more broadly Christians. Mark Horton (the founder of the TalkOrigins archive and forum) now goes by the name Mary Horton after his sex change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Horton
Tiktaalik
I asked for observational empirical evidence not a fossil (fossils are not evidence, they can only be interpreted).
-
TalkOrigins is an atheist front set up by a transexual,
Why is her sexuality important?
What does belonging to the LGBT community have to do with the arguments they present?
I asked for observational empirical evidence not a fossil (fossils are not evidence, they can only be interpreted).
Please define observational empirical evidence within your own blinkered worldview.
-
Evolution and it's implications make anyone who believes in God wrong about a significant part of their lives. We should all keep this in mind when debating the issue.
-
1. The theory of evolution claims we evolved from a molecule sized organism.
2. So obviously evolution if it is true, would mean we at one stage evolved from a molecule organism, therefore a different kind.
3. Yet there is no empirical scientific evidence for this claim
4. but this is how all evolution books start our history, so who really is a liar?
1. Prove this statement. I will require one prerequisite: It must come from an evolutionist source.
2. Homogeneous phylogeny fail. Even if statement 1 were true, we would not be a different "kind" than our common ancestor. All monkeys, horses and dogs evolved from early vertebrates, therefore they are all vertebrates.
3. There being no scientific evidence for a claim that no one supports is irrelevant to the discussion.
4. As the claim you are making prior to answer the question is fallacious, it'd be pretty easy to take a guess at the answer.
-
Evolution and it's implications make anyone who believes in God wrong about a significant part of their lives. We should all keep this in mind when debating the issue.
I'm a theist, and I don't have any significant problems with evolution.
-
Evolution and it's implications make anyone who believes in God wrong about a significant part of their lives. We should all keep this in mind when debating the issue.
Not really. It challenges specific interpretations of scripture which is not the same thing as believing in a god.
-
Do you really expect any sane moral person to go to this link?
This is the whole problem that creationists see with Evolution. Not a scientific lack of soundness, a morality problem.
Using the same argument we should have burned like witches every scientist since Galileo.
-
Do you really expect any sane moral person to go to this link?
This is the whole problem that creationists see with Evolution. Not a scientific lack of soundness, a morality problem.
Using the same argument we should have burned like witches every scientist since Galileo.
I rather suspect the concern for morality comes from the sexuality of the creator, rather than the content. If this is the case then I fully intend to berate him for it.
-
Evolution and it's implications make anyone who believes in God wrong about a significant part of their lives. We should all keep this in mind when debating the issue.
I'm a theist, and I don't have any significant problems with evolution.
Evolution and it's implications make anyone who believes in God wrong about a significant part of their lives. We should all keep this in mind when debating the issue.
Not really. It challenges specific interpretations of scripture which is not the same thing as believing in a god.
Ah but answer me this:
If you allow yourself to question something fundamental, such as the literal interpretation of the bible's creation story, would that not open the door to questioning other things until ultimately you'd find yourself questioning everything you've ever believed?
-
One should always question what one believes.
-
One should always question what one believes.
I agree and that is a very healthy attitude, it means you're open to new possibilities.
However, many do not because doing so is frightening. Not only that but most people don't like to think that they're wrong for anything and the idea that they're wrong on something they've built their lives on is almost impossible for (dare I say) anyone to accept.
-
Oh, you mean like the earth being round?
-
Oh, you mean like the earth being round?
Exactly like the shape of the Earth.
Of course, questioning something that is both physical and easily observable within a human lifetime is very different from questioning something invisible, passed down from hundreds(or thousands) of generations, and is impossible to see happen in any meaningful way to the average person in their lifetime.
-
As far as I'm concerned neither the shape of the earth nor manner of speciation has a profound impact on religious emunah. I retain some romantic notions regarding creation, but recognize them as such. I do not dispute evolutionary speciation (though I have some doubts about the ability of Darwinian processes to explain all evolutionary developments). I do agree, and am somewhat sympathetic with Cassiterides in this respect, that Science is very arrogant about what it "knows" (and how well it is known). I think clearly cognitive dissonance and biases are at work in our sciences. This has always been true historically, and will always be true. Truth be told, I find the arrogance of both sides rather mind-numbing which is why I generally avoid such discussions.
-
Evolution and it's implications make anyone who believes in God wrong about a significant part of their lives. We should all keep this in mind when debating the issue.
What?
-
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/00000000.jpg)
and yet both of these dates are thousands of times older than the creationist universe...
Math is not your strong suit is it? 44000 divided by 6000 is a little over 7 times, not thousands of times.
-
0.007 thousand times :P
-
I am just amazed that people cant do such simple calculations in their head on the fly.
-
I can do math in my head and I have never used the literary device known as hyperbole in my life.
Oh, good contribution.
-
LOL cute.
-
TalkOrigins is an atheist front set up by a transexual,
Why is her sexuality important?
What does belonging to the LGBT community have to do with the arguments they present?
They point to the fact that entire site is biased.
Why do you think transexuals hate christianity & creationism?
Why are most atheists homosexual/sexually immoral?
Because the Bible tells us that homosexuality/transgenderism is an abomination, so homosexuals and transexuals resort to atheism because of their hatred of the Bible. They can't admit they are in the wrong and atheism provides a cover for them to be accepted.
Please define observational empirical evidence within your own blinkered worldview.
Observation i.e eye-witness testimony. The fact is though no one has ever observed evolution (as someone else pointed out in this thread). This is why evolution is not a scientific fact. Facts are things we can observe, test and repeat, evolution fails for all these three things.
-
TalkOrigins is an atheist front set up by a transexual,
Why is her sexuality important?
What does belonging to the LGBT community have to do with the arguments they present?
They point to the fact that entire site is biased.
Why do you think transexuals hate christianity & creationism?
Why are most atheists homosexual/sexually immoral?
Because the Bible tells us that homosexuality/transgenderism is an abomination, so homosexuals and transexuals resort to atheism because of their hatred of the Bible. They can't admit they are in the wrong and atheism provides a cover for them to be accepted.
Please define observational empirical evidence within your own blinkered worldview.
Observation i.e eye-witness testimony. The fact is though no one has ever observed evolution (as someone else pointed out in this thread). This is why evolution is not a scientific fact. Facts are things we can observe, test and repeat, evolution fails for all these three things.
Evolution is the change in the genetics of an animal, we have witnessed new genes appearing in gene pools, evolution has been observed.
If you are asking for us to have witnessed a replication error in dna, then I demand you show me a picture of god, both are about as equally photo shy at the moment. The problem with your stance is we are now photographing macromolecules, but no one is taking pics of angels.
Towards your hatred of lesbians, your argument progresses as this
1. cass hates lesbians
2. the bible told him to hate lesbians
3.the bible says god poofed animals into existence
4. lesbian must hate you for hating her
5. therefore lesbian will lie about alleged poofing.
You hating her does not make her a liar. Please gtfo
-
I'm through dealing with you and your ignorant bogotry, Cass. You've just insulted a good number of very close friends of mine who have more moral fibre in their little finger than you have in your body. Take your narow little heteronormative worldview and shove it.
-
Why do you think transexuals hate christianity & creationism?
You religious people are the only ones who hate those who are different.
As I listened once: Christians need to be more like Christ.
Also, Christianity is more or less OK, Creationism is the most retarded thing that a human mind can get to... Well... not sure, there's Scientology
Why are most atheists homosexual/sexually immoral?
Define "sexual immorality".
And well, saying that most of us are gay... that's just laughable, and you can't prove it, so it is not worth any attention... Oh, doesn't it sound a bit like Creationism?
They can't admit they are in the wrong and atheism provides a cover for them to be accepted.
What wrong, please explain?
If sexuallity is an option, you Theists, Christ followers, should respect people's choices, and support the ones with problems.
If sexuallity is something you are born with, your God made them like that, so maybe is your God who is wrong, or you don't understand him, or He just doesn't exits.
Facts are things we can observe, test and repeat, evolution fails for all these three things.
Is creationism observable? Testable? Repeatable? Nah...
Even if evolution was wrong, we can work with its materials, its theories and its data, so it is a way better explanation than yours.
And I don't know why I bother writing this, he can't respond to any of my posts, so he just ignores them, but it's fun just to imagine his face when he's shut up.
-
Just saw the picture thread to actually see who some of who you are in this thread. All of this goes to confirm a PM by a member here i got about a week or so back:
''It's useless trying to post a religious thread in these forums...let alone anywhere else.
For the most part, 90% of them are 13-19 year old trolls who have no social skills. So to get their 'fun' they bash other people for useless things.
Not to mention, most kids like that are self proclaimed atheists who bash religion every chance they get.
It's a lose-lose situation.''
Looking at the photos shows 13-19 year olds with emo haircuts.
Quite sad that i wasted so much time here as i have thinking i could get some decent threads going.
If FET just got rid of all the 13-19 year olds here, we could actually have a really nice place for some academic, mature, scientific discussions.
I also suppose that most of the 13-19 year olds in this thread are only atheists because they think at that immature level that atheism is being 'rebellious', or from another post i read a 15 year old saying how all religion is man-made (another immature conspiracy theory which seems to be a trend nowdays).
Anyway if anyone wants to seriously have a convo on our origins and creationism etc feel free to PM me, i'll check back here next week.
-
I was considering mentioning the fact that Cass ignored my post challenging him to provide proof, but I think it will have just about no effect what so ever, so I'm just going to post this picture of a cat instead.
(http://imgur.com/gn3Wb.jpg)
-
Just saw the picture thread to actually see who some of who you are in this thread. All of this goes to confirm a PM by a member here i got about a week or so back:
''It's useless trying to post a religious thread in these forums...let alone anywhere else.
For the most part, 90% of them are 13-19 year old trolls who have no social skills. So to get their 'fun' they bash other people for useless things.
Not to mention, most kids like that are self proclaimed atheists who bash religion every chance they get.
It's a lose-lose situation.''
Looking at the photos shows 13-19 year olds with emo haircuts.
Quite sad that i wasted so much time here as i have thinking i could get some decent threads going.
If FET just got rid of all the 13-19 year olds here, we could actually have a really nice place for some academic, mature, scientific discussions.
I also suppose that most of the 13-19 year olds in this thread are only atheists because they think at that immature level that atheism is being 'rebellious', or from another post i read a 15 year old saying how all religion is man-made (another immature conspiracy theory which seems to be a trend nowdays).
Anyway if anyone wants to seriously have a convo on our origins and creationism etc feel free to PM me, i'll check back here next week.
Ad hominem as well as an argument from age. Not only is this statement not true, it doesn't address the issues of the thread. Also, you assume that 13–19 year olds don't have material to contribute because of their age. I know many a 13-year-old who are more reasonable than a lot of adults. Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
-
Omg!! arguments ad hominem, using age as an argument (I'm 23 btw).
What's your age btw? Because you must be very very young too for having your brain so well washed, and not being able of questioning what they have made you swallow.
And you did well Wendy, that's a cute cat!
-
Just saw the picture thread to actually see who some of who you are in this thread. All of this goes to confirm a PM by a member here i got about a week or so back:
''It's useless trying to post a religious thread in these forums...let alone anywhere else.
For the most part, 90% of them are 13-19 year old trolls who have no social skills. So to get their 'fun' they bash other people for useless things.
Not to mention, most kids like that are self proclaimed atheists who bash religion every chance they get.
It's a lose-lose situation.''
Looking at the photos shows 13-19 year olds with emo haircuts.
Quite sad that i wasted so much time here as i have thinking i could get some decent threads going.
If FET just got rid of all the 13-19 year olds here, we could actually have a really nice place for some academic, mature, scientific discussions.
I also suppose that most of the 13-19 year olds in this thread are only atheists because they think at that immature level that atheism is being 'rebellious', or from another post i read a 15 year old saying how all religion is man-made (another immature conspiracy theory which seems to be a trend nowdays).
Anyway if anyone wants to seriously have a convo on our origins and creationism etc feel free to PM me, i'll check back here next week.
Please stop posting garbage in the upper fora, if you would like to discuss your blatant ad hominems do it elsewhere. Consider this a warning.
Sorry, I'm 21. Now take your boring troll elsewhere and if you post long walls of crap like this again in a serious debate you won't be posting here long.
-
Was this in the upper forums?
Fora is an acceptable plural, though forums is preferred.
-
Was this in the upper forums?
Fora is an acceptable plural, though forums is preferred.
I've always considered the science forums to be upper. I mean especially when he throws out a half page ad hominem like that.
-
LOL! Cassiterides has stated that his age is 18 on at least two other websites. But apparently this place should get shot of all the 13 to 19 year olds? ???
I'm 47 by the way... :(
-
21, not that it makes any difference.
-
I was considering mentioning the fact that Cass ignored my post challenging him to provide proof, but I think it will have just about no effect what so ever, so I'm just going to post this picture of a cat instead.
(http://imgur.com/gn3Wb.jpg)
Awwwwww
So cute.
Can you start a post your pet thread maybe? Much more interesting.
Berny
Thinks cats the meow.
-
I'm 27 and woul be willing to have a discussion with you, Cass. However, I would have to be reasonably assured you would do more that be the copy/paste bot you've been so far.
-
When has any evolutionist claimed that one thing will evolve out of it's ancestry?
All the time, remember it is you guys claiming we have a fish ancestor.
So when did the fish evolve into a land walking creature. More importantly can you show the observational/empirical evidence of this evolution? Otherwise, like the rest it is just pure faith.
Plenty of transitional species between water dwelling and land dwelling, go to a museum. It does not show we evolved out of our ancestry either. The video I posted weeks ago shows this.
The next definitely determinable division includes Chordata, Deuterostomes with a spinal chord. This group includes Craniates, which are Chordates with a brain enclosed inside a skull. A subset of this group also includes vertebrates, which also have spinal vertebrae descending from the skull. And the next subset is Gnathostomata, vertebrates that have all that plus a jawbone.
Remember that we?re only following one lineage, and that each of the left or right turns we take cause us to overlook the other branches that may become just as hugely diverse as the one we?re on; sometimes much more so. But staying on our course, the next fork in the road lies between Gnathostomes who?s skeletons are either cartilaginous or calcified. The right turn here leads us to Sarcopterygii, bony vertebrates which have both lungs and legs. One subset of that are the Stegocephalians; limbed vertebrates with digits on the ends of their appendages. This clade includes a sub-clade called Tetrapoda, which are now gill-less Stegocephalians which are skeletally-adapted for four limbs. Included in that are the Anthracosaurs, pentadactyl post-aquatic 'terrestrial' tetrapods. We now also begin to see more pronounced development of the brain.
One of the anthracosaurian subsets reveals a seemingly small aberration but one which is among the rarest and most profound because the difference is developmental. These are usually the most integral and therefore the hardest things to change, and normally wouldn?t be expected to be significant ?unless the environment changed profoundly, as it would in the adaptation from sea to land. The development of the amnion made this transition possible, and was evidently inherited by all the mammals, reptiles, and birds to come since.
Detailed explanation of Chordates evolving into mammals and reptiles, and guess what, even though we are mammals today, we are also still chordates, want proof? You have a spinal chord right? If you do, you are a chordate. You notice how every single organism that evolved did not evolve out of the taxa that came before.
Finally, you ignored the entire part of the post where it was explained that it has been observed that fruit flies have evolved into an entirely separate species of fruit fly. Direct observational evidence right there.
Also, at the end of the video he gives the definition of what a primate is. Please look at this definition then show me how you are not a primate:
?Primates? are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.
-
Just saw the picture thread to actually see who some of who you are in this thread. All of this goes to confirm a PM by a member here i got about a week or so back:
''It's useless trying to post a religious thread in these forums...let alone anywhere else.
For the most part, 90% of them are 13-19 year old trolls who have no social skills. So to get their 'fun' they bash other people for useless things.
Not to mention, most kids like that are self proclaimed atheists who bash religion every chance they get.
It's a lose-lose situation.''
Looking at the photos shows 13-19 year olds with emo haircuts.
Quite sad that i wasted so much time here as i have thinking i could get some decent threads going.
If FET just got rid of all the 13-19 year olds here, we could actually have a really nice place for some academic, mature, scientific discussions.
I also suppose that most of the 13-19 year olds in this thread are only atheists because they think at that immature level that atheism is being 'rebellious', or from another post i read a 15 year old saying how all religion is man-made (another immature conspiracy theory which seems to be a trend nowdays).
Anyway if anyone wants to seriously have a convo on our origins and creationism etc feel free to PM me, i'll check back here next week.
Please stop posting garbage in the upper fora, if you would like to discuss your blatant ad hominems do it elsewhere. Consider this a warning.
Sorry, I'm 21. Now take your boring troll elsewhere and if you post long walls of crap like this again in a serious debate you won't be posting here long.
Tell me are you still pretending to be a flat earther? About a year ago you were claiming you believed the earth was flat. Yet now i come here a year later and you posing as some rationalist intellectual. Something is a bit fishy. Also a year ago you claimed to be an atheist and actually was defending flat earthism on the ground its ''non-religious''. A year later though and you are claiming to be a non-atheist and a round earth believer.
How can one go from a flat earther atheist to a non-atheist round earther in a year?
-
I don't see the relevance. Claiming that FET is a secular belief doesn't betray the poster's beliefs.
-
To my recollection, Raist has never claimed to be an Atheist. Also, what does our belief or non-belief in a round Earth have to do with this discussion?
-
I thought Raist was a theist?
-
To my recollection, Raist has never claimed to be an Atheist. Also, what does our belief or non-belief in a round Earth have to do with this discussion?
He banned someone i knew about a year ago, but they exposed him very well. Not sure if the post is still up as it was a long while back, but basically it proves Raist is someone with either a multiple personality disorder or is just a troll who poses as many different things on different forums and websites. There are links showing posts of his where he pretends to be a nazi, but on another site an anarchist, and another a pagan. A year ago on this forum he was a self-described atheist who claimed he believed the earth is flat, nowa year on he claims to be a non-atheist and a round earth believer.
What's alarming is that apparently he's a mod here or has certain powers, despite the fact it's clear his account is completely a fake/parody.
-
To my recollection, Raist has never claimed to be an Atheist. Also, what does our belief or non-belief in a round Earth have to do with this discussion?
He banned someone i knew about a year ago, but they exposed him very well. Not sure if the post is still up as it was a long while back, but basically it proves Raist is someone with either a multiple personality disorder or is just a troll who poses as many different things on different forums and websites. There are links showing posts of his where he pretends to be a nazi, but on another site an anarchist, and another a pagan. A year ago on this forum he was a self-described atheist who claimed he believed the earth is flat, nowa year on he claims to be a non-atheist and a round earth believer.
What's alarming is that apparently he's a mod here or has certain powers, despite the fact it's clear his account is completely a fake/parody.
That's a serious accusation, sir. I don't recall Raist ever abusing his mod powers to the extent of banning people who don't accept his world view.
-
To my recollection, Raist has never claimed to be an Atheist. Also, what does our belief or non-belief in a round Earth have to do with this discussion?
He banned someone i knew about a year ago, but they exposed him very well. Not sure if the post is still up as it was a long while back, but basically it proves Raist is someone with either a multiple personality disorder or is just a troll who poses as many different things on different forums and websites. There are links showing posts of his where he pretends to be a nazi, but on another site an anarchist, and another a pagan. A year ago on this forum he was a self-described atheist who claimed he believed the earth is flat, nowa year on he claims to be a non-atheist and a round earth believer.
What's alarming is that apparently he's a mod here or has certain powers, despite the fact it's clear his account is completely a fake/parody.
Dude, I've been here for three-odd years. I've seen Raist's posts and never once has he claimed to be an atheist. Also, you're referring to posts made on other forums, right? Prove that the users you're describing really were Raist. In fact, prove that they existed.
-
WTF? Are you shitting me, he's claiming Raist took actions on other forums?
Dude, I've been here for three-odd years. I've seen Raist's posts and never once has he claimed to be an atheist. Also, you're referring to posts made on other forums, right? Prove that the users you're describing really were Raist. In fact, prove that they existed.
This, basically.
-
Now Trekky, it's not nice to talk about people in third-person when you're having a discussion with them.
-
To my recollection, Raist has never claimed to be an Atheist. Also, what does our belief or non-belief in a round Earth have to do with this discussion?
He banned someone i knew about a year ago, but they exposed him very well. Not sure if the post is still up as it was a long while back, but basically it proves Raist is someone with either a multiple personality disorder or is just a troll who poses as many different things on different forums and websites. There are links showing posts of his where he pretends to be a nazi, but on another site an anarchist, and another a pagan. A year ago on this forum he was a self-described atheist who claimed he believed the earth is flat, nowa year on he claims to be a non-atheist and a round earth believer.
What's alarming is that apparently he's a mod here or has certain powers, despite the fact it's clear his account is completely a fake/parody.
That's a serious accusation, sir. I don't recall Raist ever abusing his mod powers to the extent of banning people who don't accept his world view.
He's banned several innocent people. He also joins many forums and pretends to be many different things. You can find his nazi posts just by merely google searching his name.
Raist is a member of the roundearthsociety, where he posts jokes about Jews:
http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=187.msg4918#msg4918
''How many jews fit in svenanders nose? 200, because he does shit tons of coke and is used to inhaling small dusty particles''
The whole time a year or so back when he was pretending to be a flat earther, he was on roundearthforums making oddly jokes about Jews and laughing at flat earthers. His whole account was a fake from the start, and he banned atleast one user for pointing this out.
Apparently now though he isn't still posing/pretending to be a flat earther. Well, atleast that's a start.
-
The round earth society is in itself a joke, made by one of the members here, I believe.
As for other forums, we'll have to see examples as well as proof that they are the same people.
-
What. The round earth society was never taken seriously, and posting that joke doesn't make you a nazi.
-
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.
-
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here. Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.
There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false. Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress. I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former. The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.
-
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.
His facebook, myspace etc were put up by another user which showed him doing a Nazi salute. All of this was put on the forum about a year ago, as were all the forum links where he poses as a nazi (and other things, as well as his anti-Jewish jokes). He then resorted to banning the user or users (if it was more than one) who revealed this info.
-
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here. Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.
There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false. Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress. I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former. The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.
TalkOrigins i said was biased, going to the long list of alleged ''debunked creationists claims'' reveals that the author (Mark Isaak) has no scientific credentials, education or qualifications whatsoever. In fact according to an Amazon review, Mark is a bedroom author (in other words a college drop out who self-publishes).
-
...ahem...
Do you have any proof, or are you just going to keep spouting ad hominems?
If you don't have proof, and even if you do, try focusing on the argument rather than accusing random people of being Nazis.
-
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.
His facebook, myspace etc were put up by another user which showed him doing a Nazi salute. All of this was put on the forum about a year ago, as were all the forum links where he poses as a nazi (and other things, as well as his anti-Jewish jokes). He then resorted to banning the user or users (if it was more than one) who revealed this info.
um the mods are supposed to ban people that reveal personal info of other users. I would get really irritated with a user that gave my personal info out and would want them banned and I have no skeletons in my closet.
-
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here. Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.
There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false. Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress. I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former. The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.
TalkOrigins i said was biased, going to the long list of alleged ''debunked creationists claims'' reveals that the author (Mark Isaak) has no scientific credentials, education or qualifications whatsoever. In fact according to an Amazon review, Mark is a bedroom author (in other words a college drop out who self-publishes).
I am curious how the hell you found out about him. I have been trying to find stuff about him and have failed.
-
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here. Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.
There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false. Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress. I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former. The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.
TalkOrigins i said was biased, going to the long list of alleged ''debunked creationists claims'' reveals that the author (Mark Isaak) has no scientific credentials, education or qualifications whatsoever. In fact according to an Amazon review, Mark is a bedroom author (in other words a college drop out who self-publishes).
Why are they biased? Because they don't agree with you? Again this is another ad hominen, why don't you try addressing the argument? Are you capable of posting anything that does not contain a logical fallacy?
-
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here. Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.
There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false. Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress. I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former. The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.
TalkOrigins i said was biased, going to the long list of alleged ''debunked creationists claims'' reveals that the author (Mark Isaak) has no scientific credentials, education or qualifications whatsoever. In fact according to an Amazon review, Mark is a bedroom author (in other words a college drop out who self-publishes).
And meanwhile Kent Hovind went to Patriot Bible University. Your attacks do nothing to help your claims.
I don't think you see why ad hominem attacks are fallacious. It doesn't matter if someone is a Nazi baby killing Xenu-worshiping heathen since it has no basis in their ideas and theories. If their idea makes logical sense, none of these things matter. In other words, stop attacking people and attack arguments. God damn, dude.
-
And meanwhile Kent Hovind went to Patriot Bible University. Your attacks do nothing to help your claims.
Oh sure, because there's no way a Christian college could ever be as good as an atheist college. Bigot.
-
And meanwhile Kent Hovind went to Patriot Bible University. Your attacks do nothing to help your claims.
Oh sure, because there's no way a Christian college could ever be as good as an atheist college. Bigot.
It's not the fact that it's a Christian college, it's the fact that it's this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/PatriotUniversity2.jpg)
Basically, it's a degree farm. It's unaccredited and a trailer in the middle of nowhere.
-
Hitler owned dogs, therefore people that own dogs are evil people whose opinion are evil.
And meanwhile Kent Hovind went to Patriot Bible University. Your attacks do nothing to help your claims.
Oh sure, because there's no way a Christian college could ever be as good as an atheist college. Bigot.
um that is the point...
Still having trouble recognizing sarcasm, are you?
It's not the fact that it's a Christian college, it's the fact that it's this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/PatriotUniversity2.jpg)
Basically, it's a degree farm. It's unaccredited and a trailer in the middle of nowhere.
First of all, I see nothing in that picture to suggest that it couldn't be a fine learning institution. B, the importance of accreditation is a myth perpetuated to make the elitist atheists in our society feel like they're better than anyone else. If you're going to hope to support your point, you're gonna have to do better than a contextless picture and a line of vicious and vacuous insults.
-
I believe you to be trolling, sir!
-
Hitler owned dogs, therefore people that own dogs are evil people whose opinion are evil.
And meanwhile Kent Hovind went to Patriot Bible University. Your attacks do nothing to help your claims.
Oh sure, because there's no way a Christian college could ever be as good as an atheist college. Bigot.
um that is the point...
Still having trouble recognizing sarcasm, are you?
just going along with the joke...
-
I believe you to be trolling, sir!
You're an immoral atheist, not to mention an ignorant evolutionist, so your belief carries no weight.
just going along with the joke...
What joke?
-
I believe you to be trolling, sir!
You're an immoral atheist, not to mention an ignorant evolutionist, so your belief carries no weight.
just going along with the joke...
What joke?
I didn't think you were being sarcastic, I thought you were in character. I was going along with that character.
-
@The OP of this thread:
I sent you a PM, as you requested.
-
@The OP of this thread:
I sent you a PM, as you requested.
lolwut?
-
First of all, I see nothing in that picture to suggest that it couldn't be a fine learning institution. B, the importance of accreditation is a myth perpetuated to make the elitist atheists in our society feel like they're better than anyone else. If you're going to hope to support your point, you're gonna have to do better than a contextless picture and a line of vicious and vacuous insults.
I would generally agree with you that a photo does not say much about a university, but this is totally idiotic. I taught at a small, third world university with a low budget, and almost every one of the laboratories is bigger than the whole university on the photo. Where are they researching all the marvelous counter-arguments against Evolution?
Maybe they have a lot of their teaching infrastructure installed on the Internet, (just maybe) but even assuming that, you would still need space to have the laboratories, have the students do at least some exams at the university, and so many other things.
Your acceptance of just any organization as a university speaks very badly of your own university. Maybe you got your degree from a degree mill so you do not recognize a real university when you see one?
-
First of all, I see nothing in that picture to suggest that it couldn't be a fine learning institution. B, the importance of accreditation is a myth perpetuated to make the elitist atheists in our society feel like they're better than anyone else. If you're going to hope to support your point, you're gonna have to do better than a contextless picture and a line of vicious and vacuous insults.
I would generally agree with you that a photo does not say much about a university, but this is totally idiotic. I taught at a small, third world university with a low budget, and almost every one of the laboratories is bigger than the whole university on the photo. Where are they researching all the marvelous counter-arguments against Evolution?
Maybe they have a lot of their teaching infrastructure installed on the Internet, (just maybe) but even assuming that, you would still need space to have the laboratories, have the students do at least some exams at the university, and so many other things.
Your acceptance of just any organization as a university speaks very badly of your own university. Maybe you got your degree from a degree mill so you do not recognize a real university when you see one?
Maybe we should bring back the [sarcasm] tag.
-
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here. Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.
There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false. Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress. I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former. The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.
TalkOrigins i said was biased, going to the long list of alleged ''debunked creationists claims'' reveals that the author (Mark Isaak) has no scientific credentials, education or qualifications whatsoever. In fact according to an Amazon review, Mark is a bedroom author (in other words a college drop out who self-publishes).
I think all the solidly-written rebuttals to creationist nonsense that I have found there were written by others who do have the background and knowledge to see through the usual lies and distortions in the output of AIG and ICR. How many has Mark written? Basically the writings at talkorigins I have read appear to be solid science taken from peer-reviewed sources. Yes, that site is biased. It is biased against the dishonesty and lies of creationists.
So the ramblings of somebody who writes reviews on Amazon can be taken seriously. I have read some reviews of creationist books there that appears to be written by the author himself or close associates. I would "consider the source" and in the case the source cannot be taken as credible.
-
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.
His facebook, myspace etc were put up by another user which showed him doing a Nazi salute. All of this was put on the forum about a year ago, as were all the forum links where he poses as a nazi (and other things, as well as his anti-Jewish jokes). He then resorted to banning the user or users (if it was more than one) who revealed this info.
A nazi salute? I was laying on a couch making a peace sign at the camera.
evidence here.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/hsolj7.jpg)
This being the only non private photo on my facebook at the time. I did ban the users for trying to release all of my info and claim I was a nazi.
Also, cass has a severe problem of needing to read. It was shown I had profiles on exactly 2 forums. The anarchist cookbook and here. I have never once claimed to be an atheist on any forum I have ever been on, nor a pagan. I have argued against anarchy (it being a retarded philosophy) on all forums. As for the nazi thing, I guess at most I made a few comments when I was 14 or so about the nazis being cool after playing too many WWII video games.
Please get your facts straight cass, slander cases are never good.
-
If only you had the money to drag him to court...for the lulz.
-
Meh. If he wins, Cass pays for the whole shebang.
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.
His facebook, myspace etc were put up by another user which showed him doing a Nazi salute. All of this was put on the forum about a year ago, as were all the forum links where he poses as a nazi (and other things, as well as his anti-Jewish jokes). He then resorted to banning the user or users (if it was more than one) who revealed this info.
A nazi salute? I was laying on a couch making a peace sign at the camera.
evidence here.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/hsolj7.jpg)
This being the only non private photo on my facebook at the time. I did ban the users for trying to release all of my info and claim I was a nazi.
Also, cass has a severe problem of needing to read. It was shown I had profiles on exactly 2 forums. The anarchist cookbook and here. I have never once claimed to be an atheist on any forum I have ever been on, nor a pagan. I have argued against anarchy (it being a retarded philosophy) on all forums. As for the nazi thing, I guess at most I made a few comments when I was 14 or so about the nazis being cool after playing too many WWII video games.
Please get your facts straight cass, slander cases are never good.
It's not slander when it's in writing. It's called libel.
-
Ah yes, thank you wendy. For some reason my mind connects only books and newspapers to libel. The internet feels more spoken.
-
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.
His facebook, myspace etc were put up by another user which showed him doing a Nazi salute. All of this was put on the forum about a year ago, as were all the forum links where he poses as a nazi (and other things, as well as his anti-Jewish jokes). He then resorted to banning the user or users (if it was more than one) who revealed this info.
A nazi salute? I was laying on a couch making a peace sign at the camera.
evidence here
This being the only non private photo on my facebook at the time. I did ban the users for trying to release all of my info and claim I was a nazi.
Also, cass has a severe problem of needing to read. It was shown I had profiles on exactly 2 forums. The anarchist cookbook and here. I have never once claimed to be an atheist on any forum I have ever been on, nor a pagan. I have argued against anarchy (it being a retarded philosophy) on all forums. As for the nazi thing, I guess at most I made a few comments when I was 14 or so about the nazis being cool after playing too many WWII video games.
Please get your facts straight cass, slander cases are never good.
Well looks like when you were a bit younger you went through several phases, nothing wrong with that but it appears you for some reason are trying now to deny them. Why would this be? The obvious answer is that you currently pose as a rationalist scientific intellect, this doesn't go well with your former beliefs of a flat earth and so it appears you are just in denial about what you formerly believed. Of course no genuine scientist takes flat earth beliefs seriously.
-
This has no relevance at all.
-
This has no relevance at all.
It shows most posters here don't actually believe in what they claim, but are just here for the sake of argument.
Most posters in this thread who have claimed they believe in evolution, probably actually don't.
-
This has no relevance at all.
It shows most posters here don't actually believe in what they claim, but are just here for the sake of argument.
Most posters in this thread who have claimed they believe in evolution, probably actually don't.
Still irrelevant even if it were true, do you know what an ad hominen is?
-
This has no relevance at all.
It shows most posters here don't actually believe in what they claim, but are just here for the sake of argument.
Most posters in this thread who have claimed they believe in evolution, probably actually don't.
All you've done is claim that one person does that about something totally unrelated (the shape of the Earth and belief in God). Not only that but you have failed at proving. It is not relevant to this thread. I cannot believe that someone would think that we are all playing Devil's advocate. This is some sort of weird reverse of Poe's Law.
We accept the fact of evolution due to overwhelming evidence. Now please either STFU or keep on topic.
-
This has no relevance at all.
It shows most posters here don't actually believe in what they claim, but are just here for the sake of argument.
Most posters in this thread who have claimed they believe in evolution, probably actually don't.
All you've done is claim that one person does that about something totally unrelated (the shape of the Earth and belief in God). Not only that but you have failed at proving. It is not relevant to this thread. I cannot believe that someone would think that we are all playing Devil's advocate. This is some sort of weird reverse of Poe's Law.
We accept the fact of evolution due to overwhelming evidence. Now please either STFU or keep on topic.
Even the debate over Evolution is off topic. You claimed that "Evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees." Can you provide any documentation to back up that claim, or have you failed in this debate?
-
This has no relevance at all.
It shows most posters here don't actually believe in what they claim, but are just here for the sake of argument.
Most posters in this thread who have claimed they believe in evolution, probably actually don't.
All you've done is claim that one person does that about something totally unrelated (the shape of the Earth and belief in God). Not only that but you have failed at proving. It is not relevant to this thread. I cannot believe that someone would think that we are all playing Devil's advocate. This is some sort of weird reverse of Poe's Law.
We accept the fact of evolution due to overwhelming evidence. Now please either STFU or keep on topic.
Even the debate over Evolution is off topic. You claimed that "Evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees." Can you provide any documentation to back up that claim, or have you failed in this debate?
See the OP, i quoted Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale's exact words. You can watch the video presentation online of him saying what i have pasted. I got what i pasted from a script of what he said.
All that evolutionists can do in responce is either:
(a) Claim Stearns was joking.
or
(b) Claim the quote has been pulled out of context.
Yet if you watch the video, it is quite clear neither of these is true. An evolutionist on another forum i was on attempted to do (a) but to do so he had to edit himself the script and insert [laughing] by Stearns. This is how far evolutionists will go with their dishonesty... now editing online scripts.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
-
He only said it was POSSIBLE, not that he believes it actually happened. The title to this thread indicates that he actually believes that squid today evolved from trees. That is a lie.
-
This has no relevance at all.
It shows most posters here don't actually believe in what they claim, but are just here for the sake of argument.
Most posters in this thread who have claimed they believe in evolution, probably actually don't.
All you've done is claim that one person does that about something totally unrelated (the shape of the Earth and belief in God). Not only that but you have failed at proving. It is not relevant to this thread. I cannot believe that someone would think that we are all playing Devil's advocate. This is some sort of weird reverse of Poe's Law.
We accept the fact of evolution due to overwhelming evidence. Now please either STFU or keep on topic.
Even the debate over Evolution is off topic. You claimed that "Evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees." Can you provide any documentation to back up that claim, or have you failed in this debate?
See the OP, i quoted Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale's exact words. You can watch the video presentation online of him saying what i have pasted. I got what i pasted from a script of what he said.
All that evolutionists can do in responce is either:
(a) Claim Stearns was joking.
or
(b) Claim the quote has been pulled out of context.
Yet if you watch the video, it is quite clear neither of these is true. An evolutionist on another forum i was on attempted to do (a) but to do so he had to edit himself the script and insert [laughing] by Stearns. This is how far evolutionists will go with their dishonesty... now editing online scripts.
It was taken out of context. He's talking about alien worlds if you watch the clip. How early plant life could evolve into complex animals. I don't know why he decided to use Redwood trees and squid, but the rest of the talk has nothing to do with redwood tress and squid, or any other animal on the planet earth.
-
See the OP, i quoted Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale's exact words. You can watch the video presentation online of him saying what i have pasted. I got what i pasted from a script of what he said.
All that evolutionists can do in responce is either:
(a) Claim Stearns was joking.
or
(b) Claim the quote has been pulled out of context.
Yet if you watch the video, it is quite clear neither of these is true. An evolutionist on another forum i was on attempted to do (a) but to do so he had to edit himself the script and insert [laughing] by Stearns. This is how far evolutionists will go with their dishonesty... now editing online scripts.
Okay, here is the portion of the transcript in question taken directly from the Yale website where Stearns lectured, and where the transcript was originally posted, most likely under the direction of the professor himself.
Development is not easy to evolve, and I think this gets across one of the reasons that it's not easy to evolve changes in development. Every organism has to function and reproduce in order for a gene to get transmitted, and you can't tweak its development around too much or you'll make it fall apart. It's like you're driving down the road and you want to turn your Volkswagen into a Mercedes Benz, and so you get out your tools, and you're going sixty miles an hour, and you want to modify it, but you can't crash. Okay? So that causes constraints; there's only certain things that you can do while you're moving down the road.
These developmental constraints are not permanent. The genetic control of development does change more slowly than many other things, but I would submit to you that if we wiped out everything on the planet--let's first duplicate earth ten million times, and then let's go through and wipe out everything on all of those ten million planets, except for one species, and we leave it some food. Okay? It's the only thing that's there.
But on some planets all you've got is fruit flies. On other planets all you've got is redwood trees. On other planets all you've got is butterflies, and on other planets you've got albatrosses; but they have a food supply, they can live. Give them long enough, go away in your spaceship, come back, five billion, ten billion years later. I would submit to you that every one of those planets is going to have highly diverse life on it, and that many of the things that we see on this planet you will see on each one of those other planets.
They will contain a signature, probably a very interesting signature, of this huge disturbance that has been created on them. But I think that it's possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid. I just think it takes them a very long time. [Laughter]
The things that change slowly constrain things that change rapidly, and genes don't cause development by themselves. They're steering the dynamics of gene products that interact with environmental inputs. So the genes actually are a fair distance away, biochemically, physiologically, from the things they're controlling. They are working through complicated interaction systems.
SOURCE:http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/content/transcripts/transcript-7-the-importance-of-development-in (http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/content/transcripts/transcript-7-the-importance-of-development-in)
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
Strawman argument. It's like saying a caterpillar doesn't just pop and turn into a butterfly, therefore metamorphosis is false.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
The difference is that this is an insignificant thought experiment in a well reasoned lecture that I doubt you've either read, or watched all the way through the entire series, whereas the frog prince is designed to convey morals to small children.
-
In fact all cooks believe in a version of the 'flour that tastes nice' fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of ingredients i.e sugar and eggs.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
I'm somewhat confused as to your argument OP. You're blaming evolution for not having been observed at a macro level. Ok, now explain to me how creationism has ever been observed or back up with any sort of evidence.
Evolution is quite frankly common sense. Logic dictates that animals with better genes would have a better chance of surviving and thus having kids and passing on their genes.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
Ah so you are admitting that he was only talking about a possibility. Could it be that you are admitting that what is suggested in the title of this thread, that squid actually evolved from trees, is a lie?
-
Evolution is quite frankly common sense. Logic dictates that animals with better genes would have a better chance of surviving and thus having kids and passing on their genes.
Oh no, this is a common misunderstanding. What evolution REALLY claims is that animals can randomly turn into other forms of animals, given enough time. On a totally unrelated note, I still think it's funny that Cass hasn't gotten the joke.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
I'm somewhat confused as to your argument OP. You're blaming evolution for not having been observed at a macro level. Ok, now explain to me how creationism has ever been observed or back up with any sort of evidence.
Evolution is quite frankly common sense. Logic dictates that animals with better genes would have a better chance of surviving and thus having kids and passing on their genes.
Creationism is non-observable, as are all origin theories i.e Big Bang. No one has a time machine, and these origin theories can not now be observed or replicated - so they fall outside of the scientific method. If you ever had read a book on creationism you would know that. In fact every creationist book i own (i.e Henry Morris, Duane Gish) starts by admitting creationism is not observable or scientific in the sense of empirical facts. However it is the exact same for the theory of evolution, since evolution has never been observed. Science is confined to the known physical world and is based on observation, testability and repeatability. Evolution fails here.
All origin theories since they are non-observable are not scientific, they are based on faith, religion or personal belief/assumption.
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
I'm somewhat confused as to your argument OP. You're blaming evolution for not having been observed at a macro level. Ok, now explain to me how creationism has ever been observed or back up with any sort of evidence.
Evolution is quite frankly common sense. Logic dictates that animals with better genes would have a better chance of surviving and thus having kids and passing on their genes.
Creationism is non-observable, as are all origin theories i.e Big Bang. No one has a time machine, and these origin theories can not now be observed or replicated - so they fall outside of the scientific method. If you ever had read a book on creationism you would know that. In fact every creationist book i own (i.e Henry Morris, Duane Gish) starts by admitting creationism is not observable or scientific in the sense of empirical facts. However it is the exact same for the theory of evolution, since evolution has never been observed. Science is confined to the known physical world and is based on observation, testability and repeatability. Evolution fails here.
All origin theories since they are non-observable are not scientific, they are based on faith, religion or personal belief/assumption.
The thing is that evolution still has evidence supporting it. We haven't observed the Roman Empire since it's been gone for quite a while, but we know that it existed because of evidence. In comparison, there is NO evidence supporting creationism.
-
Science is confined to the known physical world and is based on observation, testability and repeatability. Evolution fails here.
Except that there are tests and observations that support evolution. One such test is the grouping of species. Carl Linnaeus is known for inventing taxonomy based on morphological traits (grouping organisms based on similar traits). His classifications can be tested using DNA to see if morphology and genetics match up. The same can be done via other means to produce multiple "family trees" which happen to look very similar no matter which method is chosen.
Another test using geology and paleontology was when they determined exactly where and in what strata tiktaalik would be found. The test was a success when they found the fossil exactly where it was meant to be.
I'm sure other important fossils were found using similar means, but the fish/amphibian transition is the only one I can recall.
Why are neither of those considered testing and making observations?
-
He said it could happen. Never that it did.
So fairytales could happen?
What is the difference between this and the frog prince?
In the frog prince fairytale, a frog gets kissed and changes into a prince; Stearn's similarly believes trees can change into squids.
In fact all evolutionists believe in a version of the frog prince fairytale. All they add to it is huge chunks of time i.e billions or millions of years.
I'm somewhat confused as to your argument OP. You're blaming evolution for not having been observed at a macro level. Ok, now explain to me how creationism has ever been observed or back up with any sort of evidence.
Evolution is quite frankly common sense. Logic dictates that animals with better genes would have a better chance of surviving and thus having kids and passing on their genes.
Creationism is non-observable, as are all origin theories i.e Big Bang. No one has a time machine, and these origin theories can not now be observed or replicated - so they fall outside of the scientific method. If you ever had read a book on creationism you would know that. In fact every creationist book i own (i.e Henry Morris, Duane Gish) starts by admitting creationism is not observable or scientific in the sense of empirical facts. However it is the exact same for the theory of evolution, since evolution has never been observed. Science is confined to the known physical world and is based on observation, testability and repeatability. Evolution fails here.
All origin theories since they are non-observable are not scientific, they are based on faith, religion or personal belief/assumption.
The thing is that evolution still has evidence supporting it. We haven't observed the Roman Empire since it's been gone for quite a while, but we know that it existed because of evidence. In comparison, there is NO evidence supporting creationism.
Evidence is entirely personal and is based on one's own interpretation. Show a fossil to 100 people and you would get about 30 or more different answers about it's age and origin. None would be right, since we can't go back in time and directly observe how it formed and it's age then its not factual.
Another example would be forensic scientists. Although they get a lot right, they make mistakes based on their assumptions - this is because they arrived on the crime scene late and didn't directly observe what actually happened. Many innocent people have been wrongly convicted because of these assumptions.
Evolution is no different, it's a theory not based on observable fact but is based entirely on assumptions and faith.
-
Evidence is entirely personal and is based on one's own interpretation. Show a fossil to 100 people and you would get about 30 or more different answers about it's age and origin. None would be right, since we can't go back in time and directly observe how it formed and it's age then its not factual.
Well, that may be so, but show it to 100 scientists who know what they're doing, and the answers will be pretty similar. There is nothing magical or inexact about dating fossils, and saying that there is only makes you a liar.
Another example would be forensic scientists. Although they get a lot right, they make mistakes based on their assumptions - this is because they arrived on the crime scene late and didn't directly observe what actually happened. Many innocent people have been wrongly convicted because of these assumptions.
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Forensic analysis and evolutionary biology are completely different fields of study.
Evolution is no different, it's a theory not based on observable fact but is based entirely on assumptions and faith.
Except for the fact that you are wrong and have been given several links explaining why, in the creationism thread.
-
Nobody mentioned Lenski's e.coli.
-
Nobody mentioned Lenski's e.coli.
Quite a few people-myself included-did at the start of the thread but as usual the creationist ignored it and now we're back on the circle right at the beginning again.
-
Those 'experiments' when done in a lab, not in the natural world.
If you want to prove evolution, you have to cite its occurance in the real natural world, not a man-made contaminated environment.
Or do you believe evolution is not natural but is man-made?
-
That post is ridiculous and therefore hard to argue against.
It's hard to dismantle Ikea furniture before you've put it together.
-
I wish I had more time to debate this but sadly, my work schedule only allows for one time wasting debate and I'm using it in the Star Trek vs Star Wars thread.
What I want to know is this:
If Creationism wants to be taken seriously, why must it always be an omnipotent being? Genetic engineering is not outside the realm of possibility so why don't I ever hear Creationists talk about Aliens who created us? Isn't that more scientifically plausible than saying a being of infinite power and love created the whole universe.... for us.
-
That post is ridiculous and therefore hard to argue against.
It's hard to dismantle Ikea furniture before you've put it together.
If you believe evolution is natural, why can't you list one observed case of evolution in the natural world?
The answer is because evolution has never been observed in nature. Nothing has ever been observed to evolve.
Evolution is a metaphysical concept, but quite clearly has no place in the natural physical world.
Creationists have been asking for 150+ years for one observed case of evolution. 150 years on and counting and still evolutionists can't present. It's the same for transitional fossils, Darwin admitted in his 1858 book none were found, 150 years on and still none found.
-
I wish I had more time to debate this but sadly, my work schedule only allows for one time wasting debate and I'm using it in the Star Trek vs Star Wars thread.
What I want to know is this:
If Creationism wants to be taken seriously, why must it always be an omnipotent being? Genetic engineering is not outside the realm of possibility so why don't I ever hear Creationists talk about Aliens who created us? Isn't that more scientifically plausible than saying a being of infinite power and love created the whole universe.... for us.
ID (Intelligent Design) or Creationism in the broader sense doesn't mean anything religious affiliated. For example, there are Intelligent Designers who believe aliens seeded us, others believe in other things but the point is the designer or creator is irrelevant in the field of science. To try to work out who the designer was - is religious/theological but just accepting that we look designed is scientific.
Creationists don't want creationism in the sense of the Bible Genesis creation account in science classes. Even Kent Hovind has admitted this. Creationists just want ID/creationism taught in the sense you identify things that were designed, not to actually discuss the nature or identity of the designer itself. If we did that we would have about 1,000,000 types of creationism i.e including all the Native America, Hindu etc Gods.
-
Maybe that explains why some rare octopodes still live in trees?
-
Those 'experiments' when done in a lab, not in the natural world.
If you want to prove evolution, you have to cite its occurance in the real natural world, not a man-made contaminated environment.
Or do you believe evolution is not natural but is man-made?
So you're now proposing experiments on evolution are invalid because humans cause evolution?
Please design an experiment to prove this then submit it for scientific review as a criticism of evolution. That should be a huge breakthrough in the field of biology.
-
I wish I had more time to debate this but sadly, my work schedule only allows for one time wasting debate and I'm using it in the Star Trek vs Star Wars thread.
What I want to know is this:
If Creationism wants to be taken seriously, why must it always be an omnipotent being? Genetic engineering is not outside the realm of possibility so why don't I ever hear Creationists talk about Aliens who created us? Isn't that more scientifically plausible than saying a being of infinite power and love created the whole universe.... for us.
ID (Intelligent Design) or Creationism in the broader sense doesn't mean anything religious affiliated. For example, there are Intelligent Designers who believe aliens seeded us, others believe in other things but the point is the designer or creator is irrelevant in the field of science. To try to work out who the designer was - is religious/theological but just accepting that we look designed is scientific.
Creationists don't want creationism in the sense of the Bible Genesis creation account in science classes. Even Kent Hovind has admitted this. Creationists just want ID/creationism taught in the sense you identify things that were designed, not to actually discuss the nature or identity of the designer itself. If we did that we would have about 1,000,000 types of creationism i.e including all the Native America, Hindu etc Gods.
I'm sorry but I haven't seen any creationist not link their "theory" to God. I also haven't seen any of them talk about genetic engineering.
Since Genetic Engineering is possible, then Creationism is possible. However, creationism would create only the animals seen today. Fossils would not be any different. Since they are different and indeed VASTLY different than most animals seen today, we can only assume that either..
1. Evolution exists.
2. Aliens came back a lot.
-
Those 'experiments' when done in a lab, not in the natural world.
If you want to prove evolution, you have to cite its occurance in the real natural world, not a man-made contaminated environment.
Or do you believe evolution is not natural but is man-made?
So you're now proposing experiments on evolution are invalid because humans cause evolution?
Please design an experiment to prove this then submit it for scientific review as a criticism of evolution. That should be a huge breakthrough in the field of biology.
Evolution has never been observed in the natural physical world. If it was, then everyone would accept it was a fact - but since its never been observed, this is why many people are skeptical about it.
I've watched leading creationist videos. When asked what would change their mind for them to accpet evolution, their answers are very simple: evolution would have to be observed. Its that simple. But since evolution has not yet been observed its not a scientific fact. And since it's not a fact, people don't ahve to accept or agree with it. A recent poll in UK showed only 40% of Britons believed ine evolution. Every yeara poll is taken on evolution, more and more people become skeptical. The reason is because Darwinsists have failed to fufill their predictions since Darwins time. It's now 150+ years on, and still no concrete evidence is available for evolution.
So back to the above point:
Can you list a case in nature where it has been observed something has evolved?
Also evolutionists claim evolution is ongoing, so when are people meant to see/observe it? Since recorded history no one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
-
I was going to write a witty response with lots of links to observed cases of speciation and whatnot, then I remembered Cass doesn't answer my posts any more. Maybe that's because he knows the debate is lost. Come on, Cass, you could do better than this.
-
Those 'experiments' when done in a lab, not in the natural world.
If you want to prove evolution, you have to cite its occurance in the real natural world, not a man-made contaminated environment.
Or do you believe evolution is not natural but is man-made?
So you're now proposing experiments on evolution are invalid because humans cause evolution?
Please design an experiment to prove this then submit it for scientific review as a criticism of evolution. That should be a huge breakthrough in the field of biology.
Evolution has never been observed in the natural physical world. If it was, then everyone would accept it was a fact - but since its never been observed, this is why many people are skeptical about it.
I've watched leading creationist videos. When asked what would change their mind for them to accpet evolution, their answers are very simple: evolution would have to be observed. Its that simple. But since evolution has not yet been observed its not a scientific fact. And since it's not a fact, people don't ahve to accept or agree with it. A recent poll in UK showed only 40% of Britons believed ine evolution. Every yeara poll is taken on evolution, more and more people become skeptical. The reason is because Darwinsists have failed to fufill their predictions since Darwins time. It's now 150+ years on, and still no concrete evidence is available for evolution.
So back to the above point:
Can you list a case in nature where it has been observed something has evolved?
Also evolutionists claim evolution is ongoing, so when are people meant to see/observe it? Since recorded history no one has ever observed one thing evolve into another.
I'd be willing to list such cases, right after you list the cases where scientists observed the Creator creating a species.
-
Or any argument proving that anything natural was designed. Hint: It must have an objective purpose to be designed. Good luck.
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
-
Those 'experiments' when done in a lab, not in the natural world.
If you want to prove evolution, you have to cite its occurance in the real natural world, not a man-made contaminated environment.
Or do you believe evolution is not natural but is man-made?
lol
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
um no, just no, so much is wrong with that statement. we have shown time and time again that the quote was out of context. quit doing that. it is like arguing with a little kid going lalala with his fingers in his ears.
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
um no, just no, so much is wrong with that statement. we have shown time and time again that the quote was out of context. quit doing that. it is like arguing with a little kid going lalala with his fingers in his ears.
So what's the difference in claiming squids morphed from trees and that humans morphed from fish?
Both are as stupid/crackpot/non-scientific as each other.
-
So what's the difference in claiming squids morphed from trees and that humans morphed from fish?
Both are as stupid/crackpot/non-scientific as each other.
We'd be happy to debate whether humans evolved from fish once we heard how you concluded that "Evolutionists now believe squids evolved from trees". You appreciate that we need to be assured that you understand reasoning. Let us know.
-
THE LOGICAL FALLACIES. THEY HURT MY HEAD.
Strawmen
Red Herrings
Ad Hominems
Circular Reasoning
Switching the burden of proof
I could go on, but jesus.
We have strawmen on this page. "Morphing from fish" is not the same as "evolving from fish-like animals" since your wording implies a magical change in a short time span, whereas evolution does not change during one generation. Evolution only occurs between generations. During your lifetime, you do not evolve. Your species evolves every time a child is born. It isn't hard to visualize.
Which one of these points do you disagree with?
1. Life reproduces and dies.
2. Through reproduction, life is born with variety.
3. Such variation can increase chances of survival or decrease it.
4. If an organism is more likely to live, it is more likely to reproduce and more likely to pass on its genes.
5. Over time, beneficial variations accumulate.
6. Over time, life can change to an extent that it no longer resembles the original. If small changes can occur, there is no reason why they can't accumulate.
-
I'd also like to add that humans did not evolve from fish. We evolved from sea-living animals, yes, but fish are a modern class of animals. The animals we evolved from may have been fish-like, but they were not fish as we know them today.
-
I'd also like to add that humans did not evolve from fish. We evolved from sea-living animals, yes, but fish are a modern class of animals. The animals we evolved from may have been fish-like, but they were not fish as we know them today.
Surely you don't expect Creationists to understand simple cladistics, no matter how simple?
(http://www.texaseducator.com/family/jbouyer/lessons/Science/askew/mycourses/cladgram.gif)
-
Cassiterides understanding of evolution seems to come from the Dilbert Cartoon opening sequence. He probably thinks that, according to evolution, fish were the first creatures to walk up onto land. They weren't. Science is a process, and our understanding is always improving, unlike that of the creationists.
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
Have you actually READ the book or are you just quote mining the dramatic title for effect?
-
What a stupid question.
-
I'd also like to add that humans did not evolve from fish. We evolved from sea-living animals, yes, but fish are a modern class of animals. The animals we evolved from may have been fish-like, but they were not fish as we know them today.
Surely you don't expect Creationists to understand simple cladistics, no matter how simple?
(http://www.texaseducator.com/family/jbouyer/lessons/Science/askew/mycourses/cladgram.gif)
I do expect them/him to understand, since it's not really that difficult to do so, but I don't in any way expect him to act like he understands.
-
I'd also like to add that humans did not evolve from fish. We evolved from sea-living animals, yes, but fish are a modern class of animals. The animals we evolved from may have been fish-like, but they were not fish as we know them today.
Surely you don't expect Creationists to understand simple cladistics, no matter how simple?
(http://www.texaseducator.com/family/jbouyer/lessons/Science/askew/mycourses/cladgram.gif)
Would it be silly if I said yes?
Berny
Fish have legs
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
Have you actually READ the book or are you just quote mining the dramatic title for effect?
I reviewed it, i read several chapters.
All of it is faith based, no evidence is provided.
Was the author personally there to observe fish morph into the land creature 3. 5 Billion years ago?
Obviously not. So the whole book is based on his faith that happened.
Faith should not be cofused with science (empirical repeatable observable facts)
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
Have you actually READ the book or are you just quote mining the dramatic title for effect?
I reviewed it, i read several chapters.
All of it is faith based, no evidence is provided.
Was the author personally there to observe fish morph into the land creature 3. 5 Billion years ago?
Obviously not. So the whole book is based on his faith that happened.
Faith should not be cofused with science (empirical repeatable observable facts)
So you are stating that nobody has any real idea of how we came to be?!
Berny
Fish have feet!
-
I did not observe the sun come up this morning, therefore it is entirely faith based to say that it probably did. The light coming in through the window could be an illusion.
Your arguments make no sense. How does lack of observation not hurt creationism when you weren't there to witness creation?
-
I reviewed it, i read several chapters.
All of it is faith based, no evidence is provided.
Was the author personally there to observe fish morph into the land creature 3. 5 Billion years ago?
Obviously not. So the whole book is based on his faith that happened.
Faith should not be cofused with science (empirical repeatable observable facts)
Wow, you just overturned the convictions of several million criminals, all those whose crimes were not directly witnessed by anyone. Oh wait, I forgot that that is not a rational standard. My apologies for getting your hopes up.
-
I reviewed it, i read several chapters.
All of it is faith based, no evidence is provided.
Was the author personally there to observe fish morph into the land creature 3. 5 Billion years ago?
Obviously not. So the whole book is based on his faith that happened.
Faith should not be cofused with science (empirical repeatable observable facts)
Wow, you just overturned the convictions of several million criminals, all those whose crimes were not directly witnessed by anyone. Oh wait, I forgot that that is not a rational standard. My apologies for getting your hopes up.
Bravo, sir.
-
I did not observe the sun come up this morning, therefore it is entirely faith based to say that it probably did. The light coming in through the window could be an illusion.
Your arguments make no sense. How does lack of observation not hurt creationism when you weren't there to witness creation?
I already covered this. In that sense creationism isn't scientific either.
Neither creationism or evolution are scientific, as neither can be observed.
-
Both creationism and evolution are religious.
-
I think most people, especialyl white nationalists, just beleived in evolution because it makes them feel ilke their winning (most evolved).
It's wrong to let your predjudice and preconceptions influsencen your judgements whether or not the conclusion is true.
Thhe moral is: Right for the wrong reasons is still bad...
On the other hand you get people like Darwkins who only beleivs in evolution because he's an atheist and that's just as bad but it's another example of the same thing.
Also Darwins theory is all complete rubbish, the real theory of evolution is quite different actually but scientitsts don't tell you that because it's a bit difficult to explain.
-
A bit difficult? Try fucking impossible, with when the asshats you're trying to teach just cling to their faith like it was a safety blanket.
-
Those 'experiments' when done in a lab, not in the natural world.
If you want to prove evolution, you have to cite its occurance in the real natural world, not a man-made contaminated environment.
Or do you believe evolution is not natural but is man-made?
Good, you are admitting now that it is possible for organisms to evolve. Glad to finally get that concession to you.
Now, if it can be done in a lab, or with selective breeding, why is it that natural selection cannot do this? The only difference is instead of man choosing which genes should be passed on, it is instead determined by the organisms fitness and ability to survive and reproduce in nature.
Also, the fruit fly experiment merely isolated two groups of flies, not really selectively breeding anything there, just proving that if a species is separated into two groups they will genetically diverge from each other. Wait long enough and the two groups will no longer be interfertile, ie: a new species was created.
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
um no, just no, so much is wrong with that statement. we have shown time and time again that the quote was out of context. quit doing that. it is like arguing with a little kid going lalala with his fingers in his ears.
So what's the difference in claiming squids morphed from trees and that humans morphed from fish?
Both are as stupid/crackpot/non-scientific as each other.
You claim that evolution is religious just like creationism, so I wonder, do you consider the idea of being magically created to be as stupid/crackpot/non-scientific as you consider evolution. If not, why?
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
um no, just no, so much is wrong with that statement. we have shown time and time again that the quote was out of context. quit doing that. it is like arguing with a little kid going lalala with his fingers in his ears.
So what's the difference in claiming squids morphed from trees and that humans morphed from fish?
Both are as stupid/crackpot/non-scientific as each other.
You claim that evolution is religious just like creationism, so I wonder, do you consider the idea of being magically created to be as stupid/crackpot/non-scientific as you consider evolution. If not, why?
There are non-scientific evidences which back up creation. None however back up evolution.
Evidences which back up creation are archeology, ancient history, philosophy, classical mythology as so on. None of these things though support evolution.
-
Can you explain how archeology, ancient history, and philosophy provide evidence that a being created the Earth?
-
In fact, ancient history refutes the young Earth creationist outlook that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
-
Can you explain how archeology, ancient history, and philosophy provide evidence that a being created the Earth?
The Ancient Greek 'Ages of Man':
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/AgesOfMan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man
Ancient Records which date creation:
http://creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth-belief
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/how-old-is-the-earth
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch9.html
Ancient Philosophers and Intelligent Design:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/ancient-philosophers-and-id
The Knowledge of God amongst the early Pagans
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch1.html
Archeology which has verified the Bible:
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/archa.htm
http://www.bibletruth.org.au/archaeology/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn06/archaeologygenesis.htm
How Archeology disproves Evolution
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/evolution.html
http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c13a.htm
-
In fact, ancient history refutes the young Earth creationist outlook that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
Recorded history only goes back about to the 4th millenium BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history
There is no way to prove the earth is anything older since no one was there as an eye witness.
-
The Ancient Greek 'Ages of Man':
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/AgesOfMan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man
The Ancient Greeks believed all sorts of stupid things. Other people's beliefs don't count as 'evidence'.
Ancient Records which date creation:
http://creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth-belief
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/how-old-is-the-earth
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch9.html
Again, other people's beliefs don't count. They had way less knowledge than us, so suggesting they could make a good guess is ridiculous.
Ancient Philosophers and Intelligent Design:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/ancient-philosophers-and-id
Again, the beliefs of other people.
The Knowledge of God amongst the early Pagans
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch1.html
Yawn, same
Archeology which has verified the Bible:
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/archa.htm
http://www.bibletruth.org.au/archaeology/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn06/archaeologygenesis.htm
Nobody is claiming that things like that didn't happen; these things would be here, regardless of the age of the earth.
How Archeology disproves Evolution
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/evolution.html
http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c13a.htm
'As far back as archaeology can take us, man is already civilised..'
No shit.
-
There is no way to prove the earth is anything older since no one was there as an eye witness.
Cassiterides
I see you're still peddling the same old same old.....
The Genesis version had no eye witnesses either so, by your logic, there is no way to prove that either.
What do you make of Lucy?
And varves?
-
Your evidence consists of opinion and off-topic evidence. Why don't you show us evidence that the world and life was created? You have yet do do that.
-
There is no way to prove the earth is anything older since no one was there as an eye witness.
Cassiterides
I see you're still peddling the same old same old.....
The Genesis version had no eye witnesses either so, by your logic, there is no way to prove that either.
What do you make of Lucy?
And varves?
Technically, there were eye-witnesses to Genesis according to Cass. But they were the people who wrote Genesis. Which seems kinda strange seeing as how they knew the process and order in which God willed them and the entire universe into existence, not to mention that Adam and Eve(Well, Adam anyway. Eve was more of a possession of his than an actual person at the time) lived to be over 900 years old.
Your evidence consists of opinion and off-topic evidence. Why don't you show us evidence that the world and life was created? You have yet do do that.
He doesn't have to do that, Trekky. To him, merely(unsuccessfully) discrediting the fact that life evolved is enough. He's not looking to convince us that Creationism is a solid scientific theory. Cass is smart enough to know that's impossible. His real purpose here is to troll the shit out of us to boost his own ego. And probably boast to his friends about it while they eat crisps and play Nintendo Wii.
-
As predicted, i give links and the responces are just one-liners.
You have to ask yourself what you get out of posting in threads like these.
If you don't want to even look at what other people believe, or consider alternitives why join internet forums?
-
For the social function. Also, I am very interested in what other people believe. I've just been down this particular road enough times for it to be boring.
-
As predicted, i give links and the responces are just one-liners.
If you don't want one-liner responses, perhaps formulate arguments that can't be dismissed in one line.
-
Instead of posting links, why not pick out some relevant parts from the links and keep the link up so we can verify the source. Otherwise people will do what they've done in the past, pick a part from the link you supplied and refute that rather than the part from the link you found important.
For example, from your link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man)
Hindu-Vedic
Main article: Yuga
The Hindu and Vedic writings also make reference to four ages (Yuga) termed: Satya (Golden), Treta (Silver), Dwapara (Bronze) and Kali (Iron). According to the Laws of Manu these four ages total 4.32 million years. Kali-Yuga lasts for 432,000 years, Dvapara Yuga lasts for 864,000 years, Treta Yuga lasts for 1,296,000 years, and Satya Yuga lasts for 1,728,000 years. These four yugas make up a Maha Yuga, a Catur Yuga, or a Divya Yuga. 1000 Maha Yugas taken together equals one day of Brahma or 4.32 billion years. Brahma?s night is of an equal length which is also 4.32 billion years. Taken together Brahma?s day and night are 8.64 billion years in total. Brahma lives for 36,000 "Brahma days" so his lifespan is equivalent to 311 trillion, 40 billion years. After his death there is an equivalent period of 311 trillion, 40 billion years when the Universe is unmanifest. Then a new Brahma is born and the cycle starts all over again. Taken together the life and the death of Brahma equals 622 trillion, 80 billion years. This equals one cycle out of innumerable cycles in the Vedic Universe.
Are you trying to show that the universe has a 622,080,000,000,000 year cycle that repeats?
-
As predicted, i give links and the responces are just one-liners.
You have to ask yourself what you get out of posting in threads like these.
If you don't want to even look at what other people believe, or consider alternitives why join internet forums?
That's because all they require is one liners. Four out of six of of the categories aren't evidence at all, they're opinion and belief based. Which, by the way, enforces the belief that you can't post anything without a logical fallacy.
The next two have nothing to do with creation at all, only historical events. We know that at least some of the things in the Bible happened, otherwise there probably wouldn't be stories about them.
What you have failed to do is provide any evidence whatsoever that creationism is even a hypothesis rather than a wild guess. It isn't based in science, it isn't based in evidence, and it certainly doesn't stand up to the theory of evolution through natural selection.
At least evolutionary theory has a fossil record to back it up and show that animals do change over time. At least evolution can demonstrate in a lab that animals can change to such an extent that they can no longer breed. At least evolution can demonstrate the mechanism from which it works, namely genes, mutations, adaptation. At least evolution has some solid evidence backing it up.
Even if you disprove evolution, which you won't from the look of your scientific knowledge, it wouldn't prove creationism in any way. Even if you showed that the theory that animals can change is complete bullshit, you still wouldn't be one step closer to proving that life was created.
Because you have no proof at all.
-
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.
You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:
(http://shubinlab.uchicago.edu/images/gallery/Inner-Fish.jpg)
I just want to make a note here.
Cass, you believe that going from Fish to land animal is a fairytale yet that happens every year. Sort of.
Frogs start their lives as eggs, then tadpoles, until finally growing limbs, lungs,and absorbing their tails to crawl onto land and eat bugs. If we take the basic definition of a fish: Swims in water, breaths with gills, can't live above water then a tadpole is a fish. It's not really a fish but it does act very similar to fish.
Then, magically, it morphs into an amphibian that can walk on land and in some cases can't breath under water anymore.
So if that happens every year, why is it a fairytale?
-
That's not really evolution, though. He wants examples of speciation.
Like these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
-
That's not really evolution, though. He wants examples of speciation.
Like these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
I know, I'm just saying that going from fish-like to land animal isn't all that magical.
-
Depending on if we want to count the "miracle of life" as magical. :3
-
Depending on if we want to count the "miracle of life" as magical. :3
Knowing him, he does. And I agree, it's just an amphibian doing what they do. But the point is that if they can do it over one lifetime, why can't something similar be done by other species over several thousand generations?
-
That's not really evolution, though. He wants examples of speciation.
Like these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
-
Depending on if we want to count the "miracle of life" as magical. :3
Knowing him, he does. And I agree, it's just an amphibian doing what they do. But the point is that if they can do it over one lifetime, why can't something similar be done by other species over several thousand generations?
That's not how science is done. Science is based on empirical facts (observational, repeatable, testable).
What you are doing is assuming/inferring/reasoning etc - more proof evolution is a faith/religion.
-
Can you explain how archeology, ancient history, and philosophy provide evidence that a being created the Earth?
The Ancient Greek 'Ages of Man':
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/AgesOfMan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man
Ancient Records which date creation:
http://creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth-belief
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/how-old-is-the-earth
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch9.html
Ancient Philosophers and Intelligent Design:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/ancient-philosophers-and-id
The Knowledge of God amongst the early Pagans
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ch1.html
Archeology which has verified the Bible:
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/archa.htm
http://www.bibletruth.org.au/archaeology/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn06/archaeologygenesis.htm
How Archeology disproves Evolution
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/evolution.html
http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c13a.htm
Confirming that parts of the Bible are based on historical events, as many myths are, is far from saying that the creation myth is fact.
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
-
That's not really evolution, though. He wants examples of speciation.
Like these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Scientists do not observe molecules, atoms, or other subatomic particles. Really, we only see their effects on the environment. But we can still scientifically study them. If you find fossils in the ground, this is in itself an observation. Not a direct one, but observations do not need to be direct and never have been.
However, evolution can be observed, as given in the fruit flies example. You can perform evolution in a lab. You cannot do sensitive experiments outside of a lab since the environment wouldn't be controlled. Plus, we don't have the time. To simply carry out a hundred thousand year long experiment simply isn't reasonable or realistic. Experiments such as these MUST be carried out in a lab.
-
Depending on if we want to count the "miracle of life" as magical. :3
Knowing him, he does. And I agree, it's just an amphibian doing what they do. But the point is that if they can do it over one lifetime, why can't something similar be done by other species over several thousand generations?
That's not how science is done. Science is based on empirical facts (observational, repeatable, testable).
What you are doing is assuming/inferring/reasoning etc - more proof evolution is a faith/religion.
Of course it's not science. Never said it was. Just saying that evolution from an aquatic creature to a land creature has a basis in observable time.
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
Speciation of Sticklebacks
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(02)02579-X
-
I don't think you guys understand. Cass isn't looking for examples of speciation. He is looking for examples of what is usually referred to as macro-evolution. Why? Not because it's necessary to prove evolution, but because it's impossible to find within the time frame of modern science, or even human civilization.
-
Cass: Question.
Do you believe that the pyramids were built or that they were plonked down whole or they grew naturally out of the ground.? I mean, we have no eye-witnesses who can testify to seeing people actually build them...
-
'Macro evolution' can be seen in many places. For example, people from contrasting climates have various traits that help them with their respective climate; a Tibetan is incredibly resistive to altitude sickness, whereas I would not be.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
There is no difference between an incubator and an intestine, not to the e.coli. How they would behave in one medium is similar to the other, otherwise there is no point in conducting the experiment as it would be, as you said, fundamentally flawed.
As a previous poster also mentioned, what you're asking for is impossible. You will be dead before we can present any evidence of 'natural' evolution to you. It is simply too hard to conduct an evolutionary experiment within the natural world. Additionally, there is simply no need to.
As far as you're concerned, evolution doesn't exist. Do not brush away evidence because it doesn't fit your ridiculous expectations.
-
Cass: Question.
Do you believe that the pyramids were built or that they were plonked down whole or they grew naturally out of the ground.? I mean, we have no eye-witnesses who can testify to seeing people actually build them...
There are eye-witness reports of the building of the pyramids. The ancient Egyptians were prolific writers.
'Macro evolution' can be seen in many places. For example, people from contrasting climates have various traits that help them with their respective climate; a Tibetan is incredibly resistive to altitude sickness, whereas I would not be.
That's not macro-evolution, though. You and a Tibetan with his resistance to altitude sickness, a native Nigerian with his high melanin levels for sun protection and an Inuit with his enlarged liver to combat vitamin C deficiency are all still humans.
-
There are eye-witness reports of the building of the pyramids. The ancient Egyptians were prolific illustrators.
:P
Cass: Question.
Do you believe that the pyramids were built or that they were plonked down whole or they grew naturally out of the ground.? I mean, we have no eye-witnesses who can testify to seeing people actually build them...
I thought he simply believed the world has an intelligent designer behind it, and dates to about the time we started writing?
-
Even if it does, the Egyptians started writing long before they started building. Hieroglyphs were writing, it was just logographic writing.
-
Derp.
Lets hope this thread dies now.
-
It will, if Cass is ever banned, run off, or bored enough to stop debating.
-
How do you know the writing was written by humans, were YOU there to witness it? All you're doing is interpreting the evidence for human-built pyramids, show me some observed instances of pyramids otherwise you simply take it on faith that they were human-built.
-
Good job, Chris, you have now gone down to Cass's level. Now he will beat you by experience.
-
The higher battle has been won and is boring, I've decided to stop pouring boiling oil and go out for a scrap.
-
I don't think you guys understand. Cass isn't looking for examples of speciation. He is looking for examples of what is usually referred to as macro-evolution. Why? Not because it's necessary to prove evolution, but because it's impossible to find within the time frame of modern science, or even human civilization.
Finally an evolutionist here admits evolution is not observable.
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
The problem is we have observed evolution in the lab and in the field. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. We can trace these new species of bacteria genetically to prove they came from another species entirely.
Also, it seems you are conceding that evolution has been observed in the lab, where conditions are set by humans. Do you realize the only difference between the lab and the field would be those conditions are set by nature? Why is that so hard of a leap to understand that some genes are passed on and others are not in nature, and those beneficial genes can accumulate over time?
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
The problem is we have observed evolution in the lab and in the field. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. We can trace these new species of bacteria genetically to prove they came from another species entirely.
Also, it seems you are conceding that evolution has been observed in the lab, where conditions are set by humans. Do you realize the only difference between the lab and the field would be those conditions are set by nature? Why is that so hard of a leap to understand that some genes are passed on and others are not in nature, and those beneficial genes can accumulate over time?
Macroevolution has not been observed in the labs either.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.''
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter''
Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
Macroevolution is based on pure faith.
-
We've already discussed this. The fruit flies could not breed with each other. They were a separate species. Speciation had occurred. We don't have the time to let the fruit flies keep going and try to get them to evolve into something completely different. However, simply creating two different species is good enough.
I don't understand your thinking. Why would a natural process be limited in some magical way? If something can change a little, it can change a lot. Give some reasoning behind the claim that "macroevolution" can't occur. It's just evolution. There is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", they are the same damn process.
-
Give some reasoning behind the claim that "macroevolution" can't occur. It's just evolution. There is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", they are the same damn process.
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference, questions, assumptions or faith.
Science is based on empirical (observable, testable, repeatable) facts.
Macroevolution though has never been observed, therefore its not a scientific fact.
-
That's not really evolution, though. He wants examples of speciation.
Like these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html
this happens in people, today.
/debate
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
The problem is we have observed evolution in the lab and in the field. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. We can trace these new species of bacteria genetically to prove they came from another species entirely.
Also, it seems you are conceding that evolution has been observed in the lab, where conditions are set by humans. Do you realize the only difference between the lab and the field would be those conditions are set by nature? Why is that so hard of a leap to understand that some genes are passed on and others are not in nature, and those beneficial genes can accumulate over time?
Macroevolution has not been observed in the labs either.
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.''
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter''
Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
Macroevolution is based on pure faith.
1. Do you understand what field research is?
2. Quote mining is an appeal to authority. Try again.
-
I'm simply after an observed case of evolution. However since no evolutionist can ever provide an example of evolution happening, then it remains non-scientific.
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
And, its very strange you link to fossils. In case you didn't realise they aren't alive. How can one observe evolution happening in a fossil?
Lenski's e.coli.
Science is done in labs. If you discounted all lab based science work, you would be discounting a significant portion of established knowledge.
Science is done in labs and can be. However the basis of the theory of evolution is naturalism. Evolutionists claims natural selection + mutation = evolution.
Manmade environments i.e labs are not natural. Therefore working in labs debunks the whole concept behind evolution.
Since 1858 when Darwin published his book, evolutionists have failed to cite one single case of observed evolution in the natural physical world.
As far are nature is concerned, evolution doesn't exist.
Oh my God, you really have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even know what naturalism means in a scientific discipline.
-
Give some reasoning behind the claim that "macroevolution" can't occur. It's just evolution. There is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", they are the same damn process.
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference, questions, assumptions or faith.
Science is based on empirical (observable, testable, repeatable) facts.
Macroevolution though has never been observed, therefore its not a scientific fact.
Microgravity has been observed, but not macrogravity. We have never observed the effects of gravity over billions of years. Therefore is is conjecture to try and use our models to predict motion in years gone by or to come.
This is what you sound like. Evolution has been observed. There is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution. I gave you an example of speciation, which is what I guess you are looking for, and you still reject it.
-
Cass is now one of my favorite trolls here. Sixteen pages on this nonsense... phenomenal.
-
I wonder if Cass even knows the theory of how life began or if he thinks "that's what evolution is".
-
I wonder if Cass even knows the theory of how life began or if he thinks "that's what evolution is".
I was thinking that before.
Isn't abiogenesis the opposite to creationism/intelligent design?
-
I wonder if Cass even knows the theory of how life began or if he thinks "that's what evolution is".
I was thinking that before.
Isn't abiogenesis the opposite to creationism/intelligent design?
Yes.
-
Abiogenesis isn't necessarily opposed to creationism/intelligent design. If we understood the laws of chemistry governing abiogenesis, one could make a compelling teleological argument for creation/intelligent design. It's only a death knell to certain forms of belief.
-
Abiogenesis isn't necessarily opposed to creationism/intelligent design. If we understood the laws of chemistry governing abiogenesis, one could make a compelling teleological argument for creation/intelligent design. It's only a death knell to certain forms of belief.
Did you phone in that performance?
-
Abiogenesis isn't necessarily opposed to creationism/intelligent design. If we understood the laws of chemistry governing abiogenesis, one could make a compelling teleological argument for creation/intelligent design. It's only a death knell to certain forms of belief.
Evolution isn't opposed to creationism/intelligent design either.
Let's face it: The problem is purpose. Religion says we were created with a purpose. Evolution and abiogenesis says we have no purpose to our existence outside of perpetuating it.
-
Abiogenesis isn't necessarily opposed to creationism/intelligent design. If we understood the laws of chemistry governing abiogenesis, one could make a compelling teleological argument for creation/intelligent design. It's only a death knell to certain forms of belief.
Evolution isn't opposed to creationism/intelligent design either.
Let's face it: The problem is purpose. Religion says we were created with a purpose. Evolution and abiogenesis says we have no purpose to our existence outside of perpetuating it.
We know of no purpose to our existence outside of perpetuating it. Maybe there's a handbook we haven't found yet. Carl Sagan suggests there might be a sign in expansion of pi, for example.
-
Abiogenesis isn't necessarily opposed to creationism/intelligent design. If we understood the laws of chemistry governing abiogenesis, one could make a compelling teleological argument for creation/intelligent design. It's only a death knell to certain forms of belief.
Did you phone in that performance?
Do you need to look up the word teleological? I can use smaller words for the intellectually lame on request.
-
Abiogenesis isn't necessarily opposed to creationism/intelligent design. If we understood the laws of chemistry governing abiogenesis, one could make a compelling teleological argument for creation/intelligent design. It's only a death knell to certain forms of belief.
Evolution isn't opposed to creationism/intelligent design either.
Let's face it: The problem is purpose. Religion says we were created with a purpose. Evolution and abiogenesis says we have no purpose to our existence outside of perpetuating it.
We know of no purpose to our existence outside of perpetuating it. Maybe there's a handbook we haven't found yet. Carl Sagan suggests there might be a sign in expansion of pi, for example.
That's what religion is though, a purpose. God created us for his "master plan". It gives us a purpose without being specific in it. Still counts though.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
-
aww they're cute.
-
It looks like Jabba.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
Bet you Cass will say until the lizard gives birth to a rabbit it just ain't evolution.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
Bet you Cass will say until the lizard gives birth to a rabbit it just ain't evolution.
Or until a rabbit lays lizard eggs.
What came first - the skink or the rabbit?
Berny
Rabbit tastes good
-
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
Which totally rules out any scientific basis for creationism.
-
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference
Fascinating point of view. Can you provide a reputable source corroborating that inference has no place in science, or are you inventing your own criteria to make it appear that your spurious argument has actual merit?
-
The basis of science is observation. The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and then you test it. That is how science is done.
Which totally rules out any scientific basis for creationism.
That really doesn't matter, you know. Again, Cass is smart enough not to argue for creationism, but against evolution. If he can make anybody believe that evolution is not a scientific theory, then he's won in his own mind.
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference
Fascinating point of view. Can you provide a reputable source corroborating that inference has no place in science, or are you inventing your own criteria to make it appear that your spurious argument has actual merit?
This is the way to do it. Good on you, Roundy.
-
More evolution. (http://io9.com/5683562/religious-ritual-has-altered-the-evolutionary-path-of-mexican-cavefish)
-
Pongo's three most difficult questions for a creationist to rationalize:
3: Why do only religious people deny evolution?
2: How come creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools, even those dominated by creation-friendly support?
1: Why did the designer design us in a way to make it look like we evolved (ERV's come to mind)?
-
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference
Fascinating point of view. Can you provide a reputable source corroborating that inference has no place in science, or are you inventing your own criteria to make it appear that your spurious argument has actual merit?
Definition of inference:
1. The act of reasoning to draw a conclusion.
2. Deriving a conclusion from assumption.
3. A good guess.
So are you saying science is about guessing, reasoning and assuming?
If so, then check a dictionary and look up 'science'.
Science is about empirical observational facts. If science was merely reasoning, guessing and assuming it would be nothing but faith driven and nothing factual.
-
News just in: Science isn't about reasoning.
-
Faith=Reasoning?
Oh I loled so hard.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
Yet the word 'evolution' has about thirty different definitions. This article is using the casual word in the sense of change. The article explains how birth patterns or methods can change, as can behaviour in animals. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or Darwinian evolution.
If you want the theory of evolution in 'action', so it is directly observed you would need to show an example of one animal changing into another. Remember evolutionists claim a land walking creature morphed from an aquatic.
As far as the scientific facts are concerned, nothing has ever been observed to evolve in the sense of something changing into something else physically.
What happens though is that evolutionists sell the above dishonesty to the masses and fool them. Its easy to change the word evolution from the coloquial usage to the theory of evolution (Darwin's theory).
-
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference
Fascinating point of view. Can you provide a reputable source corroborating that inference has no place in science, or are you inventing your own criteria to make it appear that your spurious argument has actual merit?
Definition of inference:
1. The act of reasoning to draw a conclusion.
2. Deriving a conclusion from assumption.
3. A good guess.
So are you saying science is about guessing, reasoning and assuming?
If so, then check a dictionary and look up 'science'.
Okay!
sci?ence
/ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
?noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Can you explain to me where it's demonstrated in that definition that inference has no place in science?
Now, instead of dodging the question, how about actually showing us a reputable source that states that inference has no place in science? If you can't, we all have to assume that you're making up your own criteria to tailor your view of science to your own purposes. That's intellectually dishonest! I mean, anybody can support their position by just making shit up.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
If you want the theory of evolution in 'action', so it is directly observed you would need to show an example of one animal changing into another. Remember evolutionists claim a land walking creature morphed from an aquatic.
Frog.
You heard it all, Cass will now admit that Evolution exists because an aquatic animal morphs into a land walking creature and is easily witnessed by anyone.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
If you want the theory of evolution in 'action', so it is directly observed you would need to show an example of one animal changing into another. Remember evolutionists claim a land walking creature morphed from an aquatic.
Frog.
You heard it all, Cass will now admit that Evolution exists because an aquatic animal morphs into a land walking creature and is easily witnessed by anyone.
No, that's called metamorphosis. But thanks for proving how evolutionists are dishonest and redefine 'evolution' to whatever they like.
-
Well guys I'm closing this debate:
Observated real nowadays evolution by National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
If you want the theory of evolution in 'action', so it is directly observed you would need to show an example of one animal changing into another. Remember evolutionists claim a land walking creature morphed from an aquatic.
Frog.
You heard it all, Cass will now admit that Evolution exists because an aquatic animal morphs into a land walking creature and is easily witnessed by anyone.
No, that's called metamorphosis. But thanks for proving how evolutionists are dishonest and redefine 'evolution' to whatever they like.
You used the word morph first. I assumed you wanted proof of metamorphosis from aquatic to land animal.
-
OH HAI
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Osteolepis_macrolepidotus.jpg/800px-Osteolepis_macrolepidotus.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Eusthenopteron_foordi_1.JPG/800px-Eusthenopteron_foordi_1.JPG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Panderichthys_BW.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tiktaalik_skull_front.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Elginerpeton_BW.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Ventastega_BW.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Acanthostega_gunnari.jpg/800px-Acanthostega_gunnari.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Ichthyostega_skull.jpg/800px-Ichthyostega_skull.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Hynerpeton_BW.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Tulerpeton12DB.jpg/800px-Tulerpeton12DB.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Pederpes22small.jpg/800px-Pederpes22small.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Eryops_skeleton.png/768px-Eryops_skeleton.png)
These all have fossils.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Pederpes22small.jpg/800px-Pederpes22small.jpg)
This is the best.
-
Those are modern drawings or reconstructions. Evolutionists make these entirely up from speculation/imagination.
For example less than 40% of lucy was found, yet the following was created:
(http://yecheadquarters.org/images/hate/Lucy_excuse.jpg)
(http://yecheadquarters.org/images/hate/lucy_musuem.jpg)
-
Again, this is not what science is. Science is not about inference
Fascinating point of view. Can you provide a reputable source corroborating that inference has no place in science, or are you inventing your own criteria to make it appear that your spurious argument has actual merit?
Definition of inference:
1. The act of reasoning to draw a conclusion.
2. Deriving a conclusion from assumption.
3. A good guess.
So are you saying science is about guessing, reasoning and assuming?
If so, then check a dictionary and look up 'science'.
Okay!
sci?ence
/ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
?noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Can you explain to me where it's demonstrated in that definition that inference has no place in science?
Now, instead of dodging the question, how about actually showing us a reputable source that states that inference has no place in science? If you can't, we all have to assume that you're making up your own criteria to tailor your view of science to your own purposes. That's intellectually dishonest! I mean, anybody can support their position by just making shit up.
-
Those are modern drawings or reconstructions. Evolutionists make these entirely up from speculation/imagination.
For example less than 40% of lucy was found, yet the following was created:
(http://yecheadquarters.org/images/hate/Lucy_excuse.jpg)
(http://yecheadquarters.org/images/hate/lucy_musuem.jpg)
You're right, they were probably stubby people with no hands or feet. How silly of us. We should not infer anything about fossils we found. We should just assume that animals back then were just bony skeletons with no skin, muscles, or hands and feet I guess. ::)
-
This is Lucy, by the way:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Lucy_blackbg.jpg/220px-Lucy_blackbg.jpg)
The skull fragments and leg bones were the important part, showing upright walking but small brain structure. The museum wants to create an interesting exhibit. They don't have the original bones, and maybe they'll show pictures of the bones, but a museum is for entertaining education. If you want direct education, go do some research.
-
''Can you explain to me where it's demonstrated in that definition that inference has no place in science?''
----
Well you could start by looking up 'science' or 'scientifc method' in the dictionary.
Science and the scientific method is based on observation, empirical facts which can be tested, repeated etc.
If you believe inference, assumptions, reasoning, faith etc are involved in science, then that means you accept the theory of evolution is not proven, nor any other area of science, and this means you can not believe in any absolutes/facts. But i thought you evolutionists were saying the opposite?
-
''Can you explain to me where it's demonstrated in that definition that inference has no place in science?''
----
Well you could start by looking up 'science' or 'scientifc method' in the dictionary.
Science and the scientific method is based on observation, empirical facts which can be tested, repeated etc.
Inference is based on observation, too. Science evolves because we use our reasoning facilities to interpret the empirical data. If we didn't use inference to interpret the data, we'd be left with nothing but a lot of data with no conclusions to be drawn.
If you believe inference, assumptions, reasoning, faith etc are involved in science, then that means you accept the theory of evolution is not proven, nor any other area of science, and this means you can not believe in any absolutes/facts. But i thought you evolutionists were saying the opposite?
See, you're just adding elements I haven't brought up to make my argument look ridiculous. When did I ever say assumptions or faith are involved in science? These have nothing to do with inference. Inference is nothing more than rational interpretation of the data. It's a part of all science; it's necessary to science.
But if you really think that's not the case, then, again, you should be able to point me to a source that supports your argument. I've seen you post sources before, so I know you understand how to do it.
I know that since you're just a troll you will never do anything as dignified as conceding the point, but I do hope that you are able to reflect on what you've learned to see that your entire argument is completely faulty, regardless of the "face" you choose to show on the forums.
-
Inference is a part of science. We make inferences from raw data all the time. You're being ridiculous. The problem is making those inferences from data and experimentation. In the case of evolution, data such as fossils, DNA evidence, and current biological experiments allow us to infer that natural selection occurs.
-
Inference is nothing more than rational interpretation of the data. It's a part of all science; it's necessary to science.
Interpretation is purely personal and subjective.
So here you have finally actually admitted the theory of evolution is not based on evidence but personal interpretation. This is what i stated from the start.
George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference''
L. Harrison Matthews: [writing on Whales] ‘‘...we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference''
L. Harrison Matthews: ‘‘The theory of evolution forms… a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature''
Ronald R. West: “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record''
I know that since you're just a troll you will never do anything as dignified as conceding the point, but I do hope that you are able to reflect on what you've learned to see that your entire argument is completely faulty, regardless of the "face" you choose to show on the forums.
A few pages back you wrote you didn't believe in evolution, yet now you are claiming evolution is scientific.
Clearly you are troll. or you went from a creationist to an evolutionist in 1 week? Which one is it?
-
Inference is a part of science. We make inferences from raw data all the time. You're being ridiculous. The problem is making those inferences from data and experimentation. In the case of evolution, data such as fossils, DNA evidence, and current biological experiments allow us to infer that natural selection occurs.
So you admit the theory of evolution is not proven, but is just infered by interpretation and assumption.
You could have read the first pages and agreed instead of wasting all this time.
I'll take it now, that i have won.
-
Roundy the Truthinessist posts earlier in this thread:
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Exactly. Surely if evolution was real, I'd be able to see it with my own eyes. Incidentally, I've also never seen a fish evolve legs; so I suppose according to the evolutionist myth it was something that could only happen millions of years before we were able to observe it, and then suddenly and without warning or rational explanation, poof, it just stopped.
Yet, 1 week later he is suddenly an evolutionist.
::)
-
Just one question for you cass...
Why don't we see fossils for modern animals with ancient, extinct ones? If there is no evolution then all creatures that ever lived must have been created at the same time. Or God likes to wipe out various species and recreate the ecosystem.
-
Roundy the Truthinessist posts earlier in this thread:
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Exactly. Surely if evolution was real, I'd be able to see it with my own eyes. Incidentally, I've also never seen a fish evolve legs; so I suppose according to the evolutionist myth it was something that could only happen millions of years before we were able to observe it, and then suddenly and without warning or rational explanation, poof, it just stopped.
Yet, 1 week later he is suddenly an evolutionist.
::)
Maybe his first statement was a joke. Perhaps your side is so laughable to most that even your more serious arguments come off as jokes to most.
-
the word 'evolution' has about thirty different definitions.
This is going in the monster fail thread.
-
You know what, Cass? You're right.
Your understanding of evolution is completely based on faith and imaginative interpretations of fossils.
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
-
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
Then you might want to inform the leading evolutionists of the world on that.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Stephen Jay Gould ''...evolution can not be directly observed''
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
-
Roundy the Truthinessist posts earlier in this thread:
Evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?
Exactly. Surely if evolution was real, I'd be able to see it with my own eyes. Incidentally, I've also never seen a fish evolve legs; so I suppose according to the evolutionist myth it was something that could only happen millions of years before we were able to observe it, and then suddenly and without warning or rational explanation, poof, it just stopped.
Yet, 1 week later he is suddenly an evolutionist.
::)
Maybe his first statement was a joke. Perhaps your side is so laughable to most that even your more serious arguments come off as jokes to most.
This is interesting comming from a guy who stated the earth was flat a year ago. Shall we take that claim seriously?
-
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
Then you might want to inform the leading evolutionists of the world on that.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Stephen Jay Gould ''...evolution can not be directly observed''
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
All he is saying is that major changes in a species happen over longer periods of time than we have existed. Small changes though can happen within our lifetime.
Your last quote is amazing that you picked it, if he is qualifying that statement with "major steps in evolution" would that not mean that steps in evolution have been observed?
My final critique, Stephen J Gould was born in the 40's, it is safe to say there have been major advances in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology since he made that quote. He also died in 2002, so he is hardly a great resource on current theories of the diversity of life.
-
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
Then you might want to inform the leading evolutionists of the world on that.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Stephen Jay Gould ''...evolution can not be directly observed''
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
Stop using 'argument from authority' it's pathetic.
The thing is, it wouldn't mater whether we had a time machine and held up a living, breathing Tiktaalik in front of you because then you'd argue that you didn't see a tetrapod come out of a sea creature.
We've demonstrated observed instances of speciationa again and again (Lemski's E.Coli experiments, fruit flies, the lizards) and you haven't accepted it because it doesn't fit your fairytale version of evolution where t-rexes give birth to chickens.
-
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
Then you might want to inform the leading evolutionists of the world on that.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Stephen Jay Gould ''...evolution can not be directly observed''
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
Stop using 'argument from authority' it's pathetic.
The thing is, it wouldn't mater whether we had a time machine and held up a living, breathing Tiktaalik in front of you because then you'd argue that you didn't see a tetrapod come out of a sea creature.
We've demonstrated observed instances of speciationa again and again (Lemski's E.Coli experiments, fruit flies, the lizards) and you haven't accepted it because it doesn't fit your fairytale version of evolution where t-rexes give birth to chickens.
So if evolution has been observed, where is the observable evidence man evolved? Are you saying it has been observed man has morphed from an ape-like creature?
As far as science is concerned nothing has ever been observed to evolve. Gould had the honesty to admit this, it seems the militant neo-darwinists behind their keyboard can't do this yet though.
-
*sigh*
-
*vomits with boredom*
-
‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening''
- Richard Dawkins (even Dawkins admits evolution has not been observed).
-
I didn't observe the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it never happened! QED.
Do you use this logic with everything or just the stuff you don't want to believe in?
-
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
Then you might want to inform the leading evolutionists of the world on that.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Stephen Jay Gould ''...evolution can not be directly observed''
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
Stop using 'argument from authority' it's pathetic.
The thing is, it wouldn't mater whether we had a time machine and held up a living, breathing Tiktaalik in front of you because then you'd argue that you didn't see a tetrapod come out of a sea creature.
We've demonstrated observed instances of speciationa again and again (Lemski's E.Coli experiments, fruit flies, the lizards) and you haven't accepted it because it doesn't fit your fairytale version of evolution where t-rexes give birth to chickens.
So if evolution has been observed, where is the observable evidence man evolved? Are you saying it has been observed man has morphed from an ape-like creature?
As far as science is concerned nothing has ever been observed to evolve. Gould had the honesty to admit this, it seems the militant neo-darwinists behind their keyboard can't do this yet though.
Your first sentence jumps from one point to another and is nonsense. Your second one has nothing to do with evolution. The third one is a lie. The fourth one is a cross between an ad hominem and misrepresenting a historical quote.
What do you want me to do? Talk at you louder?
-
''The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.'' - Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989) p.14
[On invertebrates] ''And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.''
- Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
-
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
"Argument from authority" - Copypasta
Bored now.
-
I didn't observe the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it never happened! QED.
Do you use this logic with everything or just the stuff you don't want to believe in?
We have eye witness testimony of historic events. Recorded history goes back to 3,000BC.
Unless of course you believe aliens or something else falsified our history, but that would make you even more of a crackpot then the evolutionists.
-
Real evolution, however, is not and is observable.
Then you might want to inform the leading evolutionists of the world on that.
Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history''
Stephen Jay Gould ''...evolution can not be directly observed''
G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed''
Stop using 'argument from authority' it's pathetic.
The thing is, it wouldn't mater whether we had a time machine and held up a living, breathing Tiktaalik in front of you because then you'd argue that you didn't see a tetrapod come out of a sea creature.
We've demonstrated observed instances of speciationa again and again (Lemski's E.Coli experiments, fruit flies, the lizards) and you haven't accepted it because it doesn't fit your fairytale version of evolution where t-rexes give birth to chickens.
So if evolution has been observed, where is the observable evidence man evolved? Are you saying it has been observed man has morphed from an ape-like creature?
As far as science is concerned nothing has ever been observed to evolve. Gould had the honesty to admit this, it seems the militant neo-darwinists behind their keyboard can't do this yet though.
Your first sentence jumps from one point to another and is nonsense. Your second one has nothing to do with evolution. The third one is a lie. The fourth one is a cross between an ad hominem and misrepresenting a historical quote.
What do you want me to do? Talk at you louder?
If man evolved, where is the observational evidence he did evolve? It was a simple question, but every evolutionist has failed to answer this time and time again.
If evolution was observable then everyone would believe in it. But since its never been observed, its in the realm as unicorns and ghosts. I have no problem with people believing in those things, but they are not empirical scientific facts.
-
Cassiterides, it must irk you greatly every time you get a £10 note out of your wallet - this fact makes me smile... ;D
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/bigbacksm.jpg)
-
Louis Agassiz (1807–73) Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard
''Far from having been drawn to the Darwinian Theory, all my studies and all my experience thus far has led me in the opposite direction.'' - Letter to Fritz Muller January 17, 1864
Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute
''Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.'' - Life Itself (1981) p.153
-
Man is an animal.
Animals evolve and we have given you observable nowadys cases.
There is no evidence for God, Genesis, or any kind of creation.
Therefore, Man is likely to have evolved like the rest of animals, and this is backed up with the same evidences: Fossils.
It's called logical thinking, we can't see men evolving from "apes", but everything points clearly to that, and there are enough evidences to support it. Period.
If you want to believe that a wizard did it. It's ok, but go to forums that share your ideas and leave aside the logic in favor of dogmatism, but coming here to deny evolution... sorry, your own made up definition of evolution, just becuase, without offering a better option (you never talked about creationism, you just say "evolution is wrong") is simply stupid.
And with this I leave this thread. Good evening.
-
I have no problem with people believing in those things, but they are not empirical scientific facts.
Why then do you spend so much of your time insulting the intelligence of people who accept evolution by posting silly threads like this one?
-
Cassiterides, it must irk you greatly every time you get a £10 note out of your wallet - this fact makes me smile... ;D
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/bigbacksm.jpg)
Darwin questioned his own theory, i own his works. Darwin accepted his theory, just as a theory...not a scientific fact. This i have no problem with. There are 'honest' evolutionists, unfortuantly they are a minority. Most evolutionists online, are the militant atheist neo-darwinist types and it is impossible for a discussion because they are so dishonest.
Anyway some quotes from Darwin which put holes in his own theory:
Darwin on how the eye could not have evolved:
''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.186
Darwin on the problems of geology for evolution:
''But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.280
Darwin on the poor morality that arised because of his theory:
''But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'' - Letter to W. Graham July 3, 1881
-
I didn't observe the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it never happened! QED.
Do you use this logic with everything or just the stuff you don't want to believe in?
We have eye witness testimony of historic events. Recorded history goes back to 3,000BC.
Unless of course you believe aliens or something else falsified our history, but that would make you even more of a crackpot then the evolutionists.
And we have a fossil record and DNA evidence, in other words, nature's recorded history. What is your point?
-
Cassiterides, it must irk you greatly every time you get a £10 note out of your wallet - this fact makes me smile... ;D
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/bigbacksm.jpg)
Darwin questioned his own theory, i own his works. Darwin accepted his theory, just as a theory...not a scientific fact. This i have no problem with. There are 'honest' evolutionists, unfortuantly they are a minority. Most evolutionists online, are the militant atheist neo-darwinist types and it is impossible for a discussion because they are so dishonest.
Anyway some quotes from Darwin which put holes in his own theory:
Darwin on how the eye could not have evolved:
''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.186
Darwin on the problems of geology for evolution:
''But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.280
Darwin on the poor morality that arised because of his theory:
''But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'' - Letter to W. Graham July 3, 1881
But there's a reason why his hairy face is on the back of a £10 note. It's because his theory is, for the most part, right. If he had promulgated a theory on the existence of unicorns and fairies I somehow doubt he would be held in such high esteem.
-
Man is an animal.
Animals evolve and we have given you observable nowadys cases.
There is no evidence for God, Genesis, or any kind of creation.
Therefore, Man is likely to have evolved like the rest of animals, and this is backed up with the same evidences: Fossils.
It's called logical thinking, we can't see men evolving from "apes", but everything points clearly to that, and there are enough evidences to support it. Period.
If you want to believe that a wizard did it. It's ok, but go to forums that share your ideas and leave aside the logic in favor of dogmatism, but coming here to deny evolution... sorry, your own made up definition of evolution, just becuase, without offering a better option (you never talked about creationism, you just say "evolution is wrong") is simply stupid.
And with this I leave this thread. Good evening.
''we can't see men evolving from ''apes'', yes precisely - so why do you believe in things that are non-observable in science?
Do you beleieve pixies, unicorns and ghosts are also science? Your logic makes no sense.
-
Darwin on how the eye could not have evolved:
''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.186
Oh, for the love of...
Continue the quote onward.
"...Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
''But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.280
"...The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms DIRECTLY intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons are both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, C. livia, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas."
Darwin on the poor morality that arised because of his theory:
''But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'' - Letter to W. Graham July 3, 1881
Who gives a shit about the moral implications? If something is true, then just because it might cause some moral dilemmas does not mean we should pretend it's not true.
Stop quote mining and come up with an actual argument.
-
Who gives a shit about the moral implications?
And this precisely is why evolution is a religion, linked to atheism and humanism which promotes poor morality. Evolutionists don't care about morals because in their pseudo-history they evolved from a savage raping caveman or ape. Darwin was spot on with this:
''Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind''
-
I did not see a man walk down the corridor to get to the library, therefore he was teleported.
We have not yet witnessed a single Uranian year since the planet was discovered, therefore at the end of its 170-odd year journey around the Sun it will fly wildly off into space.
This sand dune demonstrates all the classic signs of being formed by the wind, however I did not witness this, therefore giant ants sculpted it.
My radio is playing and I cannot observe any radio-waves going into it; therefore a small man lives in my radio.
*
Science works because we don't have to rely on observational evidence, we can rely on many, many other forms of evidence.
-
''we can't see men evolving from ''apes'', yes precisely - so why do you believe in things that are non-observable in science?
Already answered, but I can repeat as many times as necessary:
Man is an animal.
Animals evolve and we have given you observable nowadys cases.
There is no evidence for God, Genesis, or any kind of creation.
Therefore, Man is likely to have evolved like the rest of animals, and this is backed up with the same evidences: Fossils.
Do you beleieve pixies, unicorns and ghosts are also science? Your logic makes no sense.
God, Pixies, Unicorns and Ghosts, so far, are just fantasy works in the world of literature, movies, and other forms of arts. Up to now, there are no fossils, DNA records, (real proven) pictures, living ones found, or any other kind of evidence for their present, or past existence. If at some point, any proof is found, I will have no prob in believing in them.
My logic makes perfect sense, it is yours which is based in:
- A book
- A wizard
- Quote selection
- Made up defintions
So please, get yours a bit more consistent, and then you could question others'.
-
Not to mention, human history is very often badly recorded or just plain exagerated.
Consider two pieces of evidence.
1) A Roman account of a battle against the Celts which describes Roman losses of 200 and Celtic losses of 3,000 and the destruction of the local fort.
2) Body parts and armour belonging to 500 Roman soldiers and a few smatterings of Celtic weapons plus pots, tools and coins in the fort extending fifty years past the point the Roman claims the fort was destroyed.
Is it more compelling to believe in a Roman or a Celtic victory?
-
Oh, and for the love of Vishnu, stop using ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY
Even if Darwin had shouted that he was wrong from the tallest rooftop, it wouldn't make any difference to the validity of his theory.
And stop quote-mining. That bit about the eye has been taken out of context so many times it isn't even funny.
-
Who gives a shit about the moral implications?
And this precisely is why evolution is a religion, linked to atheism and humanism which promotes poor morality. Evolutionists don't care about morals because in their pseudo-history they evolved from a savage raping caveman or ape. Darwin was spot on with this:
''Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind''
lolwut? I didn't say it made us any less moral. I said if there was a theory that raised moral implications, but that theory was demonstrated to be true, those moral implications have no say in whether the theory is true or not. Just because something is uncomfortable does not mean we can say it isn't true.
-
I rather his quote mining than going into the morals topic xD
-
Especially when a thirty second google search reveals the quote in its entirety.
-
I have no problem with people believing in those things, but they are not empirical scientific facts.
Why then do you spend so much of your time insulting the intelligence of people who accept evolution by posting silly threads like this one?
No i've now quit, and have just submitted my account deleted here. I left, quit or banned myself from most other forums. My university course has just restarted, and i don't have time to do this anymore. All my threads are basically archived on numerous creationist forums all over the net, as well as having been copied and pasted by evolutionists, so everything is still up if you want to learn anything.
The '20 points against evolution' pamphlet i created sold about forty copies, and got nearly 1000 downloads.
The fact evolutionists had to stalk my amazon account and negative rate over 100 reviews i made, as well as spam my hotmail with abuse really shows how much won. I have defeated every evolutionist in debate, 1 on 1, and on multiple internet forums where i usually got tag teamed (including here).
Evolutionists have lost and could not support their fairytale in any thread or forum i was on. Nor could they present one single case of evolution in action/observed evolution, i did repeatedly ask politely but they couldn't deliver.
-
I have no problem with people believing in those things, but they are not empirical scientific facts.
Why then do you spend so much of your time insulting the intelligence of people who accept evolution by posting silly threads like this one?
No i've now quit, and have just submitted my account deleted here. I left, quit or banned myself from most other forums. My university course has just restarted, and i don't have time to do this anymore. All my threads are basically archived on numerous creationist forums all over the net, as well as having been copied and pasted by evolutionists, so everything is still up if you want to learn anything.
The '20 points against evolution' pamphlet i created sold about forty copies, and got nearly 1000 downloads.
The fact evolutionists had to stalk my amazon account and negative rate over 100 reviews i made, as well as spam my hotmail with abuse really shows how much won. I have defeated every evolutionist in debate, 1 on 1, and on multiple internet forums where i usually got tag teamed (including here).
Evolutionists have lost and could not support their fairytale in any thread or forum i was on. Nor could they present one single case of evolution in action/observed evolution, i did repeatedly ask politely but they couldn't deliver.
You're right. 1040 people that may or may not believe what the pamphlet says. You have won, good sir. Congratulations!
-
It really does show how much won.
-
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/10079/789790-you_re_winner_trophy_super.jpg)
-
''The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.'' - Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989) p.14
[On invertebrates] ''And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.''
- Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
At part one, cool, no person was around before life came about? That's an astounding idea.... no wait. That also has nothing to do with evolution. Please keep up.
The second one is easily explainable. Fossilization occurs much more commonly in certain species. Especially ones with hard parts. Basically, the more "simple" (for lack of a better word) an organism is the less likely it is to fossilize.
-
The '20 points against evolution' pamphlet i created sold about forty copies, and got nearly 1000 downloads.
.
Cool. I once compiled a 120 page photocopied book on the Smiths articles in the NME, Melody Maker et al. I sold around 60 copies, so I beat you. Therefore I'm the winner. Bye Bye.
-
The '20 points against evolution' pamphlet i created sold about forty copies, and got nearly 1000 downloads.
.
Cool. I once compiled a 120 page photocopied book on the Smiths articles in the NME, Melody Maker et al. I sold around 60 copies, so I beat you. Therefore I'm the winner. Bye Bye.
I don't know why, but "20 points against" and "HR Puff N Stuff" mixed, and I saw, "20 points from Hufflepuff!"
-
FES now has four houses.
-
''The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.'' - Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989) p.14
[On invertebrates] ''And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.''
- Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
The truly amazing part of your post is the fact that you think these quotes further your argument. I really have no nice way to let you know that your ignorance is astounding. I've read both these books and trust me, they do not say what you think they are saying. Lets grab my copies and have a look shall we?
In your first quote, it appears to me that you are trying to base an argument around evolution is not real because no one saw life form and even Dawkins agrees. Ignoring that you are talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, Dawkins is saying that the account of how life formed is just one plausible theory, but that he can't be sure exactly. No biologist on the planet would disagree with that. Interestingly , there is an end note about that paragraph that explains why he choose this version.
Your second quote isn't on page 229. However, Dawkins is talking about the Cambrian explosion. This was the time that invertebrates developed hard shells and thus were able to be fossilized. Before this, their remains weren't able to be preserved for us to see them. So it was like they "appeared" there.
Both of these quotes are dishonest and try to convey something that the author was not intending to say. I suggest that you try reading these books, they are booth fascinating and will help you understand evolution.
Why do you think someone quoted these lines from Dawkins to make it look like he said something he didn't?
-
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/quote-mining-fundie-quote-mining-fallacy-demotivational-poster-1211866892.jpg)
-
If man evolved, where is the observational evidence he did evolve? It was a simple question, but every evolutionist has failed to answer this time and time again.
Endogenous Retroviruses.
-
Cass says he has "won" many debates, but all that really happens is he quote mines so much and ignores evidence so much people just find him unreasonable and stop talking to him.
-
Cass says he has "won" many debates, but all that really happens is HE'S TROLLING!!!
fix'd
-
Cass says he has "won" many debates, but all that really happens is he quote mines so much and ignores evidence so much people just find him unreasonable and stop talking to him.
You just described yourself and most FE'ers. Oh the irony.
-
20 points from Griffindor, to be honest.
-
''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'' - Origin of Species (1859) p.186
Cassiterides makes a fuss about owning the complete works of Darwin, and yet, does not bother to verify what he quotes. This is a well known quote out of context taken, almost certainly from a crackpot webpage called answersingenesis.org.
Reading Cassiterides' posts in this thread is just the same as reading "Answers in Genesis", but with even less quality. Cassiterides does not even bother to make his own crap. We should not bother to read it.
-
Darwin questioned his own theory
Of course he did, you ignorant twit. He was a scientist. Unlike you, he relished in being proven wrong, because it means that knowledge has been furthered. What you really don't seem to understand is that IF you could disprove evolution conclusively and put forth a plausible alternative, it would be a worldwide sensation. You would be hailed as a fucking hero. Have you received and thank-you notes yet?
-
Assitrides,
Empirical: capable of being verified OR disproved by observation OR experiment
Provide an experiment or observation that disproves evolution or STFU.
-
I'm not sure how you can win by arguing a magic guy created everything you see from nothing.
-
Hessy:
I've never seen you before now. But I think you're my favorite noob.
-
Hessy:
I've never seen you before now. But I think you're my favorite noob.
I wish you understood how hard I worked for that place in your heart.
-
Hessy:
I've never seen you before now. But I think you're my favorite noob.
I wish you understood how hard I worked for that place in your heart.
I love you.
-
Hessy:
I've never seen you before now. But I think you're my favorite noob.
I wish you understood how hard I worked for that place in your heart.
I love you.
Then it's worth being a noob :D
-
Hey, Cass.
Wololo.
-
I'm not sure how you can win by arguing a magic guy created everything you see from nothing.
When the opposing argument is, essentially, "Nothing created everything you see from nothing."
Checkmate.
-
I'm not sure how you can win by arguing a magic guy created everything you see from nothing.
When the opposing argument is, essentially, "Nothing created everything you see from nothing."
Checkmate.
So what created God, then?
Oh dear, I believe this game of chess will continue after all.
-
I'm not sure how you can win by arguing a magic guy created everything you see from nothing.
When the opposing argument is, essentially, "Nothing created everything you see from nothing."
Checkmate.
So what created God, then?
Oh dear, I believe this game of chess will continue after all.
Ignoring the obvious flaw in the childish "What created God?" argument...
The same thing that created whatever it is you believe to be the First Cause for all of existence.
-
Ignoring the obvious flaw in the childish "What created God?" argument...
I'd rather not ignore that if it's all the same to you. What's flawed about it? How is it childish to ask what created God?
The same thing that created whatever it is you believe to be the First Cause for all of existence.
So this is a concession that you believe both opinions are equally valid?
-
I'd rather not ignore that if it's all the same to you. What's flawed about it? How is it childish to ask what created God?
One of God's most notable attributes is that He is eternal, thus your question is flawed and shows a child-like understanding of philosophy. Argue that something so powerful and yet uncreated as God couldn't possibly exist. Don't ask what created Him.
So this is a concession that you believe both opinions are equally valid?
I wouldn't say equally valid, no. My point was that we must accept that something is either uncreated/self-created or that there exists something that which is eternal. Either something has come from nothingness, or something has always existed. That something is what we call the First Cause.
Given the underlying rationality behind existence and that this First Cause has set of a chain of causality that's lead to our philosophy-contemplating, science-doing selves, I believe that it was both rational and purposeful. Combine these attributes with the immense power that the First Cause must have possessed, and the most logical explanation is God, or at least something so similar to God that it's more-or-less indistinguishable.
-
One of God's most notable attributes is that He is eternal
Just like universe!
thus your question is flawed and shows a child-like understanding of philosophy.
I'm afraid to dieeee, i can't understand liiiiife, please, let's create a God so everything makes sense. And you talk about childish?
Argue that something so powerful and yet uncreated as God couldn't possibly exist.
Prove God exists, and then we can discuss his characteristics.
Don't ask what created Him.
Or better you don't ask what created the universe, or even better, don't make assumptions about it.
I wouldn't say equally valid, no. My point was that we must accept that something is either uncreated/self-created or that there exists something that which is eternal.
Yeah, totally agree, for example... Universe, and all its rules, in a ciclical way, for example.
Either something has come from nothingness, or something has always existed. That something is what we call the First Cause.
This is totally off the rest of your post.
And trying to save something from it...:
or at least something so similar to God that it's more-or-less indistinguishable.
Since you can't prove God exists, but I can prove chance do. I declare everything that exists a product of chance, with no relevance, and no need for a god.
And now, yes: Check mate.
-
I'd rather not ignore that if it's all the same to you. What's flawed about it? How is it childish to ask what created God?
One of God's most notable attributes is that He is eternal, thus your question is flawed and shows a child-like understanding of philosophy. Argue that something so powerful and yet uncreated as God couldn't possibly exist. Don't ask what created Him.
Not at all. I was simply highlighting your own ignorance at not recognizing that there's no reason to believe a God can be eternal, but the universe must have at some point been "created".
So this is a concession that you believe both opinions are equally valid?
I wouldn't say equally valid, no. My point was that we must accept that something is either uncreated/self-created or that there exists something that which is eternal. Either something has come from nothingness, or something has always existed. That something is what we call the First Cause.
But if the universe itself is eternal, then by extrapolation there never was a "First Cause".
Given the underlying rationality behind existence and that this First Cause has set of a chain of causality that's lead to our philosophy-contemplating, science-doing selves, I believe that it was both rational and purposeful.
Well, there's your problem; you're bringing belief into it. If there's no scientific reason to believe in the existence of God; if we can explain all of that with pure science based on the very factors of cause and effect you point out; then why should we assume the existence of God?
Combine these attributes with the immense power that the First Cause must have possessed,and the most logical explanation is God, or at least something so similar to God that it's more-or-less indistinguishable.
Again, this notion of "First Cause" is nothing but a blind assumption.
-
Technically, the universe was not "created" according to the big bang theory(which is completely separate from the topic at hand). Rather, it existed in a state of singularity until it expanded into what we see as our universe today.
-
Also, the laws of cause and effect don't really exist on the quantum level. When a radioactive atom decays, there's no cause, it just has a 50/50 chance of decaying over whatever period of time its half-life is.
-
Time is an inherent property of the Universe, and cause and effect is caused by time. No time, no causality. It is an error to apply cause and effect before the Universe began.
-
Time is an inherent property of the Universe, and cause and effect is caused by time. No time, no causality. It is an error to apply cause and effect before the Universe began.
Which is yet another reason why the "What created God?" question is so silly. God is timeless. That's part of what makes Him God. Anything less wouldn't be God but some sort of demigod.
-
Not at all. I was simply highlighting your own ignorance at not recognizing that there's no reason to believe a God can be eternal, but the universe must have at some point been "created".
The universe strongly appears to have a beginning, thus there's no rational reason to expect it to be eternal. Something outside of our universe led to its formation approximately 14.7 billion-years ago. Some say God, which is why our universe is rational, comprehensible and why it's produced us, who have become aware of these facts and taken advantage of them with our creation of science and philosophy and our discovery of mathematics (i.e., that discovering how and why we're here is a big part of the purpose of life). Still, others plea to a multiverse, which, if large enough, will have enough probabilistic resources to reduce the apparent fine-tuning of our universe to chance.
I find God the better explanation as I feel it's both more parsimonious and better conforms to reality as we know it. I find the multiverse to be little more than a tacked-on ad hoc explanation to skirt around the big bang and the peer-reviewed Anthropic Principle (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/peer-reviewed-stealth-id-classic-the-anthropic-cosmological-principle-1987/).
Well, there's your problem; you're bringing belief into it. If there's no scientific reason to believe in the existence of God; if we can explain all of that with pure science based on the very factors of cause and effect you point out; then why should we assume the existence of God?
Of course belief plays a role in things. We're dealing with events which happened in the extreme past; they'll never be observable and may be unrepeatable. The best we can do is to come up with possible explanations and then weigh them against one another to find out which best fits the evidence. I've done that and, as stated in my previous paragraph, find God to be the best explanation.
Again, this notion of "First Cause" is nothing but a blind assumption.
If the universe is eternal, as you wishfully hope, then it's the uncreated, eternal First Cause.
-
I find God the better explanation as I feel it's both more parsimonious and better conforms to reality as we know it. I find the multiverse to be little more than a tacked-on ad hoc explanation to skirt around the big bang and the peer-reviewed Anthropic Principle.
Both require we accept the possibility of an eternal process. Either the eternal existence of the universe in various forms or the eternal existence of a Creator. Both are ad hoc explanations. Deal with it.
-
Something outside of our universe led to its formation approximately 14.7 billion-years ago.
How do you know? Where you there? You can not put an ''approx'' figure on the age of the universe for this reason. Also your figure is very strange, only very recently i heard the figure of the universe being 18 billion.
Just a casual reduction of 3.3 billion years?
-
I'd rather not ignore that if it's all the same to you. What's flawed about it? How is it childish to ask what created God?
One of God's most notable attributes is that He is eternal, thus your question is flawed and shows a child-like understanding of philosophy. Argue that something so powerful and yet uncreated as God couldn't possibly exist. Don't ask what created Him.
If everything had to be created then you end up with the problem of infinite regression (if God created the universe, who created God, who created God's creator, etc.) which easily falsifies that theory. What you have done here is an ad-hoc hypothesis (God doesn't need to be created) in order to prevent that theory from being falsified.
It's a simpler explanation to just say that everything does not have to be created.
Technically, the universe was not "created" according to the big bang theory(which is completely separate from the topic at hand). Rather, it existed in a state of singularity until it expanded into what we see as our universe today.
This. There is no evidence yet to suggest that the universe was created.
-
If you don't believe the universe had a beginning, then you can't believe in time.
You might then want to clean up about fifty of your posts (in this thread & the other) where you have stated you believe the earth and universe is billions of years old.
-
If you don't believe the universe had a beginning, then you can't believe in time.
You might then want to clean up about fifty of your posts (in this thread & the other) where you have stated you believe the earth and universe is billions of years old.
Umm, why not? A circle doesn't have a beginning or end but I believe in circles.
-
And I don't believe time exists at all, but that the universe had a beginning I'm sure of.
-
And I don't believe time exists at all
This is kinda of my opinion. Thinking of it as a scale or a dimension helps just as much as thinking of a bit of bread as a bit of steel. It's just incompatible.
-
Something outside of our universe led to its formation approximately 14.7 billion-years ago.
How do you know? Where you there? You can not put an ''approx'' figure on the age of the universe for this reason. Also your figure is very strange, only very recently i heard the figure of the universe being 18 billion.
Just a casual reduction of 3.3 billion years?
Your Ken Hamm impression is remarkable....
-
And I don't believe time exists at all, but that the universe had a beginning I'm sure of.
If time didn't exist, then it'd be a bitch to go somewhere.
-
Who are all these noobs?
Anyway, God is acting as a middle man now. If we say God is timeless, cause and effect doesn't apply to him, blah blah blah, then why not take him out and say:
Cause and Effect did not apply before the Universe began.
Voilà! The middle man is gone.
-
If you don't believe the universe had a beginning, then you can't believe in time.
Sure you can. It's called cyclical time.
I've never understood why creationists insist upon an eternal god but cannot even fathom an eternal universe.
-
If you don't believe the universe had a beginning, then you can't believe in time.
You might then want to clean up about fifty of your posts (in this thread & the other) where you have stated you believe the earth and universe is billions of years old.
okay someone correct me if I am wrong.
think of the universe like a flip book. every moment of time is one of those pages. the flip book could have been around forever while within referance to the pages being moments in time it would still have a begining.
not sure how coherent that is...
-
If you don't believe the universe had a beginning, then you can't believe in time.
You might then want to clean up about fifty of your posts (in this thread & the other) where you have stated you believe the earth and universe is billions of years old.
okay someone correct me if I am wrong.
think of the universe like a flip book. every moment of time is one of those pages. the flip book could have been around forever while within referance to the pages being moments in time it would still have a begining.
not sure how coherent that is...
More like a Rolodex, but the analogy makes sense. The "universe" as we know it may have had a beginning while still existing in some form eternally. This cyclical model defies the concept of causality so it is immediately rejected by creationists who require this concept for their silly Kalam arguments.
-
When you say the universe you don't mean space time do you? I have always thought that space itself formed during the big bang.
-
cyclical time? What are you talking about, Dave? It was my understanding that space-time itself formed when the big bang happened.
-
cyclical time? What are you talking about, Dave? It was my understanding that space-time itself formed when the big bang happened.
Loop quantum gravity. Big Bounce Theory.
-
cyclical time? What are you talking about, Dave? It was my understanding that space-time itself formed when the big bang happened.
Loop quantum gravity. Big Bounce Theory.
More theories, assumptions, faith. That's all you have.
-
Yes, that is all we have. And we can say that. We don't make up answers if one isn't obvious. We hold theories in good light, because they broaden understanding. Who cares if we have theories about the beginning of the Universe? It's better than saying "God did it." And don't pretend it isn't better. All the Big Bang Theory states is that the Universe started small and got big. That's all it says. And there is evidence that support this.
Now, speculation does come in when we talk about how time and space probably didn't exist before the Universe began. But that isn't a ludicrous claim. It makes sense, and it's the best idea right now.
-
cyclical time? What are you talking about, Dave? It was my understanding that space-time itself formed when the big bang happened.
Loop quantum gravity. Big Bounce Theory.
More theories, assumptions, faith. That's all you have.
could you please prove that 2+2=4 for me. I accept that 2+2=4 because of the evidence. all I can say is the math backs up the theories unlike your ideas.
-
cyclical time? What are you talking about, Dave? It was my understanding that space-time itself formed when the big bang happened.
Loop quantum gravity. Big Bounce Theory.
More theories, assumptions, faith. That's all you have.
We also have evidence. Observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence. So falsify it or STFU.
-
cyclical time? What are you talking about, Dave? It was my understanding that space-time itself formed when the big bang happened.
Loop quantum gravity. Big Bounce Theory.
More theories, assumptions, faith. That's all you have.
We also have evidence. Observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence. So falsify it or STFU.
''The Big Bounce is a theorized scientific model related to the formation of the known Universe.''
Are you saying the origin of the universe has been observed then? That immediatedly contradicts one of your earlier posts where you said it was an ''unknown''.
-
Are you saying the origin of the universe has been observed then? That immediatedly contradicts one of your earlier posts where you said it was an ''unknown''.
It has been observed. How else could Genesis be accurate, you Zetetic moron? ;)
Don't play stupid. We both know you weren't referring to the Big Bounce Theory when you accused "us" of having "more theories, assumptions, faith". You made a generalized statement about those who accept science.
-
Are you saying the origin of the universe has been observed then? That immediatedly contradicts one of your earlier posts where you said it was an ''unknown''.
It has been observed. How else could Genesis be accurate, you Zetetic moron? ;)
Don't play stupid. We both know you weren't referring to the Big Bounce Theory when you accused "us" of having "more theories, assumptions, faith". You made a generalized statement about those who accept science.
None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net. Face the facts, in the real world Atheism is virtually extinct (less than 2% of the worlds population are Atheist), and secondly the theory of evolution is dieing. More and more see through its lies. This is why atheists/evolutionists are only fighting for their cause in cyberspace.
-
None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net. Face the facts, in the real world Atheism is virtually extinct (less than 2% of the worlds population are Atheist), and secondly the theory of evolution is dieing. More and more see through its lies. This is why atheists/evolutionists are only fighting for their cause in cyberspace.
Hahahahahahaha...
You're not arguing over the net... in favor of creationism? In cyberspace?
I've kicked your ass all over this forum and I fucking DARE you to continue to debate with me.
If you're a troll you need to try a little harder. If you're serious, I feel sorry for you.
By the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. About everything.
-
None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net.
lawl
-
None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net.
lawl
I never thought I would hear a creationist say this.
If there is a god he's probably laughing, too.
-
None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net. Face the facts, in the real world Atheism is virtually extinct (less than 2% of the worlds population are Atheist), and secondly the theory of evolution is dieing. More and more see through its lies. This is why atheists/evolutionists are only fighting for their cause in cyberspace.
Hahahahahahaha...
You're not arguing over the net... in favor of creationism? In cyberspace?
I've kicked your ass all over this forum and I fucking DARE you to continue to debate with me.
If you're a troll you need to try a little harder. If you're serious, I feel sorry for you.
By the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. About everything.
I've not argued for creationism though in the science section, or if i did i tried to get off that topic and just discuss the science - in the sense of what we can observe and so forth. I'm honest, i admit my personal beliefs are nothing more than faith and i only discuss them in a religious or theological convo. Evolutionists however think evolution is science, when it is as religious worldview/faith.
Watch the following opening from Eric Hovind vs evolution debate:
He defines the terms correctly.
Note: I'm not a huge fan of him or his dad or for many creation speakers as it happened, however Eric on this topic is spot on and this is alli can recommend on you learning about the difference between science and faith.
-
If you are going to claim that macroevolution has not been observed, you must first demonstrate that microevolution and macroevolution operate under different processes.
-
Note: I'm not a huge fan of him or his dad or for many creation speakers as it happened, however Eric on this topic is spot on and this is alli can recommend on you learning about the difference between science and faith.
It's hard to believe people like Eric can become so respected for spewing their ignorance. I only watched part one, because the science proponent was a very poor debater and couldn't keep track of all the points.
1. We have directly observed evolution.
2. Observation also includes observation of modern evidence. It does not exclusively mean direct observation of the past. (Ex. crime scene evidence. I saw in a thread that you took the liberty of ignoring forensic evidence under the unrelated premise that the people working on it can mess it up every so often. The entire scientific community is scrutinizing evolution and each other, it's not a couple people on a team.)
a. Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)
3. Evolution is not related to the big bang, but in the spirit of origin, the first step of abiogenesis has been tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) and confirmed.
4. He made the claim that something's origin cannot be knowable, which is inherently close-minded (http://) and biased.
-
If you are going to claim that macroevolution has not been observed, you must first demonstrate that microevolution and macroevolution operate under different processes.
He keeps ignoring this, doesn't he?
-
None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net. Face the facts, in the real world Atheism is virtually extinct (less than 2% of the worlds population are Atheist), and secondly the theory of evolution is dieing. More and more see through its lies. This is why atheists/evolutionists are only fighting for their cause in cyberspace.
Hahahahahahaha...
You're not arguing over the net... in favor of creationism? In cyberspace?
I've kicked your ass all over this forum and I fucking DARE you to continue to debate with me.
If you're a troll you need to try a little harder. If you're serious, I feel sorry for you.
By the way, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. About everything.
I've not argued for creationism though in the science section, or if i did i tried to get off that topic and just discuss the science - in the sense of what we can observe and so forth. I'm honest, i admit my personal beliefs are nothing more than faith and i only discuss them in a religious or theological convo. Evolutionists however think evolution is science, when it is as religious worldview/faith.
Watch the following opening from Eric Hovind vs evolution debate:
He defines the terms correctly.
Note: I'm not a huge fan of him or his dad or for many creation speakers as it happened, however Eric on this topic is spot on and this is alli can recommend on you learning about the difference between science and faith.
Sorry, you do not get to define the terms of science when you are not even accepted in any valid field.
Scientific terms are well defined in academia, and those definitions alone should be used. Please do not debate using "slang" meanings for scientific terms. It is confusing and conveys no information. Thank you.
-
"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."
whether or not that quote is made up, it's true.
it is totally plausible, if redwood trees were put into an enviornment that became gradually more selective of squids over millions, perhaps billions of years. herp derp. next question, please.
-
Not really. They would become plants who would have a kind of behavious similar to squids, similar enough to survive into that environment, but they would never grow a brain, or eyes, they will always be "trees".
-
Not really. They would become plants who would have a kind of behavious similar to squids, similar enough to survive into that environment, but they would never grow a brain, or eyes, they will always be "trees".
given enuogh time and unlimited resources, you could make them into anything physically possible. OBVIOUSLY it'll never happen, but it's an interesting thought.
-
Yes, we've established that. But they would still be trees.
-
Yes, we've established that. But they would still be trees.
so squids are trees now?
-
No. Have you read the thread? Anything evolved from a squid is by definition a squid. It can never escape that.
-
No matter the time, things can change in shape and abilities, but they will never stop being what they are. I know the thread is long, but don't do this, because you look really uninterested, and claiming silly things.
-
For example, birds are dinosaurs.
-
No matter the time, things can change in shape and abilities, but they will never stop being what they are. I know the thread is long, but don't do this, because you look really uninterested, and claiming silly things.
meh.
-
Neither I would.
-
Neither I would.
lolwut
-
"I wouldn't do it either".
I thought it would have a similar structure to "So do I", oh wait...
Jesus. My English gets worse every day.
-
"I wouldn't do it either".
I thought it would have a similar structure to "So do I", oh wait...
Jesus. My English gets worse every day.
it's evolving into a squid.
-
But it will still be English. Just an English squid.
-
Yes, we've established that. But they would still be trees.
so squids are trees now?
We have never observed anything evolve out of it's ancestry. Vertebrates will always diverge into new types of vertebrates, mammals will always diverge into new types of mammals, but a mammal will never evolve into a reptile. Redwoods are by definition on an entirely different clade from squids. Though it may be possible, nothing like a plant has been shown to evolve into an animal, which is on an entire separate lineage than a plant.
-
Squids evolved from trees
-
There are octopuses that can walk on land but they still need to be wet, and octopuses change color, among those color there's green and brown...
Can we infer that if an octopus, in brown and red, starts living in the land, but using water... it has evolved into a tree? or it's in the process?
Think 'bout it!
-
There are octopuses that can walk on land but they still need to be wet, and octopuses change color, among those color there's green and brown...
Can we infer that if an octopus, in brown and red, starts living in the land, but using water... it has evolved into a tree? or it's in the process?
Think 'bout it!
You are a bit lost on terms.
The author of the original claim, a real geneticist talking to a knowledgeable audience, neglected to say "a living being with lots of the characteristics of a squid" but instead said "squid". He was talking about a supposed planet, explicitly not Earth. And the subject at hand was the extent to which living beings can evolve, not the jumping from one existing species to another existing species.
If cells from a redwood get detached from the original tree and start evolving separately in a land which is totally barren from all other competing life forms the same cycle from which life on Earth evolved would start in this supposed planet, eventually producing animals as complex as squids or humans. Or at least that is what the author claimed. And his supposed planet has specific conditions, it is not just any planet.
When you take a one hour conference and just extract half a sentence without context you get this kind of thread.
-
I had understood it perfectly, Trig. I was just making a joke according to the mood of the posts prior to mine.
But thanks for the info anyway!.
-
I had understood it perfectly, Trig. I was just making a joke according to the mood of the posts prior to mine.
But thanks for the info anyway!.
Sorry about killing the joke, but in a forum that is a joke it is hard to tell tongue-in-cheek from tin-foil-hat.
Most people in this thread do believe that a renowned, real scientist said that a tree could morf into a squid, and that completely destroys my faith in humanity.
-
I had understood it perfectly, Trig. I was just making a joke according to the mood of the posts prior to mine.
But thanks for the info anyway!.
Sorry about killing the joke, but in a forum that is a joke it is hard to tell tongue-in-cheek from tin-foil-hat.
Most people in this thread do believe that a renowned, real scientist said that a tree could morf into a squid, and that completely destroys my faith in humanity.
Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?
-
I had understood it perfectly, Trig. I was just making a joke according to the mood of the posts prior to mine.
But thanks for the info anyway!.
Sorry about killing the joke, but in a forum that is a joke it is hard to tell tongue-in-cheek from tin-foil-hat.
Most people in this thread do believe that a renowned, real scientist said that a tree could morf into a squid, and that completely destroys my faith in humanity.
A tree could eventually evolve into a squid given enough time and the proper circumstances. The odds of it happening are just extremely low.
-
How did this survive so long without any creationists?
-
How did this survive so long without any creationists?
Casterides left a long time ago - this thread should just die already.
Berny
-
Don't worry, I'm sure another dishonest creationist will be around sooner or later to pick it up where Cass left off.
-
Don't worry, I'm sure another Cass alt will be around sooner or later to pick it up where Cass left off.
Fixed.