|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4494 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question Evolution! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not so much "set me straight" as I am not arguing against evolution. I am just trying to make sense of some things that just don't seem straight forward to me. I see, I misunderstood you when you wrote this:
quote: I took that as you saying that there are still things about the Theory of Evolution, i.e. RM+NS, that you haven't accepted yet. But you're not questioning the theory, itself, you're trying to get a better understanding of how the theory can explain some observed facts. So that's good. Some honest learning Too often when people "Question Evolution", rather than honest learning they're looking to reaffirm other beliefs by attacking the theory, itself.
Unfortunately, not a whole lot of response (not as active a topic as little Jimmy's). Maybe you can provide some insight to my questions? Its a lot easier to talk generally about the theory than getting into specifics like you bring up. I'll have to catch up with a lot of reading before I can make a meaningful reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4453 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hey Chuck,
I provided an answer to question 4 here - Message 127.
Everyones answers are really great and I would love to submit them to CMI to show that this is a fine campaingn as evidenced by this thread. As outlined in Message 110 I have already contacted CMI with regards to this campaign. I have issued an open offer for them to support their claims in open and honest debate. I have received a reply -
quote: This is pretty much the response I expected if any response was given at all. They are not interested in intellectual honesty or debate. I have read through their responses sections. They do not provide any of the responses or include links to them. Basically, they reword or clump similar responses into catagories (likely to their advantage), then they offer a rebuttal with no avenue to respond. When they have offered their rebuttal, they consider that issue to be closed and covered and they have won the point. You believe that we have not done enough to answer the questions? I was '2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award'. I may as well go for the prize again in 2012. I will start a thread in response to the questions, one at a time and answer them in full. I will do what CMI is not willing to do. I will openly debate the issues in an honest and free forum where I do not have the ability to censor or silence opposition. I invite you to read and comment on my answer to the questions in an open and free manner. This too is a opportunity that CMI is not giving to its opposition. This is how our side play. The new thread will be titled - 15 questions for Evolutionists - Question 1 answered On another note... One thing I find really ironic with regards to the reply I received from CMI is the author of the email, Don Batton. Here is what Don Batton had to say about Carl Bough and his 'humans lived with dinosaurs' theories -
quote:(Sources : Carl Baugh - Wikipedia http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html ) That is exactly the same thing that we are saying about his claims. From the last paragraph with one small change - We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like *Don Batton and the people at CMI*, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Tag writes: Yes, science is a bit more complicated than "God did it". Get used to it. Yeah tell me about it! Apperantly it's so complicated that no one can explain it... Ahhh well. Hey, their teaching something to the kids in school right? What is it...that picture of the geologic column? Then they use the finch beaks? Variation within a kind and pass it off as "the theory of evolution". It's quite a charade they have going. So in the text books it'a all lies because we know variation within a kind doesn't equal what the theory really teaches does it Taq? What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe. Get used to it. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
I'm terribly sorry to hear that Creation Ministries aka CMI did not take your request on as of course you expected them to alert the various news outlets of your request and put all else aside just for you and your supporters. Yes, quite a shame.
Maybe you can email the President of the United States next time and see if He has time to look over your next PNT for a quick critique?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
With all due respect, please learn something already!
The ideas of how evolution works are not that complicated. How they apply to specific examples can indeed become complicated. That's no different than with physics. The basic principles of physics are simple and straight-forward, but their application to specific examples can become very complicated because of the multitude of factors that have to be applied. Eg, two bodies of different masses dropped from the same height should drop at the same velocity, as was demonstrated on the surface of the moon when a hammer and a feather were both dropped at the same time. OK, if you repeat the same experiment on the surface of the earth, then you also have to take into account atmospheric drag and other factors as well. A simple, straight-forward physics principle suddenly gets over-complicated by extraneous factors such as atmospheric drag. So, no, it's not so complicated that "no one can explain it". But it does take a certain amount of thinking about it. So as long as you refuse to do due diligence, you're never going to understand it. Like with any other idea that exists. So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit? And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same?
What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe. What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case. Kingdom: AnimaliaAre we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are. Phylum: Chordata Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are. Class: Mammalia Are we mammals? Yes we are. Order: Primates Are we primates? Yes we are. Family: Hominidae Are we of that family? Yes we are. Tribe: Hominini Are we of that tribe? Yes we are. Subtribe: Hominina Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are. Genus: Homo Are we of that genus? Yes we are. Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello? Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello? Get used to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
OK, so CMI chose to ignore the response. Which means that they choose to ignore any response that does not agree with their own personal delusion.
They have chosen to live within their own personal delusion. Which means that they do not want to deal with reality. You are supporting them fully. Which means that you also do not want to deal with reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit? Well yeah sure. Does the geologic column even exist?
And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same? No problem at all everything they needed to adapt was in their DNA. What's your problem?
chuck writes: What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe. dwise writes: What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case. Kingdom: AnimaliaAre we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are. Phylum: Chordata Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are. Class: Mammalia Are we mammals? Yes we are. Order: Primates Are we primates? Yes we are. Family: Hominidae Are we of that family? Yes we are. Tribe: Hominini Are we of that tribe? Yes we are. Subtribe: Hominina Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are. Genus: Homo Are we of that genus? Yes we are. Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello? Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello? Get used to it. Oh my. I don't even know what any of that means. In english huh? English this time? Does the TOE say we all branchedd off from some sort of common anscestor? If it does then who were they? Don't say because of DNA either. That just implies a common designer. Get your own ideas. Don't steal from the Bible. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
The reality is we are here. Nothing cannot create something. Sorry. I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese. Your smarter than that right dwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah tell me about it! Apperantly it's so complicated that no one can explain it... Ahhh well. Hey, their teaching something to the kids in school right? What is it...that picture of the geologic column? Then they use the finch beaks? Variation within a kind and pass it off as "the theory of evolution". It's quite a charade they have going. So in the text books it'a all lies because we know variation within a kind doesn't equal what the theory really teaches does it Taq? Again, coherently?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I'm terribly sorry to hear that Creation Ministries aka CMI did not take your request on as of course you expected them to alert the various news outlets of your request and put all else aside just for you and your supporters. Yes, quite a shame. Maybe you can email the President of the United States next time and see if He has time to look over your next PNT for a quick critique? It was silly and naive of Butterflytyrant to suppose that creationists ask questions because they want answers. As we have seen, they ask questions because they want to disguise lies as questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Try reading it this time. It's easy to understand. Even a child could. Are you smarter than a child doc?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
It was silly and naive of Butterflytyrant to suppose that creationists ask questions because they want answers. No kidding man. I'm with you. Some answers would be cool. I'm right there with you Doc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Try reading it this time. It's easy to understand. Even a child could. Are you smarter than a child doc? Perhaps you overestimate yourself. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Nothing cannot create something. Sorry. I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese. Your smarter than that right dwise? Ding ding ding! Virtual Particles. Ding ding dong?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Chuck77 writes: We know. Hope you realize this applies to your chosen god or gods, too. Nothing cannot create something. Remember, energy can't be created, nor destroyed. It means that we couldn't have been created. Not by any kind of god or gods. Chuck77 writes: Yes we feel very sorry for you. Clinging to a bronze-age book with all those mistakes must be a bummer. Sorry. Chuck77 writes: Which particles? Atoms? I don't know much about physics, but I know that the Atom Theory is also "just" a scientific theory. But, it works, as the city I live in is powered by results of that theory. I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese. Chuck77 writes: That's pretty much like a parrot calling a genius stupid. We laugh at it, because it is funny. Then we call the parrot pretty boy. And he repeats it, too! Your smarter than that right dwise? You’re welcome to start a thread on "the" geological column. It is geology and not part of the ToE. In the meantime, I can provide you with a definition for a geological column as accepted and used by geologists. Gary, M., McAfee, R., Jr, Wolf, C.L., (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C. 805pp.
Glossary of Geology writes: (a) A composite diagram that shows in a single column the subdivisions or part or all of geologic time or the sequence of stratigraphic units of a given locality or region (the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top, with dips adjusted to the horizontal) so arranged as to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time and their relative positions to each other. See also columnar section. (b) The vertical or chronologic arrangement or sequence of rock units portrayed in a geologic column. See also: geologic section.---Syn. Stratigraphic column. If you would want to, you can start a thread on it. I would be very happy to discuss the geologic column. It exists. Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024