|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,508 Year: 6,765/9,624 Month: 105/238 Week: 22/83 Day: 1/4 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3971 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Just what the hell are you talking about when you say "naturalistic theory"? I would think that "naturalistic theory" would be the counterpart to "supernaturalistic theory", aka "Goddidit". And "Goddidit" is about all that "supernaturalistic theory" has to it. "Naturalistic theory" deals in the physical evidence (aka "worldly reality"). Which is the only thing real science has available to work with. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Yeah, well, that was not the question.
Sure, we could all try to guess what the creationists meant by what they had said. But that is all nothing more than idle speculation. Please keep in mind an unspoken and utterly false fundamentalist prejudice that a naturalistic explanation for anything would serve as disproof of God. PorknCheese's postings so far seem to support that idea that he would view any naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon would conflict with and disprove his theology. So then trying to guess what creationists mean is meaningless. What we need to do is to demand that they explain to us just what the fuck they are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 234 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Let's give PorknCheese the chance to start explaining what he/she meant with "the naturalistic theory" before he/she does anything else. It was in the first sentence of the OP. Lets first ignore the rest before the hopefully forthcoming explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 527 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
I tried to call ToE something else as not to provoke irrational conclusions about my beliefs and motives which instantly renders ToE false in my eyes.
I didn't want to do a part on religion but i will have to because its obviously a huge part of this theory. The first illustration is very similar to the ones iv seen being shown to primary school kids. If u don't agree then show me what is used. Are we allowed to copy and paste large sections of text like RAZD has? I was never allowed so I'm not addressing it. No one is able to show any pre cambrian evolution. So dust off ur hands and move on. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 527 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
Last time I was asked for references only for them to be rejected. A simple google search is all u need to do
Here are some books that question ToE and the cambrian eventDarwin's doubt What Darwin got wrong Darwin's dangerous ideas. And some linksDoes the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution | Evolution News Does the “Great Unconformity” Explain the Missing Cambrian Ancestors? | Evolution News So quit trying to act like i invented all this and try convince me of ToE. Applied science, u seriously want an explination. It's really just a ploy to deflect the focus from the topic.Google it if u don't know it. Do u ask for a verbal explination every time u hear a new term. Absurd LoL. "Mummy what does this mean?"..."Look it up son" Hahahaha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
P&C writes: The first illustration is very similar to the ones iv seen being shown to primary school kids. If u don't agree then show me what is used. You're not attributing your answers so it's difficult to know who you expect to reply to you, but I'll guess this is aimed at me? You claimed...
quote: So I think it totally reasonable to ask you to show when and where the diagram was used and to whom and to explain why you think it's a problem. That's a basic minimum if you want to comply with your own high standards. If you can't actually do that your premise fails at the first fence.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I tried to call ToE something else as not to provoke irrational conclusions about my beliefs and motives which instantly renders ToE false in my eyes. ... A ploy that failed evidently. What you need to do is be honest and say the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and then be sure you have the scientific ToE and not some scurvy Creationist dishonest version.
Are we allowed to copy and paste large sections of text like RAZD has? ... Yes, particularly of previous posts or posts on other threads that discussed the matter, and it was ignored, Yes if they are properly referenced and credited, and you then put your comments in your words ...
Message 20: Last time I was asked for references only for them to be rejected. ... Not because you cited them but because the references themselves were trash and not good references for the science you seem to be applying them to. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 670 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Porkncheese writes:
Nobody is suggesting that you invented anything. They're suggesting that the creationists who invented it are misleading you. So quit trying to act like i invented all this... For your own benefit, if you want to learn something, go to the people who know about it - i.e. scientists. Don't go to science-deniers to learn about science. You could have been more forthcoming about the fact that you're a creationist. Are you young-earth or old-earth?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Porkncheese writes: No one is able to show any pre cambrian evolution. So dust off ur hands and move on.
You haven't been able to demonstrate that Cambrian species lack evolutionary predecessors. Perhaps you could start there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 527 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils.
Im not being drawn into it. I just record these types of arguments as i will tally them up at the end of it all to reflect the attitude and response to ToE being questioned. I've stated my position and belief in the past so be my guest, repeat your mistakes from a year ago.That should really help the strength of your explination I've given my references. They are scientists. Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism. (doubtful) And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism."Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" I couldn't imagine stopping to ask someone a definition when its so easily obtained. Obviously a defensive tactic. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
No one is able to show any pre cambrian evolution. So dust off ur hands and move on.
I think you mean "I've refused to look at the ample evidence for pre-Cambrian evolution". The fossils are often hard to find, because none of them had bones, but they're out there and well-known.
Ediacaran biotaPatterns of Evolution of the Ediacaran Soft-Bodied Biota The advent of animals: The view from the Ediacaran Ediacaran (635—541 Ma)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I've given my references. They are scientists
Since they are not practicing science, but rather religious apologetics, they aren't scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 426 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So quit trying to act like i invented all this
You didn't invent this. Creationists did.. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
It sure would be nice if you used the features of this forum to identify the posts you are referring to...
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils. Well, maybe you think you provided evidence of missing fossils, but we didn't see it. You asserting that there are missing fossils is not evidence.
Im not being drawn into it. I just record these types of arguments as i will tally them up at the end of it all to reflect the attitude and response to ToE being questioned. I didn't see the ToE being questioned but rather your mistaken version of ToE. I saw you making false assertions about the fossil record. You refer to the fossil record from 150 years ago, not the state of our knowledge today.
And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism. No one asked for a definition of naturalism. We asked why you are using naturalistic theory and what you think it means.
I couldn't imagine stopping to ask someone a definition when its so easily obtained. Obviously a defensive tactic. Yeah, we know, but this is a science forum and we want to know what the fuck YOU mean when you use certain words. Using definitions for words that are not the way science defines them is an obvious creationist defensive tactic that we are very familiar with here at EvC.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Porkncheese writes:
I've given my references. They are scientists. Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism.
Which of those references describe a methodology for determining if a species has no evolutionary predecessors? How do you look at a fossil and determine if it had no ancestors?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024