Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 271 of 305 (432625)
11-07-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by IamJoseph
11-07-2007 4:48 AM


Your posts do not seem to make any sense - we have a communication problem.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem to be suggesting that adapation must be false because life that does not exist does not show adapation.
I think we all agree that things that do not exist do not show evidence of evolution.
Edited by CK, : title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2007 4:48 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 1:50 AM CK has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 272 of 305 (432630)
11-07-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by IamJoseph
11-07-2007 2:36 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Alphabetical books, not alphabetical listing, is what was obviously meant here.
I don't understand what you mean by "alphabetical book." Do you mean "phonetic writing system"?
India is an older culture, and should logically have pre-dating writings
It does.
But equally, can you offer any explanation why ancient egypt, sumerian, phoenecian, chinese or indian writings - have not the same ancient output as the hebrew, in most cases being bereft of any finds - in terms of hard copy proofs in a consecutive thread evidencing their history?
Discontinuous cultures. The first Qin emperor of China, for instance, had a great deal of Chinese literature burned.
Nonetheless, enough writing survives from those times that we know those cultures had writings.
We know that there is no mention of Abraham, Ishmael, jacob, etc from any other source than from the OT, despite that many nations interacted with these figures.
Which indicates that these were mythical figures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2007 2:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 2:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 273 of 305 (432633)
11-07-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 6:35 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
I should have known better than to talk with a mad person, only I was bored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 6:35 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 274 of 305 (432639)
11-07-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 2:35 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Lunar calendars were around, but not with lunar, solar and earth movements, the only one scientifically vindicated - and which came with the OT. This is the oldest and most accurate calender - it was required, as many OT laws were seasonal, date, day and time based.
Actually - the Jewish year accounts for the solar discrepancy in the same way as the Sumerians did - by including extra 'leap' months. Of course, there was at least one other calendar that was much closer to the scientifically vindicated one. The Haab' had 365 days in the year - which is pretty good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 2:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 2:27 AM Modulous has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 305 (432678)
11-07-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by IamJoseph
11-07-2007 3:50 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
I gave you examples on the specific factors of ToE, which you responded as babble, namely an imprint in a fossil resembling another, does not necessaily prove what is concluded of it I sited that life forms can emulate other life forms traits, and this does not conclude speciation - the example of birds and planes here, is hardly outside the subject point or babble - even if it is not your preferred selection of criteria, as presented by ToE scientists! - that both are connected; numerous other reasons can apply.
And what I pointed out was that you needed to provide an alternative and show how it was a better explanation for all the evidence involved. Of course nothing is necessarily proven in any science, so your argument that this case is special for evolution is as bogus as your twisted terminology. The relationships of forms changing over time is easily explained by evolution for example, but not by every one being a convergent evolution from entirely unrelated different species.
You repeat that "numerous other reasons can apply" yet the only thing you can dredge up is a poor example of an inadequate conceptualization for covergent evolution - an explanation that relies on evolution to be true to show that evolution is false?
Likewise your "example of birds and planes" has nothing to do with evolution nor anything to do with speciation and the development of different lines of life.
Let me go further for you: even if 2 or 3 parts of a jigsaw puzzle [the kind we all used as children], were connected with exacting parts on two life form relics - it does not mean what ToE has concluded of it - even allowing for the notorious reconstructionism undergone in ToE science labs! Why? because we have no surrounding evidences which match that conclusion: those parts of the jigsaw could have been dislodged there by the wind or tsunami, or grown out of consumed foods and simply continued to grow for some time. Such periphery impressions, used to make epochial conclusions, at best come under circumstantial evidences, not proof, and they become cancelled as evdential candidates by the lack of required surrounding and extra back-up proof. No one found a half zebra and half-whatever; we should have millions of these, w/o pause.
Most of this is just more babble, more inability to learn from past mistakes and unwillingness to let go of false beliefs, even where they apply to what you think is science in general and evolution in particular.
Anyone who says evolution involves "a half zebra and half-whatever" is telling outright falsehoods, and anyone who repeats this kind of nonsense is guilty of passing on falsehoods without verifying their (total lack of) validity. You can easily verify this by reading any textbook on evolution and looking for "half and half" creatures being discussed.
Now I should accuse you of babbling: you had no response at all in defining what an 'on-going process' is, and how it must display itself against the millions of years scenario presented by ToE's casino science. I gave you examples of blue marbles turning red every 10 days [recall it?]: when exactly does the process cease in this on-going process - will we cease seeing blue marbles turning to red ever - why?
Because you were babbling again. This is nonsense that is irrelevant to the way evolution works and the evidence for it.
Don't believe everything you believe. FYI, I have no problem with an underlying imperical process in any of the universe's structures, in both the micro and macro, and this is blatant and not debatable. The human body, gravity and pineapples verify this. I have only a problem in certain sectors and its conclusions made in ToE, such as the extent of the pervasive speciation referred to therein, which I see as limited with definitive borders. I can see that graduations and advancements [adaptation] occur - as we see in ancient and modern man - however, this factor, as well as NS, are seed derived - but totally; and ToE cannot evidence itself independently of this factor.
I'll believe evidence that invalidates concepts, especially ill-defined concepts based more on desire for delusion than a basis in reality. As I have said before that once you believe that the evidence is or must be false in order to believe a concept that there is no rational way to discern truth for any belief -- purple unicorns, flat earth, and flying pigs are as valid as what you believe. It is only by believing that all evidence is true to reality that we can make any conclusions. When you say you believe the results of "imperical process" (sic) in things like gravity, but that you have "only a problem in certain sectors and its conclusions made in ToE" you are saying that your conclusion tells you that the evidence is false. This is delusiont.
Most ToE enthusiasts become lost in the nuts and bolts of premises provided by ToE scientists, who have already accepted ToE as the new, non-negotiable religion, and do not look elsewhere from it. The million years scenario is bunks - the basic maths fells it. Crocs and roaches are said to have not adapted much from the most prImodial periods: why not? Is there no more adaptation to be had - no more advancements than being crocs and roachs? Contrastingly, adaptation can also belong to a cat, which is a size-reduced feline from its past, which allows it better access to longevity of its kind than sabers. Endless other possibilities can apply: the one which wins is that which does not refer you to a bogus million year scenario, and displays its premises in our midst, without exceptions. Its an important, fulcrum issue for mankind, and should be demanded of more than is given: it is not a fact, but a theory with much disputation. Thus far, a host of unscientific premises have result, directly to uphold ToE: complexity from randomity, for example, which is a related and non-babble non-science.
Self delusional nonsense and babble. You keep saying there are "Endless other possibilities" and yet fail to mention even one that can explain the same evidence that evolution explains.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2007 3:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 3:17 AM RAZD has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 276 of 305 (432757)
11-08-2007 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by CK
11-07-2007 11:12 AM


Re: Your posts do not seem to make any sense - we have a communication problem.
quote:
I think we all agree that things that do not exist do not show evidence of evolution.
Correct, that is why adaptation cannot be posited as a universal constant, by reason of no life on pluto: but this is what has been presented here as being a sound arguement. Nor can biologists use a response, evolution starts only after life already exists, or that the issue is in the cosmological arena, when the entire principle is the one thread, and one sector does not subsist without the others.
New blocks of faculties specific to a particular subject is fine - provided they are in fact particular and not connected inter-dependent ones.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by CK, posted 11-07-2007 11:12 AM CK has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 277 of 305 (432762)
11-08-2007 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
11-07-2007 11:49 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
I don't understand what you mean by "alphabetical book." Do you mean "phonetic writing system"?
This refers to a multi-page continueing narrative [book], which can be made of scrolls, parchments or even clay or stone tablets, in the alphabetical [non-picture] mode. e.g. the dead sea scrolls, which contains the book of Isaiah, in alphabetical hebrew. though it is not a required factor, but ideally, such books also contain historically contemporanous data, such as dates, events and names of figureheads and places, which can be cross-checked with other historical and/or archeological factors.
quote:
India is an older culture, and should logically have pre-dating writings
It does.
If this is in hard copy, as opposed to 'IT IS BELIEVED' premises, then put it up for examination. There is no question India is a far older civilization, however I have not found any reliable proof in the aspect of alphabetical books here: there are none of these in the Mohenjodaro relics or chinese history.
quote:
Discontinuous cultures. The first Qin emperor of China, for instance, had a great deal of Chinese literature burned.
Then it disqualifies as hard proof. It is surprising that no alphebatical books remain, not even from near post-Qin dynasty. One has to be fair in what is accepted as criteria for no proof: there is no civilisation which has been subjected to more upheavel, dispersions and destructions than ancient Israel, yet they possess the most evidences of alphabetical books, while the surrounding nations have almost never experienced dispersions and exiles, and remained in the same region for eons - but have no equivalent historical archives. If there is a significance from the latter, it is that alphabeticals occured suddenly and in an already advanced mode: an anomoly.
quote:
We know that there is no mention of Abraham, Ishmael, jacob, etc from any other source than from the OT, despite that many nations interacted with these figures.
Which indicates that these were mythical figures.
The reverse is the case. There is the Egyptian Tel mentioning Israel, and it is older than 3000 years. King David, once touted as a mythical figure, has been scientifically evidenced in the Dan Tel discovery; loads f 1stand 2nd temple coins and relics with ancient alphabetical hebrew have been found. The pre-3000 narratives in the OT, referring to kings, nations, land terrains and countries - are all mentioned by names and dates, and remain one of the most proven histories. You are mistaken, and there is no need for e to expand on this here - its off subject some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2007 11:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2007 1:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 278 of 305 (432763)
11-08-2007 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Modulous
11-07-2007 1:39 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
There is no calendar even near as accurate as the OT one, which can predict a sunset a 100K years in advance, to less than 20 seconds accuracy. This is acknowledged in most scientific assessments. When examined, it also shows the earth has to be a moving spheare [not flat], with predictable results, and that the sun is relatively motionless. It is also the oldest active calendar. Its meaning is, there is total science and maths vindication in Genesis.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2007 1:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 11:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 279 of 305 (432766)
11-08-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
11-07-2007 6:37 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
quote:
And what I pointed out was that you needed to provide an alternative and show how it was a better explanation for all the evidence involved.
Why do you want more and better, when my examples are provable and manifest, and not limited to conclusions based on academic re-constructionism?
quote:
The relationships of forms changing over time is easily explained by evolution for example, but not by every one being a convergent evolution from entirely unrelated different species.
Not necessarily. The principle employed leaves no other alternative than this is a connected premise. The twists and turns of non-continuous convergence does not negate the continuous process: the same principle binds them, with no other possible meanings. This is what I mean by casino science being planted into the arena when it suits, and it is a wonder you condone it, while still positing your arguement as a science premise: no one need ask, if such a distortion is conscrued only because the continuous speciation line cannot be proven! And it can't.
quote:
You repeat that "numerous other reasons can apply" yet the only thing you can dredge up is a poor example of an inadequate conceptualization for covergent evolution - an explanation that relies on evolution to be true to show that evolution is false?
Of course I can dredge up more, but not when you charge my examples as poor examples. There is nothing poor about them.
quote:
Likewise your "example of birds and planes" has nothing to do with evolution nor anything to do with speciation and the development of different lines of life.
Let me put it more blatantly simpler for you: if one life form can emulate other life forms and come up with flying planes and crouching tigers - so can other life forms. And this definitely has an impact on adaptation: it did not happen millions of years ago, and continues on many levels with a host of everyday examples. Alternatively, perhaps you can give some examples of traits which are excluviely related to adaptation?
quote:
Anyone who says evolution involves "a half zebra and half-whatever" is telling outright falsehoods, and anyone who repeats this kind of nonsense is guilty of passing on falsehoods without verifying their (total lack of) validity. You can easily verify this by reading any textbook on evolution and looking for "half and half" creatures being discussed.
Its not a Q of falsehoods or not understanding what ToE is saying. Its about whether one accepts the logic of going from A to Z directly, and indirectly, amounting to justifying a faulty principle; if the A to B is faulty, the rest is faulty; if the A to Z is faulty, the B to C is faulty - is my point. I explained also, the time factor was irrelevent in evidencing your claim, thus the transit phase time factors are also irrelevent in an on-going process; the transit phases are based on the same principle each time it occurs, namely that of speciation. If it is wrong to begin with - the intermediary twists and turns are also wrong, namely each sector is wrong as with the first one.
quote:
Now I should accuse you of babbling: you had no response at all in defining what an 'on-going process' is, and how it must display itself against the millions of years scenario presented by ToE's casino science. I gave you examples of blue marbles turning red every 10 days [recall it?]: when exactly does the process cease in this on-going process - will we cease seeing blue marbles turning to red ever - why?
Because you were babbling again. This is nonsense that is irrelevant to the way evolution works and the evidence for it.
Replace the marbles with life forms: choose your ToE species, how they change, and evidence it as an on-going process, and why that life form, or part thereof, does not have to become a zebra - by virtue of it becoming something else a 100 times, and then a zebra emerges. There is no dif here, and only one principle applies - its a contrived one to deflect a glitch.
quote:
I'll believe evidence that invalidates concepts, especially ill-defined concepts based more on desire for delusion than a basis in reality. As I have said before that once you believe that the evidence is or must be false in order to believe a concept that there is no rational way to discern truth for any belief -- purple unicorns, flat earth, and flying pigs are as valid as what you believe. It is only by believing that all evidence is true to reality that we can make any conclusions. When you say you believe the results of "imperical process" (sic) in things like gravity, but that you have "only a problem in certain sectors and its conclusions made in ToE" you are saying that your conclusion tells you that the evidence is false. This is delusiont.
Non-babble, if it makes you feel good.
quote:
Self delusional nonsense and babble. You keep saying there are "Endless other possibilities" and yet fail to mention even one that can explain the same evidence that evolution explains.
The concept for evolution came from genesis, so we have another premise here, how life forms emerge, develop, multiply, and transmit all data - with no deficiencies, and without any assistance from ToE, and that ToE cannot prove itself in the absence of the genesis provision. We know for a fact this occurs in our midst, and has occured throughout recorded time: its called 'a seed following its own kind'. Why do you deflect and trivialise the term 'babble' so much - do life forms not follow their own kind - except in ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2007 6:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2007 9:20 PM IamJoseph has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 280 of 305 (432809)
11-08-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by IamJoseph
11-08-2007 2:27 AM


importance of facts sin
There is no calendar even near as accurate as the OT one, which can predict a sunset a 100K years in advance, to less than 20 seconds accuracy.
The currently used Hebrew Calendar is accurate, but as far as I am aware that was adopted after Christ was said to have been around. Their earlier calendar (the OT one) seems to have been inspired by other sources, such as the Babylonian one.
quote:
Until the fifth century BC the calendar was fully observational, but beginning about 499 BC the months began to be regulated by a lunisolar cycle of 19 years equaling 235 months. Although usually called the Metonic cycle, Meton (432 BC) probably learned of the cycle from the Babylonians. After no more than three isolated exceptions, by 380 BC the months of the calendar were regulated by the cycle without exception. Within the cycle of 19 years, the month Adaru 2 was intercalated, except in the year that was number 17 in the cycle, when the month Ululu 2 was inserted. During this period, the first day of each month (beginning at sunset) continued to be the day when a new crescent moon was first sighted”the calendar never used a specified number of days in any month.
(wiki), which puts to rest your idea of no other lunisolar calendars.
It is also the oldest active calendar. Its meaning is, there is total science and maths vindication in Genesis.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Hebrews or the Mayans were incapable of doing maths and observation. That doesn't vindicate Genesis, or their assorted religious texts either.
Here's some science, I'll let you judge it as you may.
365 + (349/1440) mean solar days in a year as calculated by science.
365 + (24311/98496) mean solar days in a year as calculated in the Hebrew Calendar circa Hillel II.
The difference between the two is slightly less than 1/224 of a day.
Every two and a fifth centuries, it is wrong by a day. After 100,000 years it will be out by almost 450 days!
I'm not a massive expert - but if you want to make a cogent argument about the accuracy of the Hebrew Calendar, propose a new topic on it since a quick error correction of mine is now spinning into an offtopic subthread.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : I've got no idea how the title got like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 2:27 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 6:18 AM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 305 (432823)
11-08-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by IamJoseph
11-08-2007 2:17 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
I'll be honest with you, Joe - I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Since I can't understand your argument, I certainly am not going to be able to grapple with it one way or another.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 2:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 6:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 282 of 305 (432887)
11-08-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by IamJoseph
11-08-2007 3:17 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
Why do you want more and better, when my examples are provable and manifest, and not limited to conclusions based on academic re-constructionism?
You said that there were many possibilities other than evolution as an explanation of the evidence, so I've asked for one. Your examples of planes with wings and tail-lights do not explain the evidence they just say "look: airplanes haves wings and tail-lights" -- and the explanations need to be better than evolution because otherwise evolution is the better answer ... or are you happy with inferior work?
Not necessarily. The principle employed leaves no other alternative than this is a connected premise. The twists and turns of non-continuous convergence does not negate the continuous process: the same principle binds them, with no other possible meanings.
Absolutely meaningless babble.
This is what I mean by casino science ...
Which, seeing as it is meaningless doesn't refute squat. Calling something you have made up "casino science" is meaningless as well when you make no connection with reality.
... and it is a wonder you condone it, while still positing your arguement as a science premise: no one need ask, if such a distortion is conscrued only because the continuous speciation line cannot be proven! And it can't.
Except you are talking about your babble version of your own personal delusion, and not science or evolution.
Of course I can dredge up more, but not when you charge my examples as poor examples. There is nothing poor about them.
And yet curiously you cannot demonstrate them to be any BUT poor examples, NOR can you provide an explanation for how your POOR examples show your non-existent explanation to be valid.
Ad hoc examples + NO explanation = meaningless babble.
Let me put it more blatantly simpler for you: if one life form can emulate other life forms and come up with flying planes and crouching tigers - so can other life forms.
Now demonstrate that this has any bearing on the all the types of life we currently see on this planet. Show how those types of life come to be from the fossil record and the genetic lineages in a manner that explains the fossil record and the genetic lineage through the processes we see in living systems today. Demonstrate how different forms of life came to be, including crouching tigers.
And this definitely has an impact on adaptation: it did not happen millions of years ago, and continues on many levels with a host of everyday examples. Alternatively, perhaps you can give some examples of traits which are excluviely related to adaptation?
Saying this does not make it so. The current fossil record shows change occurring over millions of years in all fossil lineages.
Its not a Q of falsehoods or not understanding what ToE is saying. Its about whether one accepts the logic of going from A to Z directly, and indirectly, amounting to justifying a faulty principle; if the A to B is faulty, the rest is faulty; if the A to Z is faulty, the B to C is faulty - is my point. I explained also, the time factor was irrelevent in evidencing your claim, thus the transit phase time factors are also irrelevent in an on-going process; the transit phases are based on the same principle each time it occurs, namely that of speciation. If it is wrong to begin with - the intermediary twists and turns are also wrong, namely each sector is wrong as with the first one.
More meaningless irrelevant babble, and wrong too: " if the A to Z is faulty, the B to C is faulty" is a false conclusion, as it is possible that only A is faulty.
Replace the marbles with life forms: choose your ToE species, how they change, and evidence it as an on-going process, and why that life form, or part thereof, does not have to become a zebra - by virtue of it becoming something else a 100 times, and then a zebra emerges. There is no dif here, and only one principle applies - its a contrived one to deflect a glitch.
But your marbles bear no relationship to life forms, just as your plane and tail-lights are not life forms. In evolutionary terms no organism has to become a zebra or any other type of life we see: this is a false characterization of evolution caused by ignorance and babble.
The concept for evolution came from genesis, so we have another premise here, how life forms emerge, develop, multiply, and transmit all data - with no deficiencies, and without any assistance from ToE, and that ToE cannot prove itself in the absence of the genesis provision. We know for a fact this occurs in our midst, and has occured throughout recorded time: its called 'a seed following its own kind'. Why do you deflect and trivialise the term 'babble' so much - do life forms not follow their own kind - except in ToE?
No, the concept for evolution came from observing life, animal breeding with human selection and the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation for all known life. What you call "a seed following its own kind" is nothing more than the evidence of common ancestry in all life. The rest of your argument is all babble designed to obscure the fact that you don't understand science or evolution while vainly attempting to look like you are saying something. With this result:
Message 281 - crashfrog:
I'll be honest with you, Joe - I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Since I can't understand your argument, I certainly am not going to be able to grapple with it one way or another.
That's what happens when you babble eh? You end up making a long post that is essentially meaningless.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : end

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 3:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 283 of 305 (433469)
11-12-2007 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Modulous
11-08-2007 11:01 AM


Re: importance of facts sin
quote:
The currently used Hebrew Calendar is accurate, but as far as I am aware that was adopted after Christ was said to have been around. Their earlier calendar (the OT one) seems to have been inspired by other sources, such as the Babylonian one.
Impossible: only the name of a long existing festival was changed by christianity. The passover, called 'last supper' in the NT, was observed since Joashua's times [after entry into canaan], and in the first temple period [900 BCE], while its inaugration occured 39 days after the exodus from egypt: the temple festivals were not possible to observe w/o the Hebrew calendar, which predates christianity and the Israelite interaction with Babylon in 586 BCE; the passover was observed in Babylon by Israelites exiled there.
I think the calendar issue is very important, and impacts on science via historical pointers. Below is bits of a discussion from another place, which says the influences of Babylon came later. Basically, the issues are in controversy of their origins in all western links and archives, including the Babylonian connection: the observance of the Hebrew calendar was active in the first temple period [900BCE], and the festivals such as Passover was observed before the temple was destroyed by Babylon. The exact dates of the exodus, the cencus in the desert, and the calendar adjusted to align with the leaving of egypt, are known and predate any Israelite interaction with Babylon.
The accadians and sumerians predate the babylonian language but they come from the same area. The names of months were later taken from Babylonian, after the israelites were exiled there in 586 BCE. The bible lists other names for Jewish months but mostly mentions them according to their order, the first being Khodesh HaAviv, now referred to as Nissan.
The issue of taking on board from the surroundings is a normal interaction, but the trick is in discarding the incorrect and retaining the correct: reading and correcting MC2 are two different tresholds. The Hebrew calendar is 5776 years, and the first to use the sun and moon in alignment with earth movements. It is described as the most accurate, and it correctly appears before the advent of laws which are based on dates and times. The Babylon calendar, like the ancient egyptian calendar, does not subsist anymore, nor can it predict last and future as can the OT calendar. The babylon calendar became obsolete when Persia conquered it, and the greek prevailed the Persian one. wiki is not a good source for anything concerning Israel.
Babylonian influence: from Babylonia.” This is generally understood to mean that during their exile in Babylonia the Jews borrowed these names from the language of their host country. (See Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and Ramban on Exodus 12:2.)http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm
This entire discussion is also an entirely Western Euro-centric view, because the Middle East and Asian countries use calendars that are totally different than ours anyway! The Hebrew calendar is really the only calendar that takes into account the motions of the sun, earth, and moon completely. [http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gcmastra/mail/calendar.html]
In 46 B. C., Julius Caesar, as Pontitex Maximus, decreed a new
calendar. In Egypt he had studied their Thoth calendar based upon a
solar year of 365-1/4 days. It included the 7-day week and "leap" years borrowed from the Hebrew calendar. Its year had 12 months, each with 30 days, ending with 5 or 6 days never used in public or private transactions.[http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/700-799/nb745.htm]
History of the Babylon calendar is 750 BCE, while the Hebrew calendar was in use well before this date, specially under King David and Solomon, which required dates for festivals, seasonal and jubilee observances: The "AN" years are the Era of Nabonassar, Anno Nabonassari, dating from the reign of the Babylonian King Nabns.iru in 747 BC. The names of months were influenced later.
Nisan is the first month of the religious year. Nisan (the name is derived from the Assyrian) has thirty days, and its zodiac sign is Aries (which the rabbis connected with the paschal lamb). In the earlier biblical books, this month's name is given as Aviv.
Babylonian influence came later, and is only recorded in the babylonian language in later post-Mosaic writings:
The name Elul is of Babylonian origin, and first appears in Hebrew Scripture in the Book of Nechemiah 6:15. [. — ’’]
Although the name of the month, Cheshvan, is of Babylonian origin, like all of the names of the months of the Hebrew calendar, it is sometimes given another name in the books of prophecy. In Kings 1:6 it is called the month of Bul. The boy's and girl's name Ziv \ziv\ is pronounced zeev. It is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is "radiance, brilliance or light of God". Also the name of the second month in the Jewish calendar that celebrates Israel's Independence.
[Jewish Heritage Online Magazine]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 11:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 11:30 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 284 of 305 (433473)
11-12-2007 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by crashfrog
11-08-2007 1:08 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
I'll be honest with you, Joe - I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Since I can't understand your argument, I certainly am not going to be able to grapple with it one way or another.
Science, IMHO, is one of the faculties from which verification is concluded, and it does not subsist in all cases unless backed by maths, history and geography. Some of the factors of ToE are in contradiction with Genesis, and this is the point of the debate. Unfortunately, ToE is based on promordial periods w/o dates, and cannot be aligned with historical datings, as can Genesis. Thus most of the evidence for ToE is academic and thesis based.
One of the main factors in contradiction is cross-speciation: although denied, I have posited that a zebra is traceable to a virus or amoeba, then a human, via the principle fostered in ToE, leaving no other meaning possible. The other factor debated is the understanding of an 'on-going process' - which makes void the millions of years factor employed by ToE for its evidencing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2007 1:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 285 of 305 (433478)
11-12-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by RAZD
11-08-2007 9:20 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
quote:
You said that there were many possibilities other than evolution as an explanation of the evidence, so I've asked for one. Your examples of planes with wings and tail-lights do not explain the evidence they just say "look: airplanes haves wings and tail-lights" -- and the explanations need to be better than evolution because otherwise evolution is the better answer ... or are you happy with inferior work?
I gave examples, and you call them babble. The tail-lights was an anology to show that humans emulate other life forms to 'adapt', w/o the factor of speciation. Perhaps you want to prove that emulation = speciation, but the criteria used is open to numerous other factors than speciation. Definitely it is so in our midst and in realtime: humans emulate in realtime.
quote:
Not necessarily. The principle employed leaves no other alternative than this is a connected premise. The twists and turns of non-continuous convergence does not negate the continuous process: the same principle binds them, with no other possible meanings.
Absolutely meaningless babble.
That bable means, if the original millions of years factor is irrelevent in an on-going process, so is the transit changes of ToE's speciation. Unless, ToE factors took a pause and never recovered; whereas in a contueing on-going process, its effect do not cease.
quote:
This is what I mean by casino science ...
Which, seeing as it is meaningless doesn't refute squat. Calling something you have made up "casino science" is meaningless as well when you make no connection with reality.
Its not meaningless if you accept the factors applicable in an on-going process; its non-acceptance is meaningless, which I described as casino science. In fact, it appears a double-edged slight of hand: the transic factor excuses appear to deflect from the requirements of proof in realtime. This is a good possibility, and yet you deny even that it can be so - w/o any basis. To conclude this point, 'IF' you accept the logic in an on-going process, there is no requirement for speciation to be limited to millions of years, and if this is the only evidence of ToE - it is casino science: no arguement here. If you do not accept, then you have to show why: I gave you further examples: marbles adaoting every 10 days do not become impacted by time. You responded with: NOTHING.
quote:
... and it is a wonder you condone it, while still positing your arguement as a science premise: no one need ask, if such a distortion is conscrued only because the continuous speciation line cannot be proven! And it can't.
Except you are talking about your babble version of your own personal delusion, and not science or evolution.
Ok, so millions of years ago, certain changes occured in life forms, and these cannot be evidenced again: then it is NOT a continueous process.
quote:
Let me put it more blatantly simpler for you: if one life form can emulate other life forms and come up with flying planes and crouching tigers - so can other life forms.
Now demonstrate that this has any bearing on the all the types of life we currently see on this planet. Show how those types of life come to be from the fossil record and the genetic lineages in a manner that explains the fossil record and the genetic lineage through the processes we see in living systems today. Demonstrate how different forms of life came to be, including crouching tigers.
Sure. Crouching tiger is a martial arts stance, derived from studying tigers - in the absence of any speciation or genetic lineage: humans did not come from tigers in this example, not even indirectly. Even if a fossil showed an imprint of a human crouching. Here, the proof is to show a half-tiger/half-human, or half and hapf of any other two life forms, w/o resorting to millions of years: the system is on-going, meaning it occurs today also.
quote:
Saying this does not make it so. The current fossil record shows change occurring over millions of years in all fossil lineages.
Can you explain why the need to resort to the million years scenario, if the process is ongoing? My point is, if it takes one million years to produce B from A, this process is also valid for 1M minus 5 seconds years ago; thus the change will be seen today, now, anytime - because the change instant is also on-going. Yes/no?
quote:
More meaningless irrelevant babble, and wrong too: " if the A to Z is faulty, the B to C is faulty" is a false conclusion, as it is possible that only A is faulty.
How so: if all changes in A to Z is all black colored, then the change factor in B to C is also black.
quote:
Replace the marbles with life forms: choose your ToE species, how they change, and evidence it as an on-going process, and why that life form, or part thereof, does not have to become a zebra - by virtue of it becoming something else a 100 times, and then a zebra emerges. There is no dif here, and only one principle applies - its a contrived one to deflect a glitch.
But your marbles bear no relationship to life forms, just as your plane and tail-lights are not life forms.
Not so: they are aligned by the principle employed. The marbles refer to on-going changes and how time does not impact; the tail-lights refer to emulation by a life form of another life form - w/o speciation occuring.
quote:
In evolutionary terms no organism has to become a zebra or any other type of life we see: this is a false characterization of evolution caused by ignorance and babble.
In ToE, all speciation occurs by the same principle. That the changes are compound factored [incorporating additionally adapted/evolved embellishments] - does not alter the equation.
quote:
The concept for evolution came from genesis, so we have another premise here, how life forms emerge, develop, multiply, and transmit all data - with no deficiencies, and without any assistance from ToE, and that ToE cannot prove itself in the absence of the genesis provision. We know for a fact this occurs in our midst, and has occured throughout recorded time: its called 'a seed following its own kind'. Why do you deflect and trivialise the term 'babble' so much - do life forms not follow their own kind - except in ToE?
No, the concept for evolution came from observing life, animal breeding with human selection and the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation for all known life.
No sir. The first chronological recording of life forms is in genesis; so is the mode of life form continuence from the seed, able to transmit all traits: well before toE was coined. Now your in denial too: Darwin, a religious man, was of the opinion he found a contradiction of 'GENESIS'. The observation factor does not invalidate a precedent recording of these issues, and their blatant similarity of the premises, given different reasonings only.
quote:
What you call "a seed following its own kind" is nothing more than the evidence of common ancestry in all life.
Common ancestry is babble: there is no ToE w/o the seed factor; there is repro and continuance w/o ToE. The dif!
quote:
The rest of your argument is all babble designed to obscure the fact that you don't understand science or evolution while vainly attempting to look like you are saying something. With this result:
Message 281 - crashfrog:
I'll be honest with you, Joe - I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Since I can't understand your argument, I certainly am not going to be able to grapple with it one way or another.
That's what happens when you babble eh? You end up making a long post that is essentially meaningless.
Maybe Cfrog can explain why an on-going process is effected and proven only with what happens millions of years ago, and not manifest always and at all times: because you have not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2007 9:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 9:48 AM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024