Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5475 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 46 of 95 (333217)
07-19-2006 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
07-17-2006 7:48 AM


Re: what evidence for design
What evidence for design you ask - I don't care about design - and I never said that I did.
Talk about "lighten up" - I was agreeing with your statement about the helicopter's not being an example of the dragonfly. And, a funny porn movie is still a porn movie and your statement that "actually it is a comedy" is proof that you were demeaning.
Please respond to my statement that silly or malicious design does not preclude intelligent design (as in my Saturn clutch). I am interested in what you have to say. I am also interested in getting back to your post which sparked my interest.
RAZD writes:
Thus if you claim evolution is a fantasy, you should be able to demonstrate that it CAN'T be true. Making fantasy claims does not do that.
Absent such a demonstration the logical (again by the formal definition and criteria) conclusion is that it CAN be true: the realms {CAN} and {CAN'T} are mutually exclusive.
The platapus "bill", the giraffes long neck, etc, are {INSIGNIFICANT} in a discussion about evolution because there is no formula to put them into the {CAN'T} or {CAN} regions (it seems that we agree on this?). I am interested in cataloging the more commonly used facts. I want to jointly evaluate items of agreed significant evidence (possibly to be determined by the posters here). I want to eliminate all hand-waving and generalities. To do that, an editor for the {CAN} side is needed. While the editor and I may not agree on the interpertation of the facts, at least people will be able to a) refer to a logical presentation of the facts with each side's evaluation, b) evaluate our degree of fantasy/reality, and c) stop typing the same responses over and over.

The giraffe's long neck
The giraffe's long neck is suggested as evidence that evolution {CAN'T} be true.
BAE - {INSIGNIFICANT}i.e RAZD? - {INSIGNIFICANT}
BAE's statement - possibly by another author
RAZD's? statement - possibly by another author
Finally, when the forum was rehosted (due to disk space and traffic issues) a notice was sent out that space is available for rent to help support the forum. That offer may have been retracted. Please see message 1 at this link.
May we both enjoy!
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2006 7:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 8:19 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 80 by nator, posted 08-16-2006 7:01 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 95 (333241)
07-19-2006 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by BobAliceEve
07-19-2006 6:47 AM


Re: what evidence for design
And, a funny porn movie is still a porn movie and your statement that "actually it is a comedy" is proof that you were demeaning.
No, it is evidence that I was refering to comedy -- an adult comedy about sexual freedom in the 60's is still a comedy and not a porn movie:
porn
n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
From one of the reviews linked:
While its particulars remain rooted in the sexual revolution of the late 1960s, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice is remarkably timeless as a classic comedy of manners. ... that begins when sophisticated couple Bob and Carol (Robert Culp, Natalie Wood) attend a weekend retreat that opens their eyes to the possibilities of open marriage and mutual acceptance of extramarital affairs. ... The film hasn't lost any of its punch, perhaps because American sexual politics have returned to the conservatism that existed before Bob and Carol emerged as the signature comedy of the swinging sixties.
If you call a dog's tail a leg, then how many legs does it have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Please respond to my statement that silly or malicious design does not preclude intelligent design (as in my Saturn clutch).
The logical conclusion of the evidence for {Bad\Silly\Malicious\Malevolent} design is fallability, pranksterism, uncaring and evil: totally at odds with the way the "intelligent" designer is normally considered -- this is why {BOTH SIDES} of the design controversy need to be discussed.
The platapus "bill", the giraffes long neck, etc, are {INSIGNIFICANT} in a discussion about evolution because there is no formula to put them into the {CAN'T} or {CAN} regions (it seems that we agree on this?).
The evidence is that they {CAN} happen by evolution. They are "{INSIGNIFICANT}" in that they are differences in {degree} of evolution and not in {kind} of evolution. There may well be disagreements about HOW it MAY have happened but that doesn't invalidate the precept that it {CAN} happen.
There is no evidence or mechanism that can PREVENT them from happening, and until that mechanism is identified, and presented with substantiating evidence, there is no way to honestly claim it {CAN'T} happen.
Any claim that {X} CAN'T happen needs to be substantiated by the evidence and mechanism that demonstrates that it CAN'T happen, and until then it is NOT "{INSIGNIFICANT}" that this can't be demonstrated.
The speculation is that it {CAN} happen by design. There is no evidence of this nor is there any proposed mechanism by which it {MAY} happen -- other than by evolution or by {magic}.
If it is done by evolution then there is no conflict with the evolution {mechanism\manner\method}, and thus this does not demonstrate any {necessary input} of the design concept as an explanation over the one provided by evolution.
If it is done by {magic} then there needs to be evidence of such {magic} in operation to give this concept the same validity as the evidence for evolution in operation (observed speciation events etcetera).
Finally, when the forum was rehosted (due to disk space and traffic issues) a notice was sent out that space is available for rent to help support the forum. That offer may have been retracted. Please see message 1 at this link.
That's why I said contact Percy.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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 46 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-19-2006 6:47 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5475 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 48 of 95 (333913)
07-21-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
07-19-2006 8:19 AM


Re: what evidence for design
Summary of the rehosting question: This site may or may not stand on it's own.
BAE writes:
The repeated discussions have driven us to a private host if I read correctly.
RAZD writes:
Hardly. This site stands on it's own.
BAE writes:
Finally, when the forum was rehosted (due to disk space and traffic issues) a notice was sent out that space is available for rent to help support the forum.
RAZD writes:
That's why I said contact Percy.
Summary of the issue of demeaning language toward BAE: it was an attempt to equate Bob, Alice, and Eve with Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice which equals
reviewer writes:
... the possibilities of open marriage and mutual acceptance of extramarital affairs. ...
which is demeaning.
Summary of the issue of Silly design precluding Intelligent design: Silly design does not preclude intelligent design.
RAZD writes:
There is too much BAD design, LACK of design, FAILURE of design to be ignored.
Replacing the clutch in my Saturn requires 9 hours of labor and that is both silly design and intelligent design. While I have no interest in Intelligent design I can argue that Silly does not preclude Intelligent.
Sumary of the issue of {CAN} vs {CAN'T}: anything that CAN happen is equally valid as evidence for evolution, magic, creation, alien interference, etc. The theory of evolution does not have any special claim on such evidence to the preclusion of other possibilities equally falling into the {CAN} group.
RAZD writes:
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof.
Open issue: Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested in cohosting a site using space here if possible (and I'll pay) to do side by side comparision (line by line if necessary) of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution. I believe that cohosting is essential in order to expose fantasy (as RAZD so wonderfully states it) at the detail level that will be acceptable to both sides of the discussion. I will avoid the {CAN} because CAN supports all theories.
Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2006 8:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 07-21-2006 7:51 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2006 8:28 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2006 9:16 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 49 of 95 (333916)
07-21-2006 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by BobAliceEve
07-21-2006 6:25 AM


Re: what evidence for design
Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested in cohosting a site using space here if possible (and I'll pay) to do side by side comparision (line by line if necessary) of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution
Sounds great, and I'd be interested to be the co-host. I'm sure others would be interested too - a coffee house thread to further discussion, perhaps? See whose interested and take your pick?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-26-2006 6:26 AM AdminModulous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 95 (333923)
07-21-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by BobAliceEve
07-21-2006 6:25 AM


Re: what evidence for design
You are equivocating and quoting out of context: quote mining.
Percy runs this site, always has.
The "repeated discussions" have not forced us to a "private" host -- the site was moved to a new host because of the volume (not the content).
You suggested setting up a site "cohosting a site ...and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution" (or design) -- a different issue than hosting this forum
I said contact Percy.
... it was an attempt to equate Bob, Alice, and Eve with Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice which equals ... which is demeaning.
First you said it was porn in an attempt to portray it as demeaning, it isn't -- it is comedy. Now you quote mine one part of the review to try to substantiate your claim. The reviewer also says it is about manners.
Is a movie about manners demeaning? Is discussing"... the possibilities of open marriage and mutual acceptance of extramarital affairs. ..." demeaning? Is finding humor in the discussion (ie - what the movies is about) demeaning? Have you seen the movie?
imh(ysa)o you are struggling to try to portray this comment:
(I thought it was supposed to be bob and carol and ted and alice ...?)
as a proposed possible example of "demeaning" behavior in order to portray my behavior as universally demeaning (per you're original comment). By this view all humor is demeaning. While I agree that a lot can be, that doesn't make ALL humor demeaning, and this is what you are attempting to do.
One could also argue that this (your original comment):
Message 36
PS: I see that name-calling and derogatory statements are still the evidence of choice here.
Is name-calling and derogatory, especially when you have not established that it is a common, to say nothing of universal, fact. Your wide paint brush also covers your posts as well. Welcome to the club.
Silly design does not preclude intelligent design. ... is both silly design and intelligent design. While I have no interest in Intelligent design I can argue that Silly does not preclude Intelligent.
I have seen things that are silly with no intelligent cause, so yes silly can preclude intelligent. The two are not mutually exclusive, but each have areas that do preclude the other, so one is not totally contained by the other.
The issue then, when discussing what appears to be design in nature (and whether that is possible evidence for design), is whether the evidence we have is better explained by the intentional purpose of the design.
Note the following:

Mission Statement

The Silly Design Institutes's mission is to make Americans fully aware of both sides of the Design debate, whether they want to be or not.

We feel that both sides of the design debate need to be provided in schools and in the media, to inform the public and the students so that they can make up their own minds and not be dictated to by self-serving organizations, and to this end the Institute:

  • supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of "Intelligent" Design;
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theories for investigating Silly Design;
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars developing falsification tests to demonstrate the superior scientific basis of Silly Design compared to other design "theories"
  • encourages the media to portray Silly Design as not just a valid, but the ne plus ultra alternative to "Intelligent" Design whether it has been shown to be one or not
  • encourages schools, colleges and universities to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the various concepts of the Design Spectrum, including the scientific weaknesses various Design theories as well as any strengths.
Open issue: Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested ...
I repeat (3rd or 4th time): contact Percy (email admin)! YOU are the one leaving this "OPEN"

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-26-2006 6:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 95 (334130)
07-21-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by BobAliceEve
07-21-2006 6:25 AM


Moving on ...
Sumary of the issue of {CAN} vs {CAN'T}: anything that CAN happen is equally valid as evidence for evolution, magic, creation, alien interference, etc. The theory of evolution does not have any special claim on such evidence to the preclusion of other possibilities equally falling into the {CAN} group.
RAZD writes:
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof.
Open issue: Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested in cohosting a site using space here if possible (and I'll pay) to do side by side comparision (line by line if necessary) of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution. I believe that cohosting is essential in order to expose fantasy (as RAZD so wonderfully states it) at the detail level that will be acceptable to both sides of the discussion. I will avoid the {CAN} because CAN supports all theories.
There are different levels of {CAN} that need to be distinguished, or you fall into the creatoritionista definition of a {theory} as just any old idea, any old fantasy, all having equal credence.
So far I have seen no evidence that magic {CAN'T} happen, but I have also not seen any evidence that it {HAS} happened, nor any evidence - or even hypothesis - for {HOW} it could happen (If you know of any please provide references).
Now looking at your statement:
comparision ... of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category
This means that you will ignore all the evidence that not only says "evolution itself (ie not the theory)" {CAN} happen, but that it in fact {HAS} happened.
There are several (hundred? thousand? too many to ignore anyway) instances where the actual evolving of new species has been observed, and even ardent creationists at AiG recognize this fact (ie not a theory).
For reference, see one of my favorite website pages:
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
"No new species have been produced."
This is not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the "kind," and involves no new genetic information.
This usually leads to discussions of what is "micro"evolution and what is "macro"evolution, how you define "new" and "information" etc etc, but the essential point is that "evolution itself (ie not the theory)" is recognized as a fact.
We also have the evidence of genetics and mutation and selection that show {HOW} that evolution {HAS} occurred.
Thus this requires any proposition that evolution {CAN'T} happen must also provide some real validated explanation for what {HAS} happened and why genetics appeared (erroneously) to be {HOW} it happened.
This does not need to be done for {MAGIC} because {MAGIC} has no demonstrated {HAS} or {HOW} that needs to be debunked to then challenge it into the {CAN'T} category.
You have to look at the whole picture to see which concepts are best at explaining the whole picture.
I would take Modulus up on it as a new thread first to see how it goes and then see if there is enough to dedicate a whole extra website to (unless you are going to maintain it).
I would also think that any discussion that focused solely on hard evidence that "evolution itself (ie not the theory)" {CAN'T} happen will be either very short, or very lacking in real evidence.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5475 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 52 of 95 (335377)
07-26-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
07-21-2006 8:28 AM


Re: what evidence for design / moving on
RAZD writes:
The "repeated discussions" have not forced us to a "private" host -- the site was moved to a new host because of the volume (not the content).
"Repeated discussions" would seem to contribute to volume would it not? You need to connect the dots correctly.
RAZD writes:
You suggested setting up a site "cohosting a site ...and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution" (or design) -- a different issue than hosting this forum
Co-hosting a site to do a joint static evaluation of evidence has nothing to do with hosting this interactve forum. How did you ever connect those two dots?
porn
n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire - which certainally describes what extramarital affairs are about, does it not? More trouble connecting the dots?
Is name-calling and derogatory, especially when you have not established that it is a common, to say nothing of universal, fact. Your wide paint brush also covers your posts as well. Welcome to the club.
Stating facts is not name calling. Using phrases like "ROFLOL", calling people names like "fundie", and equating my name with a pornographic move (about extramarital affairs which is about stimulating sexual desire which is porn) are name calling, demeaning, and common. Connect the dots correctly. And thank you for admitting that there is a club which does the above - but do not include me in it.
Regarding your "moving on" post. I will maintain the site. It will be short (only one proof of {CAN'T} is required but there are a few proofs of {CAN'T} to evaluate). It will be relatively static.
Very best regards,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2006 8:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2006 10:50 AM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 8:42 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5475 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 53 of 95 (335379)
07-26-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminModulous
07-21-2006 7:51 AM


Cohosting an attached site
Thank you AdminModulous. I will take you up on the offer. I see no need for addtional discussion (i.e. the coffee house) at this time though. Certainally, if you want to trade with someone later, that might be appropriate. There will be little work for anyone including me - I will present my ideas and develop proposed proofs for evaluation. You will provide the evaluation statements - which may be statements by others. I will correct errors in my proposed proofs based on those evaluation statements. If the situation arises that I can not eliminate error from my proposed proof then the proposed proof will be identified in the site as not a proof.
Where are the specifications on managing a web site here so I can begin a plan?
Thanks again,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 07-21-2006 7:51 AM AdminModulous has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6434 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 54 of 95 (335429)
07-26-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by BobAliceEve
07-26-2006 6:11 AM


B&C&T&E is off-topic (but you're wrong )
If I make a comment about Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice I think we'll end up with a moderator telling us it's off topic so I have created a Coffee House Thread where I have challenged your description of it as a porn movie.
I hope you'll respond over there.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-26-2006 6:11 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 95 (335674)
07-27-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by BobAliceEve
07-26-2006 6:11 AM


Re: what evidence for design / moving on
"Repeated discussions" would seem to contribute to volume would it not? You need to connect the dots correctly.
Percy ran the site before, he runs it after it was moved -- it was and still is a "private" site in that regard.
There is no difference in the {way\manner\topics\etc} in the way the site is run between {before} and {after} OTHER than ability to handle increased volume.
But if you want a definitive answer, then ... gosh, contact Percy.
Regarding your "moving on" post. I will maintain the site.
Then move on.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : typosey - ps: contact Percy ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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 52 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-26-2006 6:11 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 95 (339229)
08-11-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
07-12-2006 11:19 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
I've been away from this site for a long time so i didnt notice the replys, now i came to make things more clear then i will be leaving again since im not very interested in long debates on this site. Anyway, back to the argument
I suppose you also have your own kind of math so that the time adds up correctly? 2+2= whatever I want it to
Everyone knows that 2+2=4 and there is no doubt about it. It does not need different logics to calculate this because 4 is a universal answer that everyone knows, so it would be better if you stop this humor and talk with more reason. Anyway, you cannot compare creation vs. evolution debate to something as simple as 2+2=4, because 4 is known to everyone and needs no debate, but cre vs. evo debate has two completely different opposing views, and therefore, two different results.
The wikipedia definition for logic you posted is cpmpletely unecessary since i dont need you to teach me what logic is. The last thing i would need is to learn logic from an evolutionist who believes in something as illogical as coincidences and blind chances fomring the marvelous design of the cell and giving rise for life on Earth.
There is logic and delusion, ok. But as simple as you can claim that you have logic and i have delusion, i can as simply claim the opposite. YOu have brought this wikipedia definition of logic just to show off and pretend that you know the most about logic.
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof
Statements like this show the evolutionists' desperation to absolutely prove their theory, so they just make themselves feel better by saying: "there is no definte proof but there are indications to the theory" but these indications are also debatable. By saying the statement above you have weakened your side and clearly showed for the hundredth time that you lack evidence, and evolutionists try to cover their lack of evidence by saying such things. Other accepted scienetific theories have been absolutely proven so why not evolution as well, is it becuase evolution is not scientific? The answer is YES, as long as there is no absolute scientific proof as YOU said.
Keeping all this in mind, we can clearly see that evolution is based on possiblities and not on definite evidence. Then why do evolutionists all over the media try to portray their possiblity-based thoery as a universal fact and those who oppose it as ignorants? A person is an ignorant if he opposes a known fact, but if he opposes a possiblity then he cannot be described as ignorant. Therefore evolutionists should quit giving the illusion that their theory is absolutely proven and should be more open to criticism in their publications.
Thus if you claim evolution is a fantasy, you should be able to demonstrate that it CAN'T be true. Making fantasy claims does not do that.
Sure, if there are indications that evolution can be true, there are evidences (not indications) that it CANNOT be true. These evidences have been brought up millions of times: the Cambrian explosion and the sudden emergence of species, the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of transitional forms, the destructive effects of mutations and the myth of "benificial mutations", the impossiblity of a cell being formed by blind chance or a chain of coincidences forming a giant and marvelously designed data bank known as the DNA,.... and so on. I have also seen the evolutionists responses to these topics: they only consisted of fantasies and making up of imaginary scenarios (not definite facts) to oppose these evidences. For example, Eldrege and Gould made up their theory of puctuated equilibrium which was a desperate imaginary reply to the Cambrian explosion and the lack of transsitional forms.'
Your theory of evolution is a possiblity and if you want to make it true you should find evidence that make it an absloute fact and not attempt to turn the table and ask others to prove it wrong as long as it is not absolutely proven right in the first place.
Because you are ignorant of the facts does not change them or make them go away. Note that AiG acknowledges that speciation occurs, as they concede that the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore or try to hand wave away
Ok! since i am ignorant of the facts why dont you enlighten me and give a list of the latest evolved species, instead of replying that "AiG acknowledges speciation"? Evolutionists continually repeat (like a parrot) that there is overwhelming evidence for speciation while many scientists see non of this "overwhelming" evidence. If the AiG made some observations of micro changes and cliam that in the future they would turn into macro changes then that is only speculative wishfull thinking and is completely invalid observation.
there are species that have evolved that could not have lived previously - consider the nylon eating bacteria: why\how would it eat nylon before that was invented?
You know, when the pizza was first made and people began eating it, that does not mean that they have evolved into special species known as "pizza-eating homosapiens". Just the superficial name of the bacteria does not make it a recently evolved species, it is still a bacteria and didnot evolve into a virus or a red blood cell, for instance. Obviously, this bacteria feeds on the polymers in nylon and can feed on other similar polymers in nature that dont have to be in nylon form.
It is obvious that you know of no examples of speciation except for this one which is completely invalid. Thats why you said "there are overwhelming examples of speciation and I will mention one" but you know none of these imaginary "overwhelming" examples, so you tried to give the fake impression thar there is speciation to make you (and the other evolutionists) feel better.
Your website only shows the view from one angle because they want you to think they are more similar than they really are: this - at best - is misrepresenting the evidence in order to fool the gullible.
I know that the website shows only the skull and not the entire skeleton. However, this is not intended to mislead, because we know that there are defferences in the skeleton but the article was focusing on the striking similarites in the shape of the skull. So how could this similarity come about by the so called "convergent" evolution? Just making a fuss about the differences like you did doesnot make the similarities disappear, they are still there and you can only GUESS and SPECULATE about their origin without showing any valid and strong scientific proof.
The definition of homoplasy, btw, is:
ho·mo·pla·sy n.
Correspondence between parts or organs arising from evolutionary convergence.
This definitioin of homoplasy is agian one of your misleading symbols in attempting to give life to evolution, but you cannot provide evidence for the definition or whatsoever. There is homoplasy that everyone can see, but attributing it to evolution is completely spculative, invalid, and lacks any supporting evidence.
I notice it doesn't give de Waal's answer to the question he posed. Did you look up the reference to see the actual quote? How about you find the quote from Frans de Waal with the rest of what he says and post that instead of the quote mined snippet? (And btw, quote mining is another form of misrepresentation - making people appear to say things they are not saying.)
There is no undermining since there is no valid reply to the question. DeWaal was only amazed at the great homoplasy he finds and he and other evolutionists could only afford saying "convergent evolution" again with a huge lack of evidence. This is the answer to the question that you're looking for.
Look at the pictures of what these animals look like and you will see more resemblance to an opossum than a monkey or squirrel. The Koala is also not at all like a bear.
I do have a picture, this site was posted earlier by 'nwr':
Marsupial Evolution and Post Flood Migration
Now do you see the strking similarity in wolves, ant-eaters, flying squirrels, mice, moles,...etc. And the bear im talking about is not the koala as you had it wrong, but the sloth. Now the question is: how did Australia come to possess such similar counterparts to the placentals? This is a clear example of "analogous" species, not just analogous structures. Of course you will not accept this fact because there is no such this in evolution and analogous species, but they do exist in nature. Making a long list of some differences does not change the fact.
Rotating wings on top of the body? This is pure incrudility and misunderstanding of the argument.
You were the one that said that the helicopter was designed based on the hummingbird. The helicopter has a rotating set of wings, not flapping ones.
Obviously, I never said that "helicopters are based on hummingbirds that have wings rotating on top of the body", it is you who brought up this false statment and misunderstood what I said. Maybe you were trying to show some humor, however, its no funny!
The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight.
I'm glad you realize that this was an erroneous statement: what you say now contradicts that.
There is no contradiction at all, you only douldnt find something reasonable to say so you made up this contradiction in your mind and refute it to show a fake impression that you refuted my whole argument. I said this from the beginning: the way that helicopters fly is borrowed from the alredy "designed" flight of the hummingbird. And I elaborated on that in the next post. The only contradiction here is the one in your mind.
The first designs people used to try to fly were copies of the wings of birds - model something that works. They failed.
They failed not because the design in nature is bad, otherwise birds would never be able to fly if they were badly designed as you claim. But they failed becuase no human intellgence can design systems as marvelous as those in nature.
The helicopter blades rotate in a horizontal (normally for lift) direction -- they are passing horizontally through the air to generate lift in exactly the same way as if the air was flowing horizontally over wings.
I dont know where you got that from but its Wrong! Helicopters generate vertical air currnent, thats why they can fly upward right away without havind to move on land first like normal airplanes. The only horizontal current is when the already "vertical current" in the propellor is slanted towards the front so that the helicopter can fly forward. The hummingbird also relys on vertical air current and not on horizontal like other bird.
The reason that birds and airplane wings both conform to aerodynamics is because of aerodynamics not because of any necessary design: that is the way flight works best.
Obviously, this is a complete fallacy that ignores an important truth: airplanes conform aerodynamics because this is how they are desinged by humans and did not come about by chance, so if birds and insects conform aerodynamics as well and in even better ways than airplanes, then who designed them?
THe designer is God that you and other athiests try to desperately ignore. You can run away but you cannot hide the truth by fallacies and speculative mind. YOu also failed to give examples of bad design in nature (because no such thing exists).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2006 11:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2006 5:05 AM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2006 5:18 AM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 59 by Theus, posted 08-13-2006 11:52 AM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 60 by kalimero, posted 08-14-2006 4:04 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2006 10:27 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 57 of 95 (339489)
08-12-2006 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
YOu also failed to give examples of bad design in nature (because no such thing exists).
So the millions of children that suffer and die each year from God-created diseases are part of the Grand Design? The parasites that cripple and blind us were designed from the start? The bacteria and viri we fight should be allowed to run their course because the ID wants it that way? Sounds like the sickest God I ever heard of.
Edited by Nighttrain, : Spell error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mr_matrix, posted 08-15-2006 1:36 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 95 (339490)
08-12-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
I've been away from this site for a long time so i didnt notice the replys, now i came to make things more clear then i will be leaving again ...
I can certainly see why this guy wouldn't want to hear his opinions debated.
I guess when one's opinions are this feeble and foolish, stating one's position and then running away is the closest one can ever come to winning an argument. Or breaking even.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Theus
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 95 (339783)
08-13-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
These evolutionists, here they've spent over a century and thousands of careers and forests' worth of papers just making up big words to grapple with their own insecurity with the world. All we've needed all along is just a pure commitment to what we already know! I mean, c'mon, with FACTS, you can prove something that's even REMOTELY TRUE!
Well, it looks like evolution's been disproven, I'm convinced. Anyone want to join me in the coffee-house later to switch-hit antibiotics? We'll never be sick again!
Theus

‘ ‘ — — ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2525 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 60 of 95 (340032)
08-14-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


Down with misinformation
I dont know where you got that from but its Wrong! Helicopters generate vertical air currnent, thats why they can fly upward right away without havind to move on land first like normal airplanes. The only horizontal current is when the already "vertical current" in the propellor is slanted towards the front so that the helicopter can fly forward. The hummingbird also relys on vertical air current and not on horizontal like other bird.
If you actually read these two links, you can plainly see why your above statements are arrogant as well as false.
Hummingbird - Wikipedia
Helicopter - Wikipedia
Just the superficial name of the bacteria does not make it a recently evolved species, it is still a bacteria and didnot evolve into a virus or a red blood cell, for instance.
Are you kidding me? OPEN A BOOK!
-Red blood cells dont even have nuclii (thats were the DNA is :rolleyes
-Viruses? What are you talking about? Do you even know what they are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024