Author Topic: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)  (Read 3672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #203 on: March 07, 2014, 11:48:30 PM »
BibleStudent,

You still don't get it. 

YOU ...... are ...... making  ..... the ......... theory ....... of .......  evolution ....... into ........ something ....... it ...... is ...... not.

YOU ..... don't ...... get ...... to ....... make ...... science ...... into ....... something ........ else ...... and ...... then .......expect ....... evidence ....... for ....... the ....... something ...... else.

Stop ...... using ........ straw-man ........ arguments ..... and ...... actually ...... learn ...... what ....... the ......... theory ........ of ....... evolution ...... says.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 12:00:07 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1567
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #204 on: March 07, 2014, 11:51:55 PM »
The truth doesn't scare me and if evidence was produced that somehow drove a wedge in my beliefs, I am prepared for that. The problem is, there are questions I have asked that no one can seem to answer. What I get are condascending remarks about having a bias and being ignorant, dishonest, and misunderstanding science, etc. That kind of stuff doesn't help and it only leads me to believe that there are no real answers....just guesses, hopes, and speculation.

Why would anyone need to "somehow" drive a wedge in your bias, if you did not have bias?

Maybe I need to hammer home how much that is an admission of how strong your bias is.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #205 on: March 07, 2014, 11:59:47 PM »
You may not like this, but your evolution threads make it easier to understand the steps and why no kind of creator is necessary - I wish you could appreciate how exciting pure evolution is.

I don't like it but only because it is disturbing to see someone buying into the unscientific nature of the ToE. I am not here to coax individuals out of a belief, though, so I wish you the best. It just so happens that, as I've mentioned before, the more I learn the more confident I become in my beliefs which is the opposite direction you seem headed in. Interesting.

Since nothing you're doing is working, I suggest you start from the beginning again.

I still don't understand the specifics of why you say that the ToE is not scientific. Also, I do not understand why multiple verifications from multiple scientific disciplines is inadequate. I fail to see why the further consistency with sciences like geology and chemistry are not of value. Nor do I see why you think that little changes can happen but big ones can't, given the amount of time available for such things. Your insistence that there is no mechanism for such changes when all we see when we look at DNA is a mechanism that can indeed create changes, both small and large.

I suggest you make a list of your complaints against evolution, that you provide links the specifically state the case against evolution, and that you include the CV or other academic authentication of those you trust in these matters. Your own education level and why you have enough information to diss evolution on autopilot would help.

Despite your 1500+ posts, all i see is science in action. I have watched the ToE evolve, so to speak over the last 50+ years (ever since I got old enough to read about such things and understand them) and I haven't the slightest idea why you think otherwise. New findings across disciplines have done nothing but confirm the overall accuracy of the theory.

And though it is apparently hard for you to believe, your merely stating otherwise has no effect.

Evolution has successfully predicted numerous findings. Numerous. Which is a generic term for lots, in this case. (I'm trying not to get too technical, for your sake.) How could evolution, if it is wrong, make predictions time and time again that turned out to be correct? How could a wrong science with no basis in reality be right about anything, let alone tons of things?

You have no understanding of science, no understanding of the philosophy of science, no understanding that for evolution to actually be fake, a conspiracy that makes all other conspiracy theories combined look like childs play. You don't understand the concepts of theory, predictability, falsifiability, repeatability, evidence or verifiability. You don't understand that dishonest scientists get drummed out, and that if evolution were false, you guys would be able to do some of that drumming. But you can't.

You will not be able to mount a definitive response. Most likely you will totally ignore this post. Because in your world, you're doing fine, and you've accomplished a lot. In your world, the one sans information, you get to make up your own about your many achievements here, just like you have about the inaccuracies of evolution and other falsehoods. All of those things apparently satisfy you even though they have no content. You don't seem to have standards about anything.

Oh, and the condescending remarks? The come from the frustration. The frustration we feel when you make claims and expect us to accept them without so much as a hint as to why they should be true.  I show you a grasshopper walking with all six legs, and you show one with four, and say that your side was right. You ignore the six legged walking because that wasn't the truth you wanted. Your four legged walker was proof positive that they never walk with six legs, even though my video showed a grasshopper walking with six legs. That is how ragged your scientific "logic" is, and you should not expect a whole crapload of roses and puppy dogs in response.

And the qualifications of your scientists? For every PhD an ID scientist has, we literally have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of PhD's who disagree. I am not throwing out numbers here for the purpose of showing that you are outgunned. I am throwing them out to ask why tens of thousands of people would get an education and spend their entire frickin' life studying falsehoods? I know PhD's. I'm related to PhD's. I know how hard they work, and how important discovery is to them. I know how dedicated they are to finding new truths, how important adding to the scientific knowledge base is, and I can't imagine for a minute they would adhere to any scientific theory that was suspect. If there was anything in the claims of the ID scientists to give them pause, it would happen. To at least enough to qualify as something besides a statistical anomaly. If it is so frickin' obvious to you that evolution is false, it should be equally obvious to the tens of thousands of scientists who are involved in disciplines that support or depend upon the ToE for the success of their research. And no scientist in his or her right mind is going to try proving something or discovering something based on blatant falsehoods.

I found an ID influenced article dated this year that said 840 scientists believe some variation on the ID theme is the explanation for life, etc. I would be willing to bet that virtually every one of those believers is also a fundamentalist in his or her religion (I don't specify christianity because I found reference to at least one muslim scientist feeling the same way.) These guys are scientists, and yet they can't come up with anything other than words to demonstrate their side of the argument. Why is that? If yo guys have nearly a thousand folks running around thinking that ID is a viable alternative, why can't they come up with anything to blow the lid off of the fraudulent nature of the ToE? Why is it so hard?

You are not a scientist. I am not a scientist. I went to college. I took science classes. I read tons of science related stuff on the Internet. I enjoy science. I have seen science change dramatically in my lifetime as new information became available. Across multiple disciplines, new discoveries have turned old knowledge upside down, time and time again. Whole theories have been tossed out as new findings showed that we were operating on faulty information. Yet nobody has touched evolution. Yet you know it is wrong.

You have ago have something besides your belief in god to go on. You have a to be able to say why the fossils are always buried in a predictable order. Why it is that fossil animal A is never found buried in the same rocks as fossil animal B. Why is it that when we have determined the age of some rocks, we can always accurately predict what will be found in those layers? Why is it that species changed over time? Why is it that 99% + of all species are now extinct? Why is it that science was able to predict that the reason that humans have 23 gene pairs instead of 24 like or ape cousins was that two genes must have merged. This prediction, which took place years before we were able to peer into genes and see such things, was born out when the paired genes were found, spliced together exactly as predicted. How was that possible if evolution sucks big time?

And you know what. ID could have been involved. We don't know everything yet. But if it was involved, it was involved via evolution. And you and yours would be much better served by finding the hand of ID inside the genes that have indeed macro evolved, and explain how it happened. You are not served by saying none of this shit happened. Because it is absolutely the best current explanation of observed phenomena.

So many questions, no ability to answer. That is your burden. Find a better way to deal with it.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #206 on: March 08, 2014, 03:35:54 AM »

You forgot at least two others:

F) A biological process capable of demonstrating that A, B, and C are the result of evolution.
G) Evidence of an event that produced the ‘common ancestor.’ 

....which leads to a correction of your conclusion..........

3. Therefore, we can only speculate that common ancestry may be true.

NO, I didn't forget anything. You forgot to check your theological assumptions at the science door (which isn't an issue with lots of Christians in the field). That is the main issue here. It's not surprising though that you can't see your hypocrisy. I didn't for years either. The biological process that is capable of demonstrating A,B,C,D, and E of premise one is called evolution (change in the frequency of alleles over time). You just don't accept it due to your knee jerk reaction (which is based in your strong religious/theological assumptions). Evolution is an historical science (just like numerous other scientific disciplines) because it looks to current evidence to find clues about the past and provide the best unifying explanations possible. Again, your mere assertion of ID doesn't win by default (somehow) if you can (somehow) tear down the established science that conflicts with the version of Christianity you assumed from the outset (by poking). You need actual evidence, not "b/c I say it's not possible any other way than my theology." And your perpetual scouring of creationist websites (for quote mining ad nausuem) only perpetuates our further understanding that facts don't matter to you, experts don't matter to you, and truth doesn't matter to you either. You don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true - otherwise you'd be reading the other side and NOT bullshit (BS) creationist sites all day long. It is only protecting your precious theology that matters to you, it seems.

You didn't correct anything. All you did was (once again) demonstrate your faulty notion of what science is along with your lack of care for actual truth.

In an earlier post you said you would be willing to admit that ID is not science. I have asked you twice now to tell us exactly what about ID is NOT science, and still you refuse to answer. In your next post, please explain exactly what about ID is NOT science.




Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #207 on: March 08, 2014, 04:44:47 AM »
BibleStudent,

You still don't get it. 

YOU ...... are ...... making  ..... the ......... theory ....... of .......  evolution ....... into ........ something ....... it ...... is ...... not.

YOU ..... don't ...... get ...... to ....... make ...... science ...... into ....... something ........ else ...... and ...... then .......expect ....... evidence ....... for ....... the ....... something ...... else.

Stop ...... using ........ straw-man ........ arguments ..... and ...... actually ...... learn ...... what ....... the ......... theory ........ of ....... evolution ...... says.

Once you actually understand the theory of evolution, then and only then can you EVER hope to defeat it.

THAT is why you are having no success with your arguments.

Your arguments are meaningless because you are arguing with your version of the theory of evolution.

We are trying to explain your misunderstandings so you can make meaningful arguments.

How can you ever hope to defeat something that you do not understand?
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #208 on: March 08, 2014, 08:44:50 AM »
Do you actually read what people have said or just run with the idea in your head? This is yet another straw man as I am not trying to describe what evolution is, but what macroevolution is, which is evolution at the level of speciation and above.

Do you actually comprehend what you are reading? If you are describing what macroevolution is, then you are describing evolution. Remove maroevolution and you have no evolution. Where do you come up with this stuff?

If I'm describing macroevolution then funnily enough, I'm describing macroevolution. A description of macroevolution does not cover the whole of evolution. If I describe the colour of our eyes, I am not describing all of your facial features, am I?

Quote
Quote
Quote
It would be like me making up a word and defining it as a 10-headed, 7-eyed, 12-legged fish living at the bottom of the sea. Having no evidence to demonstrate that this creature actually exists renders the word nothing more than an identifier for a fictional creature.

You could've just said god.

Nice non-response.

I was making a funny.

Quote
Quote
Then the scientists and theories that use this definition must also be fictional constructs of my mind. You see, this isn't my definition, it is the definition. You have latched on to the part which looks at long time scales and ignored the bonafide definition which explicitly states that macroevolution deals with evolution at the level of speciation. Speciation does not necessarily take a long time, relatively speaking, as it has been observed.

So, what you are suggesting then is that we just infer that these smaller changes can 'build up' into the larger structural and systemic changes that allegedly occurr??....absent the ability to observe these changes or even identify a biological pathway? Your defifinition is weighed down in conjecture and it cleverly covers up to the non-scientifc aspects of the theory.

What the fuck are you going on about? How many times do I have to say that all I am doing is giving you the scientific definition of macroevolution. I am not suggesting or inferring anything of the sort. You have brought this up and I have not once attempted to address it because that is not my MO here. You are throwing punches at shadows with me on this.

Quote
Quote
Really, a sarcy lecture from you on what is science and what is fiction is head shakingly laughable.

It's pretty common for people to laugh and shake their head when they are unable to respond to what is glaringly obvious.

What's glaringly obvious to everyone but you is that you are out of your depth with your erroneous definitions and straw man arguments.

Quote
Quote
The definition is based on an observable fact.

Are these all manifestations of my mind too? Sheesh, perhaps solipsism is true after all....

I think you are posting from Uranus again.

And I'll then tell you again that your god spoilt yours when he put teeth in it.

Quote
You have observed evolution producing new large scale biological changes? Now you are just being outright dishonest.

Where have I said that? I want the quote or an apology, but don't expect either. All I've said is that macroevolution has been observed at the level of speciation. You can't or won't understand this point.


Quote
Quote
"Your" definition picks up on a smidgen of what macroevolution means and ignores the meat of it. It's almost as if you're only picking a piece of it to fit your argument....

Actually, your comments are much more descriptive of the definition you embrace than they are of the definition I use.

Wrong. I have no investment in speciation. I don't care whether it is a fact or not, but it just so happens that it is. You, on the other hand, have plenty invested in speciation being a fact, because it means altering cherished beliefs. I normally would pity something that causes this little trauma, but you've exhausted any chance of that.

Quote
Instead of hiding behind the vague scientific definition you claim to be adequate, why don't you just provide me with one scientifically confirmed example that demonstrates how an evolutionary mechanism produces complex biological systems. This conversation would probably end.

How many straw men is that now? I haven't been trying to demonstrate this. This is not my point! Please read until it sinks in.

Quote
Quote
Well, duh, of course that's what they demonstrate! Birds evolve from birds, and plants evolve from plants. If there was a case where this didn't happen, it would falsify evolutionary theory! If we observe a new species of bird evolve from another species of bird, then we have observed speciation. At this level, we call it macroevolution. Don't like it? Tough.

See, there you go again....thinking that a bird from a bird is all your required to demonstrate in order for your definition to be scientifically valid. And you accuse me of being dishonest?

Erm, that's because it does demonstrate speciation and therefore macroevolution. Do you understand that first, it was observed and then given a label, and not the other way around?

Quote
Quote
It doesn't need to be very large, it just needs to be a speciation event! This has nothing to do with being a conformist. It's strictly about using terms for the purpose for which they were coined.

You are only deceiving yourself. You know darn well what I am getting at when challenging this definition of yours. Only a conformist would play this game.

As has been clear, I couldn't give two shiny shites what you are trying to get at because you dismiss the actual terminology. All I'm doing is correcting that, but you're not willing to take heed.

Quote
Quote
They don't have to be ffs. They only need to be at the level of speciation. How many times does this need explaining before you get it?

How sad that someone could actually be this gullible.

Says the Christian. Really, why don't you just simply go and search for a definition of macroevolution, where you will find it is evolution at the level of speciation and above?
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #209 on: March 08, 2014, 04:29:49 PM »
You have no understanding of science, no understanding of the philosophy of science,….. you don't understand the concepts of theory, predictability, falsifiability, repeatability, evidence or verifiability.

Then, please, sir, explain what is wrong with the following because no one else seems to be able to:

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.



Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #210 on: March 08, 2014, 04:45:49 PM »
The truth doesn't scare me...
It obviously does, since you have to alter the facts about the Theory of Evolution so you could have something you can possibly argue against.

SevenPatch said it best:
YOU ...... are ...... making  ..... the ......... theory ....... of .......  evolution ....... into ........ something ....... it ...... is ...... not.

YOU ..... don't ...... get ...... to ....... make ...... science ...... into ....... something ........ else ...... and ...... then .......expect ....... evidence ....... for ....... the ....... something ...... else.

Stop ...... using ........ straw-man ........ arguments ..... and ...... actually ...... learn ...... what ....... the ......... theory ........ of ....... evolution ...... says.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2701
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #211 on: March 08, 2014, 05:03:48 PM »
I think BS is assuming that Evolution is what Darwin described - at least in terms of evidence. He has forgotten the advances made in, say, DNA where we can link together family trees based on the developments and changes in DNA.  He forgets that this data adds to the data of physical characteristics that produces taxonomy.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #212 on: March 08, 2014, 05:31:56 PM »
You have no understanding of science, no understanding of the philosophy of science,….. you don't understand the concepts of theory, predictability, falsifiability, repeatability, evidence or verifiability.

Then, please, sir, explain what is wrong with the following because no one else seems to be able to:

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.

Good job. You picked one sentence out of a 1300 word post, one that you could argue with a little bit of "support" from your community, and you ignored the rest. Because that is the only way you know how to deal with a complicated subject. Drill in on one tiny aspect and hope that the rest goes away.

But, if you want to keep it so simple that even you can understand it, at least have the civility to tell me what it would take to demonstrate how wrong you are. Since you are merely parroting ID'ers again, and giving no thought to any of these things in general, you are making it real hard for me to make a point.

The fingers you keep in your ears and your constant chanting of "Nah, nah nah nah, nah" is negatively effecting this conversation. I sure wish there was a way to tell you that.

I'd like to hear why it is that your ID guy designed a series of now extinct critters. What was he doing? Practicing? Why the whale type creatures whose nostrils, over time, got changed from in froth of the face to the top of the skull. Why did he do it so slowly? Why did the ID master not just make whales with blowholes where they need to be in the first place, instead of doing piecemeal changes over millions of years. It is almost like he was experimenting, and probably tossing out failed efforts all the time, and choosing random successes to build upon and stuff.

Of course, since an intelligent designer would have no need for a mechanism of change, since an intelligent designer would be, by definition, smart enough to do it right the first time, the many variations in what appear to be closely related species, in an apparently chronological order, is somewhat of a mystery. But if you can convince me that you're right, BS, I'm pretty sure I can learn to ignore any and all inconvenient pieces of information just the way you can.

P.S. What evolution assumes is that the evidence is correct, unless we find something that indicates otherwise. If you can't find that otherwise, and want to limit your inquiry by, you know, merely pointing out how your jaw is dropping when you think about how wonderful an ID would be and stuff, that's fine by me. Just don't be so frickin' surprised that you don't know what you're talking about.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 05:33:57 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #213 on: March 08, 2014, 07:00:26 PM »
Good job. You picked one sentence out of a 1300 word post, one that you could argue with a little bit of "support" from your community, and you ignored the rest.

I read your entire post and even went back over parts of it a couple of times. I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I'm simply trying to cut to the quick and, AGAIN, see if someone/anyone can explain to me how or why what I spelled out in post #175 is incorrect. So far, I have heard a lot of “you don’t understand science” or “you don’t understand the theory” or some similar variant but no actual “science” to refute what I laid out. Frankly, I am starting to think this is the only answer I am going to get because what I have presented is actually true.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 07:02:25 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #214 on: March 08, 2014, 07:05:37 PM »
We are trying to explain your misunderstandings so you can make meaningful arguments.

How can you ever hope to defeat something that you do not understand?

What don't I understand?  Show me how my understanding is wrong by introducing the science that refutes my claims or please just admit that you can't. These accusations are utter nonsense if you can't demonstrate what I do not understand.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #215 on: March 08, 2014, 07:12:57 PM »
I think BS is assuming that Evolution is what Darwin described - at least in terms of evidence. He has forgotten the advances made in, say, DNA where we can link together family trees based on the developments and changes in DNA.  He forgets that this data adds to the data of physical characteristics that produces taxonomy.

Everything you mentioned here is just as easily, if not moreso, attributable to a common designer. Do you REALLY not understand that until you can demonstrate how evolution actually occurred that what you assert is mere conjecture. All you or anyone else has demonstrated is that a significant portion of the ToE is based on a belief that it occurred....really no different than the nature of my belief in God.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #216 on: March 08, 2014, 07:16:19 PM »
Good job. You picked one sentence out of a 1300 word post, one that you could argue with a little bit of "support" from your community, and you ignored the rest.

I read your entire post and even went back over parts of it a couple of times. I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I'm simply trying to cut to the quick and, AGAIN, see if someone/anyone can explain to me how or why what I spelled out in post #175 is incorrect. So far, I have heard a lot of “you don’t understand science” or “you don’t understand the theory” or some similar variant but no actual “science” to refute what I laid out. Frankly, I am starting to think this is the only answer I am going to get because what I have presented is actually true.

What explanation do you accept for plants and animals identified as being very old also being very primitive, and as time passes, the fossils show more and more sophisticated structures and better adaption to the environment? What explanation do you accept the common features in some examples over time, while other features change. The whale example is a good one. Early mammals residing in the water that we identify is precursors to whales have structures similar to land animals but their arms and legs, over time get smaller and less functional as arms and legs, and in the case of the arms, more functional as fins. And indeed, over time, otherwise similar critters show the predicted (we hadn't found them yet but we figured we would) movement of the nostrils front the front to the top of the head.

Similar structure overall, adaption of water over time, movement of breathing apparatus over time. How else should we interpret this stuff? Especially when combined with what looks like the ability of DNA to be altered from generation to generation, which makes it appear that such changes are possible. And though we don't have a the luxury of millions of years to recreate evolution, we can, on the short time scale required by bacteria, watch changes happen in those single celled animals. Also, we encounter changes in other critters and plants and their DNA. Why are there humans with six fingers instead of five? What sort of change would cause that. And why, if organisms changed and separated and over millions of years, grew too far apart to mate and produce, would they not qualify as different species?

But for your convenience, I'll ask a short question. Why do we have so many examples of, and so much evidence for, something that never happened? You can say it impossible all you want. But you cannot deny the variation in plants and animals. You cannot deny that older plants and animals are very different from modern ones. You cannot deny that we can point out similarities in various examples, and also point out how species that seem otherwise closely related have major differences. Over time. Etc.

Or does the phrase "It was all intelligently designed" actually satisfy all of your curiosity?
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1567
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #217 on: March 08, 2014, 07:59:41 PM »
Everything you mentioned here is just as easily, if not moreso, attributable to a common designer. Do you REALLY not understand that until you can demonstrate how evolution actually occurred that what you assert is mere conjecture. All you or anyone else has demonstrated is that a significant portion of the ToE is based on a belief that it occurred....really no different than the nature of my belief in God.

In your scenario a common designer has to design every single creature born. Each one has its own genetic code which is combined in a new way from its parents.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #218 on: March 08, 2014, 08:06:07 PM »
Everything you mentioned here is just as easily, if not moreso, attributable to a common designer. Do you REALLY not understand that until you can demonstrate how evolution actually occurred that what you assert is mere conjecture. All you or anyone else has demonstrated is that a significant portion of the ToE is based on a belief that it occurred....really no different than the nature of my belief in God.

In your scenario a common designer has to design every single creature born. Each one has its own genetic code which is combined in a new way from its parents.

Which wouldn't be a very intelligent way to do it.  ;D
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #219 on: March 08, 2014, 08:10:36 PM »
We are trying to explain your misunderstandings so you can make meaningful arguments.

How can you ever hope to defeat something that you do not understand?

What don't I understand?  Show me how my understanding is wrong by introducing the science that refutes my claims or please just admit that you can't. These accusations are utter nonsense if you can't demonstrate what I do not understand.

Your claims have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  Your claims are about an imaginary idea that does not exist.  You're not even talking about the theory of evolution.  You're claiming things about a theory which does not exist.  Your claims are empty and meaningless.

How does refuting a claim about a nonexistent theory accomplish anything? If your claim about a theory which does not exist is not refuted, then what?  You get to keep being willfully ignorant?  Look, I'd rather you not be willfully ignorant, but if you don't actually care that you don't understand the theory of evolution then why are you here?

We are playing chess.  You are playing checkers.  Would you like to play chess or are you going to keep insisting that the chess pieces jump over the opponents chess pieces?


« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 08:13:12 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7300
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #220 on: March 08, 2014, 09:22:33 PM »

Let me put it this way……

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.

Let me put it another way...you really don't deserve to be involved in this conversation until you can demonstrate that you really do understand the theory. I strongly suggest that you visit the Berkeley Evolution website before you continue to make foolish statements like this, that clearly and wholly misrepresent the theory. I can't believe anyone would continue to engage with you on this, although, some posters have pointed out the same - you don't know what you're talking about - at all.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many anti-evolutionists spend so much time trying to tear down the theory without a SINGLE EFFORT IN SCIENCE to simply falsify it. FALSIFY the theory using science, and you can shut every one of us up permanently. Until then, you can continue to parade your very poor argument regarding "micro versus macro" to no avail, which, if you look into it even a little, you will discover is NOT AT ALL what is meant by those terms.

Seriously, go do just a little bit of research on how evolutionary scientists use the terms micro and macro.  Jeez...

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #221 on: March 09, 2014, 12:30:53 AM »
Let me put it another way...you really don't deserve to be involved in this conversation until you can demonstrate that you really do understand the theory. I strongly suggest that you visit the Berkeley Evolution website before you continue to make foolish statements like this, that clearly and wholly misrepresent the theory. I can't believe anyone would continue to engage with you on this, although, some posters have pointed out the same - you don't know what you're talking about - at all.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many anti-evolutionists spend so much time trying to tear down the theory without a SINGLE EFFORT IN SCIENCE to simply falsify it. FALSIFY the theory using science, and you can shut every one of us up permanently. Until then, you can continue to parade your very poor argument regarding "micro versus macro" to no avail, which, if you look into it even a little, you will discover is NOT AT ALL what is meant by those terms.

Seriously, go do just a little bit of research on how evolutionary scientists use the terms micro and macro.  Jeez...

Here is how talkorigins.org describes 'macroevolution:'

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Microevolution + Time + ?? = Macroevolution….except there is no scientific evidence for ?? which is the missing 'scientific' link necessary to produce “large scale functional and structural changes.”


I have visited the Berkley website….man, many, many times. It, too, fails to describe what ?? is.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48


First of all, you directed me back to a site that uses the word ‘macroevolution’….a word I’ve been repeatedly told is no longer used in mainstream science(?)

Secondly, the site, and many, many, many others refer to “basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.[1]….

…..and we’re right back to where we left off:

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Enough said.
 1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #222 on: March 09, 2014, 02:41:02 AM »
We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Enough said.

Not enough said.

Are you under the impression that a lizard becomes a snake in one generation, or do you realize that it takes millions of years. Milliions of years that we have to work with. Life started 3.5 billion years ago, give or take. Do you realize that if you had started playing Powerball 3.5 billion years ago, and you bought just one number for each drawing day (of which there are two a week), you, individually, would have won the lottery over 2,000 times so far. As would anyone else who also played the game that much. That is how much time has gone by since life began here on earth.

If evolution has not occurred, why have we found whales and dolphins with leg bones. Not vestigial, but atavistic; actual leg bones. Not too many, but we have found them. Evolution explains that when genes change, more often than not genes turn on and off, not change completely. Hence dolphin embryo has leg nubs exactly the way land mammal embryos (including humans) have similar nubs. The also have a arm nubs, that turn into fins. In land animals, these same nubs turn into legs, or in the case of primates, arms and legs. Why would dolphins, if they did not evolve, show such similarity to other mammals. Especially when evolution states clearly that whales (including dolphins and porpoises) evolved from a land mammal? Why is your intelligent designer making it look like these animals evolved, and leaving evidence, and at time examples, of something that was never needed? Evolution explains this easily. Nothing else does. And you are unable to come up with any sort of explanation for such things. You just keep bringing up the same old things, which we disagree with somewhat vehemently.

So while you are nitpicking over the words micro and macro evolution (note: we do not have as much control over terminology as we would like. Our word police are poorly armed.) In any case, you continually use the same few examples and ignore others that I have brought up before. Whales, etc. I'll bring up more.

Evolution predicts that we will find many examples of very poorly designed alternations via DNA alternation/turned off/turned on stuff. Hence you have a prostate gland that wraps around your urethra and as you age, the gland enlarges, and eventually you have to get medical help of one sort or another to pee. Where is the intelligence in that? In the wild and whacky world of evolution, it is more or less irrelevant, because that change does not normally occur until after the male has had plenty of time to help a female procreate, but in the alleged world of the intelligent designer, it was a mean as fuck thing to do to a potential supporter.

In all mammals, we have a nerve that runs from the brain to the throat. It is generically called the vegas nerve, and we can trace its origin back to our fish ancestors, for whom the nerve followed a logical path as is went from the brain, to just above the heart the heart and to the throat. Lacking a neck, and given he position of the brain, it was efficient. However, in current humans, evolved from said fish, and who developed a neck, and put our brain way up high in our head, that same nerve travels down our neck, to the blood vessels sit above the heart, where a branch goes back up to our throat, where ti does necessary things like open and close our vocal chords, help us swallow and such. And in a giraffe, said nerve is over over 15 feet long, when the signal it sends only needs to go two to three inches. This is entirely consistent with the picture of mammalian evolution that we have, totally inconsistent with a designer. Or at least totally inconsistent with a designer that has any talent.

The entire theory of evolution reads approximately like this:

1. Evolution occurs because populations change over time.
2 .It usually happens gradually, sometimes taking hundreds of millions of years. (Simple organisms, such as bacteria, can change in just 20,000 or so generations. We've followed the process in the lab. It took over 12 years, but that's still incredibly fast, evolutionarily.
3. New species arise when one species splits into a least two new ones with the genetic changes.
4. All species share a common ancestry, and that ancestry can be followed, genetically and through the fossil record. WE can, for instance, trace back genetically and find where humans and yeast split from the same common ancestor. We share genes with yeast. Human genes that match yeast genes can be put into yeast cells , where they will perform as yeast cells, doing in the yeast exactly what they do in humans, modified for the needs of the yeast. Important discoveries about the human genome have been conducted by studying yeast DNA. This is entirely consistent with, and predictable, within the field of evolution. ID would have never even suspected such a link.
5.And most, but not all, evolution took place because of natural selection, which is the source of "adaption", a keystone in the theory. Some changes just occur, and neither hurt nor harm the organism. Others are either to the advantage of the critter or kill it, either directly or by leaving it less able to deal with the environment. On the Galapagos Islands, for instance, when drought hit, the small soft seeds being eaten by the indigenous finches disappeared, and the next best natural food available was a larger, harder seed, which was more difficult to eat. But in one generation the finches began to develop a 10% larger beak, which was stronger and more able to crack the new type of food. No intelligent designer was seen on the island at the time, so we're gonna go with evolutionary forces being responsible for that adaption.

Evolution predicts.

It does indeed assume that life began on earth, though there is room for it to have begun elsewhere. No, we do not know how life started, but we trust that that is because we're not smart enough yet, not because it didn't happen. If you were merely stating that ID was the start of life, and then allowing for evolution, we would be disagreeing, but neither side would have any solid evidence to diss the other. But once we have living cells, then I feel that evolution becomes obvious.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions, whether you like it or not.

Evolution predicts that we will find simple organism when we are looking at early life, and a that the organisms will get more complex as time passes. And indeed, the earliest life that we can find evidence for is single celled, and as time passes, the organisms to indeed get more and more complex.

Evolution predicts that we will be able to find evidence of closely related species splitting from a common ancestor. And as much as you don't like it, we have found fossils that appear to science to have done exactly that. Very similar critters or plants, with small but traceable changes. One might be found in the fossil remains of a desert environment, while the other may be found only in a wet rainforest type environment, for instance. If they both survived, were a new set of species rather than one, and we can often trace the further evolution of one or both new species. Because we can predict that we should be able to do that. And we do.

While you get all blubbery and try to decide if you want attack this claim directly or just go for a throwaway line somewhere else in this post, listen to this. We can drill down into the ocean floor, where for many, many millions of years dead diatoms have piled up as they died and fell to the bottom, building up on top of each other and eventually turning to stone. Which we drill into with core drills and pull out layer after layer, millions of years old, of these dead diatoms. And we can trace the changes over time of said diatoms. And we can see them split into new species as we go through those cores layer by layer, century by century, millennia by millennia, etc. It was predicted that we could do this. We did it. Explain any other mechanism that could account for those changes.

Evolution predicts that we should be able to find transitional forms. And while I know that you guys love to say that such things don't exist, we have that evidence. I mentioned in an earlier ignored post about the whale fossils, which were predicted long before they were found.

The same goes for birds and reptiles, though you've made it clear you don't like that one either. But there used to be no birds, and then they started showing up while reptiles and dinosaurs were around, and we've found gobs of reptiles with fossilized feathers, and early birds are primitive, and as the geology gets newer, as we approach the modern era, we find more and more modern birds, that had to come from somewhere, and the only link we see is the striking similarity, structure-wise, feather-wise,egg-bearing-wise to reptiles and dinosaurs, and forgive us if we leap to conclusions based on solid evidence. This was predicted by the earliest supporters of evolution, and has been born out by evidence. The exact path may be in dispute, but this is mostly because we haven't found quite enough fossils to support any of the proposed routes of bird evolution. But when the oldest amphibians and later, reptiles, were wandering around, there were no birds. After the reptiles and dinosaurs were around for many millions of years, primitive birds also began to appear, and we have strong reason to believe there is a connection.

One has to ask. If an intelligent designer was involved, why did he start out making primitive birds (or primitive anything) and eventually make more modern versions of each. Why was he making it look like another mechanism could have been involved?

I could go on and on, but if you are going to ignore and ignore, I see no need to take this any further. What I have discussed is a large number of features of evolution that you have ignored, BibleStudent. You prefer dwelling on your insistence that there is no mechanism for change, when evolution says yes, there is, and it tells us why. And it gives example after example, based on discovery after discovery. And when you sit there and say "Uh-uh" without going into any details and only asking rhetorical questions, you are accomplishing nothing.

Until you can explain why you were covered with hair as an unborn at about six months, just like primates. As a human, that hair falls off before we are born as long we are not premature. Our gene for hair gets turned on for a little while, then turns off, and the hair falls off. Why? This is totally consistent with the theory of evolution, it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent design. Until you can explain the vestigial rear legs buried in the muscles of all whales (not to be confused with the atavistic rear whale legs that I mentioned earlier). Explain it. Why would whales have genetic information for rear legs if an intelligent designer made them without rear legs? WHY?

If all you can do is claim it impossible and not offer explanations for these various mysteries, you can make no progress. As long as you cannot explain why human embryos have yolk sacs for awhile, like our reptilian ancestors, except with no yoke inside? And humans have three genes that can make the yolk that would fill that sack, but they are turned off. Why? Why did the intelligent designer turn off the genes in humans that used to make vitamin C. All other mammals, besides primates, have the genes to make vitamin C, and so do humans,but they aren't turned on. We have to get ours by eating fruits. Why do we have the genes for a much better sense of smell, but they are not turned on in us humans. Why?

Sorry, I meant to stop, but I keep thinking of other questions to ask. Your challenge is not to say that evolution is false without explaining in accurate detail why you feel that to be the case. Your job is to explain how all these questions confirm intelligent design. The vagus nerve thing. WTF?

Stop sounding incredulous. Give us the information you have (not the negative stuff about evolution, but the positive stuff about intelligent design) that explains the questions we who support evolution have about your claims. Get proactive, dude.













Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #223 on: March 09, 2014, 05:23:45 AM »
Microevolution + Time + ?? = Macroevolution….except there is no scientific evidence for ?? which is the missing 'scientific' link necessary to produce “large scale functional and structural changes.”

There is no ??.  It is simply Microevolution + Time = Macroevolution.

Why do you keep adding in ?? and then expect evidence for what you don't even know what you expect evidence for?

You seem to keep insisting that one species will give birth to a new and completely different species which is NOT what the theory of evolution says at all.  That can't and is not what happens and is not what macroevolution is.  Macroevolution is precisely microevolution over millions of years.

You think there is a clear line which separates species.  There isn't, well besides they usually can't reproduce.

First of all, you directed me back to a site that uses the word ‘macroevolution’….a word I’ve been repeatedly told is no longer used in mainstream science(?)

It's not.  Are you mainstream science?  Unfortunately the terms entered the public mainstream as a means to help average people understand but the attempt failed apparently.


…..and we’re right back to where we left off:

Yeah, you still don't get it.

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution

False, we do, you accept them as microevolution.  You just make macroevolution into something it isn't and then expect evidence for what it doesn't even say.

....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc).

Large scale biological changes don't happen in just a few generations, they take hundreds of thousands to millions of generations.   Do you expect a baby to turn into an elderly person in 5 minutes?  That is what you are doing.  You are asking for evidence that a baby can turn into an elderly person in 5 minutes and if the evidence is not provided then aging can't happen.


Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition

No, they are not.  Most are neutral. Some are harmful. Very few are beneficial.  We are talking about millions of years though so all of the mutations impact the evolution of populations.  Mutations are but one of several major factors that influence the evolution of populations.

Why do you only mention mutations? 


that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Happened to be inherited?  No, we know that genes are inherited, there is no "happened to".  Organism? No.  We're not talking about a single organism, but an entire isolated population.  Again, this happens over millions of years.  Mutations and natural selection are only two of several factors which impact the evolution of populations.

Enough said.

Everything you've said is a straw-man, which seems to be the only thing your bias will allow you to understand.  Is that all you want to say so you can continue being willfully ignorant?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 05:30:21 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #224 on: March 09, 2014, 05:35:20 AM »
Bible Student,
It must be clear by now that the members find your hypothesis of Intelligent Design deeply flawed. It could be that you have simply not explained yourself properly. Here is your answer to wheels that is followed by a few points upon which I am not clear.

Could you help by answering the points?
I think BS is assuming that Evolution is what Darwin described - at least in terms of evidence. He has forgotten the advances made in, say, DNA where we can link together family trees based on the developments and changes in DNA.  He forgets that this data adds to the data of physical characteristics that produces taxonomy.

Everything you mentioned here is just as easily, if not more so, attributable to a common designer.
That only makes things more complex.

It requires there to be a designer that is even more complex than all life. It requires that designer to share the same dimensions as us, and this would render her detectable.

ID requires answers to

But the greatest questions are
Where is this designer now?
Where was she before creation?
All life has to be created out of something, where did the material come from?
How was the material processed?
How was creation done?
What mechanisms were involved?
What processes?
If we wanted to replicate it, how would we do it?
How on earth do you create the archetypal cat?
How do you put the bits together?
How many designers were there? Or did one designer do everything including global distribution?
How were the problems of a shallow gene-pool overcome?
Where on earth did this “creation” take place?
Was there a factory given over to the production of life or at least a HQ?
Who worked there?
Where did they have their homes?
Why did some creatures came into being at one time and others millions of years earlier or later.
“How long did it take?”


ToE has masses of evidence confirming its validity. Do you REALLY not understand that until you can demonstrate an even a credible suggestion to explain what you assert, it is not even a hypothesis.

Up to now, all you or anyone else has demonstrated is that a significant portion of the ToE all of ID is based on a belief that it occurred magic....really no different than the nature of your belief in God – a delusion.

Now is your chance to present the evidence for ID and show it to be a viable alternative to evolution.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 05:37:08 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #225 on: March 09, 2014, 05:41:51 AM »
Here is how talkorigins.org describes 'macroevolution:'

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Yes, read the whole fucking thing which tells you exactly what I was telling you. The "grand scale" (for which they have put in inverted commas to connote it's being said in a relative fashion) is relative to microevolution - that's evolution below the level of speciation. It's saying that it results in the origin of higher taxa. The lowest level of taxa is species, so macroevolution counts at the level of speciation and the levels above speciation.

Now, read the next sentence, where I will play you at your own sad little game and highlight the words that are "convenient" for me:

In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.

Well bugger me - macroevolution is at the level of speciation and above like I was saying. So, if we observe a case of speciation, then we observe macroevolution. Done and dusted.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #226 on: March 09, 2014, 05:48:40 AM »
BibleStudent,

Why are you not attempting to refute what we are explaining to you instead of repeating the same straw-man arguments over and over?

Why are straw-man arguments the only thing you seem to understand?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 05:50:37 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2701
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #227 on: March 09, 2014, 06:33:32 AM »
BibleStudent,

Why are you not attempting to refute what we are explaining to you instead of repeating the same straw-man arguments over and over?

Why are straw-man arguments the only thing you seem to understand?

Well , yes, I think I know why he is going the way he is - he, having put his stuff on ID and us having not accepted it, is trying to discredit ToE. He hopes that we will have to dump ToE in favour of his ID if we become unsure how a lizard turned into a snake. It isn't working though.

He has still to show his ID is actually a hypothesis that can be used by anyone to get to the same conclusions and that makes testable predictions. Of course he knows this can't be done as ID is just creationism wrapped in a science overcoat so it's straw man time still.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #228 on: March 09, 2014, 07:38:09 AM »
^^^^

One remote possibility wheels is that he (BibleStudent) is trying to make a point, by misrepresenting evolution, that he thinks we are also misrepresenting ID.

Of course I don't recall that BibleStudent stating that was the case.

All we have done regarding ID is show why and how it fails to use the scientific method and BilbleStudent misrepresented the scientific method as much as he is now doing with the ToE.

Although, I think you are right wheels.

BibleStudent wants to destroy science and make it into what he wants it to be so it confirms his beliefs that he held to begin with.  What is almost as bad is that he loosely believes we are doing the same thing because we want to believe there is no god.  What he fails to understand is that we ignore what we want to believe when we try to understand anything.  BibleStudent doesn't know that truth is above his concept of "God".

EDIT:

Rhetorical question - Where would the human race be if it kept wanting to believe that a god or gods were responsible for lightning?

Every scientific advancement made in probably past thousand years would never have happened if the human race kept wanting to believe gods were responsible for everything.  We would be sacrificing thousands of people to ward off plague instead of building sewer systems.  We would be tribal hunter gatherers killing each other in the name of gods.

Maybe that is what BibleStudent wants, for society as we know it today to crumble so his beliefs can be confirmed and his dearly held prophecies of judgement day to be fullfiled so the wicked will get their just and deserved punishment.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 07:57:21 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1567
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #229 on: March 09, 2014, 08:17:24 AM »
In the beginning god created a white rabbit, and the white rabbit gave birth to a pink elephant. And lo, a lizard gave birth to a snake, and an ape gave birth to a human, and god looked and saw it was all completely normal.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #230 on: March 09, 2014, 10:08:57 AM »
One remote possibility wheels is that he (BibleStudent) is trying to make a point, by misrepresenting evolution, that he thinks we are also misrepresenting ID.

BS has not even represented ID yet. All he has done is unrepresent, and erroneously represent, and ignorantly represent, evolution.

I don't know that he has said one accurate thing about evolution. If he has, it was negated by the errors he has constantly repeated.

BS, if you can't give us an overview of ID, and if you can't give us a large number of examples of how ID is the only provable way for life to have formed, and if you can't show, by multiple examples, how evolution is wrong, there really isn't much for you to say here.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #231 on: March 09, 2014, 10:52:18 AM »
BibleStudent,

Why are you not attempting to refute what we are explaining to you instead of repeating the same straw-man arguments over and over?

Why are straw-man arguments the only thing you seem to understand?

Because he's a biblethumper[1].

-Nam
 1. is it weird my phone has this as an actual word?
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.