Author Topic: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)  (Read 3556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #232 on: March 09, 2014, 11:48:24 AM »
can anyone find that great youtube video in which Richard Dawkins shows that if you draw/take a photo of your mother/father, and a picture of his/her mother/father, all the way back through millions of generations, you'll find the common ancestor--and the fact that, in every case, the picture of a parent and an offspring are the same species??  It's a great demonstration that is very appropriate here and I can't find it.

Edit: found it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ

Edit: takeaway phrase at 3:58: "Complete continuum" is how evolution works
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 11:58:25 AM by Boots »
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #233 on: March 09, 2014, 12:05:41 PM »
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).
I am not sure who the "We" are in "We have no observed evidence ..." You may not have... in fact it is certain that you didn't even bother looking. However, this article on Alan FeducciaWiki shows the evidence of two approaches:
Quote
John Alan Feduccia (born 25 April 1943[1]) is a paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds. He is now Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina. Feduccia's principal authored works include two books, The Age of Birds[2] and The Origin and Evolution of Birds,[3] and numerous papers in various ornithological and biological journals. Feduccia is best known for his criticisms of the widely held view that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs.[4][5][6][7] He has argued for an alternative theory in which birds share a common stem-ancestor with theropod dinosaurs among more basal archosaurian lineages, with birds originating from small arboreal archosaurs in the Triassic.
So, there you have it, both sides agree on the dinosaur/bird link but argue as to when it took place and/or if there were a divergence.

Now we have disposed of your baseless statement, what have you to say?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #234 on: March 09, 2014, 12:32:44 PM »
can anyone find that great youtube video in which Richard Dawkins shows that if you draw/take a photo of your mother/father, and a picture of his/her mother/father, all the way back through millions of generations, you'll find the common ancestor--and the fact that, in every case, the picture of a parent and an offspring are the same species??  It's a great demonstration that is very appropriate here and I can't find it.

*BibleStudent mode enabled*

[Version 1]
Well, sure, of course you'd say that! You Athiests worship Dawkins and other evil athesists!
[/Version 1]

[Version 2]
Yeah, but if they're always the same species, then how do you explain macroevolution? Checkmate, athiests!
[/Version 2]

*BibleStudent mode disabled*

What do you think, guys and girls? Am I close?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #235 on: March 09, 2014, 12:40:21 PM »
can anyone find that great youtube video in which Richard Dawkins shows that if you draw/take a photo of your mother/father, and a picture of his/her mother/father, all the way back through millions of generations, you'll find the common ancestor--and the fact that, in every case, the picture of a parent and an offspring are the same species??  It's a great demonstration that is very appropriate here and I can't find it.

Edit: found it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ

Edit: takeaway phrase at 3:58: "Complete continuum" is how evolution works

Ah, well, you see, the word "continuum" doesn't contain all the letters that are in" microevolution", so it can't be right. Don't you know anything?  ;D

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #236 on: March 09, 2014, 01:20:15 PM »
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.

He said a few things about ID in the Texas public charter school teaching creationist propaganda thread.  He had over 170 posts in that 27 page mess and I think 3 or 4 of his posts actually were about ID.

BibleStudent is in a clear disadvantage because he thinks we don't understand what he is saying and that he has been clever enough to figure out the "problems" with the ToE.  Unfortunately for him, we have heard his bunk propaganda before and already understand it and we have a pretty good understanding of the ToE.  BibleStudent seems afraid to make any attempt to comprehend what the ToE actually says.
"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 SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #237 on: March 09, 2014, 01:25:41 PM »
*BibleStudent mode enabled*

[Version 1]
Well, sure, of course you'd say that! You Athiests worship Dawkins and other evil athesists!
[/Version 1]

[Version 2]
Yeah, but if they're always the same species, then how do you explain macroevolution? Checkmate, athiests!
[/Version 2]

*BibleStudent mode disabled*

What do you think, guys and girls? Am I close?

Version 1 sounds like skep.

Version 2 is definitely BS.

Jesuis would probably say science is subjective.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 01:28:45 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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #238 on: March 09, 2014, 01:28:01 PM »
Version 1 sounds like skep.

Version 2 is definately BS.

Jesuis would probably say science is subjective.

They all sound the same after a while. Give it some time.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #239 on: March 09, 2014, 04:09:49 PM »

…..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.

Enough said for you, but so what? You don't get it. So what? So you go to an atheist forum and try to accomplish what, exactly? You do a mind-numbingly lame post on why you don't buy the scientific theory, and then you continue to pretend like what - this whole thing is some sort of pile of conspiratorial stupidity by real scientists?

What in the world are you trying to accomplish here?

You continue to blather on about something that YOU don't believe is possible, yet the VAST majority of science has accepted, and we're all supposed to do what, exactly?  Change our minds and jump on your bandwagon?

As I said before, falsify the theory, or shut up about it, because you are currently very, very wrong.

Look - this whole thing hinges on one thing - you're a Bible student, so apparently you don't accept current theories on the evolution of life on earth.  Big deal, none of you accept it.  Again, big deal, it doesn't change the facts, and it never will. But let's make one thing perfectly clear - this is SCIENCE, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with religion. The fact that some religious believers don't accept science is nothing new, nothing new at all. And I have yet to ever see a case where science was falsified or overturned by "believers" using science. Ever.  I suspect I never will either, because "believers" are afraid of science. So afraid that they have little choice but to simply try to discredit actual science.

So - I'm assuming that you somehow, through the miracle of Jesus, accept micro-evolution, is that correct? If not, then I'll bow out. If so, then answer this question:

If micro-evolution is acceptable in explaining small changes over small amounts of time, what mechanism, EXACTLY, stops those micro-evolutionary changes from happening (in order to of course prevent macro-evolutionary changes from happening.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #240 on: March 09, 2014, 06:28:22 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.

And therein lies the root of your fallacy. Somehow you think that your attempt to answer something that you don't understand with something even bigger that you don't under (mystery by bigger mystery for you) is a viable option - when in reality it is not. If you do not know HOW a specific phenomena happened then you should stop pretending to and withhold judgment until further evidence comes in. But you aren't willing to be agnostic, are you? You think the only option is "Yahweh did it" (incredulously again based in your irrational religious and theological assumptions which heavily drive your confirmation bias to automatically reject any evidence that would overturn your theology). FAIL.

You want to act as if your faith position (god of the gaps) is on the same footing as a position that is based upon multiple attest lines of evidence and a scientific method which does not, and CANNOT, investigate claims to the supernatural or miraculous. You (just like your buddies at DI) are trying to blur the lines between science and non-science (of course so that you can smuggle in magic claims). Did you know, though, that there are people within your ID camp that accept common descent? Michael Behe, for example, accepts common descent.

The thing is, when you have put yourself in a position in which you will-not be convinced of any line of evidence or reason which violates your precommitment to your theology there isn't much left to show you - as it just sounds like you are here to be a troll and waste everyone's time. The mechanism that provides the pathway for evolution to operate (the mechanism which has been so successful in so many fields of study and prediction thus far) is natural selection by random mutation. Now, amongst your many claims, you have made the claim that small changes cannot add up to large changes (as if adding 1+1+1 for a long time can't get you to a million, or that wind blowing sand upon a small mow-hill cannot create a large mountain). Your claim that there is some "limit" on what chemical additions can come about from random mutation amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. "It's just so improbable. It couldn't have happened naturally. Therefore, I insert magic."

The evidence is not the problem. Your philosophy is.

Index to Creationist Claims (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)

-Mutations do not add information
-Macroevolution has never been observed
-Microevolution is distinct from Macroevolution
-There are barriers to large change
-Small changes do not imply large changes
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 06:49:13 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #241 on: March 10, 2014, 08:30:29 AM »
-Microevolution is distinct from Macroevolution

fixed one broken link.  You are doing such a good job that I didn't want that to spoil it!   :police:
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6689
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #242 on: March 10, 2014, 03:43:26 PM »
I'm waiting for BS to explain how the 23 human gene pairs with one fused have no connection to the 24 ape gene pairs with none fused.

This is either some pretty darn good support for evolution, or another mean cosmic joke from the Intelligent Designer to trick scientists into thinking evolution was real-- the ID as Loki the god of misdirection.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #243 on: March 10, 2014, 08:08:40 PM »
I'm waiting for BS to explain how the 23 human gene pairs with one fused have no connection to the 24 ape gene pairs with none fused.

This is either some pretty darn good support for evolution, or another mean cosmic joke from the Intelligent Designer to trick scientists into thinking evolution was real-- the ID as Loki the god of misdirection.

As soon as you can tell me how in the world the ToE's version of common descent with modification is a scientific 'fact' (based on the scientific method), I will describe why it is believed that humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #244 on: March 10, 2014, 08:11:18 PM »
You want to act as if your faith position (god of the gaps) is on the same footing as a position that is based upon multiple attest lines of evidence and a scientific method which does not, and CANNOT, investigate claims to the supernatural or miraculous.

Is there a law of nature that rules out the possibility of the supernatural?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1442
  • Darwins +97/-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 #245 on: March 10, 2014, 08:15:59 PM »
I'm waiting for BS to explain how the 23 human gene pairs with one fused have no connection to the 24 ape gene pairs with none fused.

This is either some pretty darn good support for evolution, or another mean cosmic joke from the Intelligent Designer to trick scientists into thinking evolution was real-- the ID as Loki the god of misdirection.

As soon as you can tell me how in the world the ToE's version of common descent with modification is a scientific 'fact' (based on the scientific method), I will describe why it is believed that humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

Why do you always dodge and ignore what people have written previously?

Do you not think you are making your point of view look weak to any reader?

« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 08:23:26 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official 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

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #246 on: March 10, 2014, 08:46:58 PM »
You want to act as if your faith position (god of the gaps) is on the same footing as a position that is based upon multiple attest lines of evidence and a scientific method which does not, and CANNOT, investigate claims to the supernatural or miraculous.

Is there a law of nature that rules out the possibility of the supernatural?
Well, yes... you see Laws of Nature deal with "natural" things - things that obey those laws. The supernatural has a clue hidden in the word - can you find it?

The supernatural is our ignorance writ large. It is what children use to explain what they do not know, it is the stuff of fairy tales and ghost stories. However, some grown-up people think it would be nice to live in the 13th century and deny all progress from that point onwards. These people like to believe that there is magic.

I hope that helped.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #247 on: March 10, 2014, 08:48:07 PM »
I'm waiting for BS to explain how the 23 human gene pairs with one fused have no connection to the 24 ape gene pairs with none fused.

This is either some pretty darn good support for evolution, or another mean cosmic joke from the Intelligent Designer to trick scientists into thinking evolution was real-- the ID as Loki the god of misdirection.

As soon as you can tell me how in the world the ToE's version of common descent with modification is a scientific 'fact' (based on the scientific method), I will describe why it is believed that humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

No you won't. By holding us up to your arbitrary and generic and inexplicable standards, you protect yourself from every having to say anything definite about either evolution or ID. You're got yourself outfitted with an Ironman suit of verbal armor, and the only reason you are here is to continue the pretense that you know what you're talking about.

The funny part is here you are, dissing the 23/24 pair tiny, predicted by evolution decades before we had the science to prove it, and then, in your very next post, you ask:

Quote
Is there a law of nature that rules out the possibility of the supernatural?

So you seem to be capable of curiosity, as long as it is in support of your presuppositions. But even when you are doing that, you are careful not to take a specific position about a particular instance or possibility. You are always generic. That's how you roll.

So keep on ignoring our various long, heartfelt efforts to  correct your misconceptions, and instead busy yourself picking and choosing those hand posts that are snit-worthy to you. Pretend that your efforts are of value to someone, somewhere. We'll do our best to make sure you aren't accidentally enlightened. And as long as your posts remain consistent with what you've already barely said, we'll know that we haven't disturbed your POV one whit.

On the bright side, at least you aren't pretending that you're an atheist.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #248 on: March 11, 2014, 02:54:49 AM »
You want to act as if your faith position (god of the gaps) is on the same footing as a position that is based upon multiple attest lines of evidence and a scientific method which does not, and CANNOT, investigate claims to the supernatural or miraculous.

Is there a law of nature that rules out the possibility of the supernatural?

Firstly, this should be a question for a new thread. Now I want to answer this, but I'm going to resist pandering to your ransom, because you don't respond to questions being asked of you. When you can start behaving in a reciprocal manner, you know, where answers are bounced back and forth, then there might be some headway made.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6689
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #249 on: March 11, 2014, 03:48:44 PM »
I'm waiting for BS to explain how the 23 human gene pairs with one fused have no connection to the 24 ape gene pairs with none fused.

This is either some pretty darn good support for evolution, or another mean cosmic joke from the Intelligent Designer to trick scientists into thinking evolution was real-- the ID as Loki the god of misdirection.

As soon as you can tell me how in the world the ToE's version of common descent with modification is a scientific 'fact' (based on the scientific method), I will describe why it is believed that humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

BS, you keep saying you don't understand how people can accept the scientific evidence in support of evolution, arguing that it is "not really science" or "not really fact". It is just the theory of evolution that you object to. It seems that in this one area you are holding out for a magical process controlled by a supernatural being that science cannot find. You do seem to accept that scientists in other fields besides biology are actually doing science and discovering facts.

It is possible (although not probable) that scientists don't know what they are doing in genetics, and that the theory of evolution is wrong in some fundamental way. But why do you assume that scientists are capable of doing science and finding out facts in every other area, but have one enormous blind spot when it comes to this one area of biology?

We present you with example after example of things that scientists have discovered that appear to be good evidence in support of evolution. And you never address why this evidence should not count as either science, or as fact.

There has to be some reason for you to not accept the scientific facts about evolution presented to you as science, or as facts. You must think that biological scientists are lying in huge numbers about what they are doing, or are making some enormous mistakes that nobody else in the field is noticing.  Really? Why do you think you know something that the vast majority of researchers in the field are missing?

Either way, there is apparently some worldwide conspiracy to do fake biological science and trick people into thinking it actually works. Nobel Prizes are routinely handed out to people whose work is all mistakes, and research institutes are funded to do pretend work.....And anyone who goes into biological science as a career, whether in Israel, Russia, China, or the US, eventually gets the secret memo to cover up the evolution fraud conspiracy or else!  Because......why?

Which is it? Do you think that the scientists who found the DNA are lying or mistaken and the truth must be covered up or else the entire theory of evolution has to be abandoned? Like humans don't really have 23 gene pairs after all, but have the same 24 as apes, or have 16 or 92 gene pairs? If so, do you think all other scientists who are working with ape and human genes are also lying or mistaken and are actively covering up the other lies and mistakes?

If this is what you think, then you have to explain how it is that the research that is based on these apparent lies and mistakes actually does work? That is, the work in genetics that has resulted in new disease treatments for AIDS, the cloning of people's pets and research on extinct species being brought back is also faked? http://www.livescience.com/38972-how-to-resurrect-extinct-animals.html

I am serious. Are you, BS, saying that Korean people are only imagining that their pet was cloned, http://myfriendagain.com/ or are you saying that the cloning process is not based on the theory of evolution and is really the accidental result of something entirely different from what scientists think?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 03:51:33 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2101
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #250 on: March 11, 2014, 03:57:28 PM »
Not intending to derail the thread, but I realize that this question runs the risk of that:

BibleStudent, are there any other theories out there that are generally accepted by the scientific community that you feel also lack in actual science?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #251 on: March 12, 2014, 11:41:45 AM »
As soon as you can tell me how in the world the ToE's version of common descent with modification is a scientific 'fact' (based on the scientific method), I will describe why it is believed that humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

Just a suggestion. Once you find a way to tell us why common descent with modification is false, we'll respond. Just saying it is false isn't enough. Since your desperation can't produce the factoids your flawed philosophical stance requires, you're going to have to stick with the truth. We'll wait while you figure out how.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #252 on: March 12, 2014, 12:27:03 PM »
As soon as you can tell me how in the world the ToE's version of common descent with modification is a scientific 'fact' (based on the scientific method), I will describe why it is believed that humans have 23 pairs and apes have 24.

Just a suggestion. Once you find a way to tell us why common descent with modification is false, we'll respond. Just saying it is false isn't enough. Since your desperation can't produce the factoids your flawed philosophical stance requires, you're going to have to stick with the truth. We'll wait while you figure out how.

However, his desperation can produce a link to a completely non-credible[1] site which he will not read nor, especially, will he fact check it or regard it with even an ounce of skepticism.  That is pretty much what desperation is good for.

 1. incredible?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #253 on: March 13, 2014, 11:49:17 PM »
You want to act as if your faith position (god of the gaps) is on the same footing as a position that is based upon multiple attest lines of evidence and a scientific method which does not, and CANNOT, investigate claims to the supernatural or miraculous.

Is there a law of nature that rules out the possibility of the supernatural?

Can there be a law about something for which there is no coherent definition, has never been demonstrated, and is highly controversial? You throw around this word "supernatural" like kids throw around the term Santa Claus. That term doesn't refer to any-thing, just like the terms "Yahweh", or "Zeus" don't actually refer to any-thing. They are just words that have no demonstrable referent. Things we discover in the corporeal world of experience are natural. I challenge you to make a viable, testable, and independently verifiable prediction based solely upon this claim you are making to "the supernatural".

Now, I have no way of answering your question since I have no idea WTF you are talking about when you are using the term "supernatural". Any person can just put two words together and then get a bunch of other people to start using it as if it's a real thing. Here are some examples:

-transcendentist
-invisicorn 
-metabeer
-supraflute
-metaphysicist
-celestialcigarette
-emotionalboner

Do these 'words' have actual referents? No, they don't. So too goes for the concocted word "supernatural". You haven't even come close to showing how you could 1) cogently define that term or 2) demonstrate that it refers to anything in the phenomenal/corporeal world. So really, at the end of the day you're just using these types of terms and hoping we are going to follow you down the rabbit hole of irrationality in their use. Well, as you've seen, we aren't buying it. And that is because this use of such term types flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. You are appealing to extraordinary claims (namely of this "supernatural" thing), and thus the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate extraordinary evidence - not just use arguments from incredulity all the time and act as if you have been able to imagine every possibly scenario that could have ever occurred for life to have arrived here by natural processes, and then concluded by fiat what's impossible (b/c that is fallacious and don't fly). Again, you should be humbly admitting ignorance instead of holding fast to an assumed theology. That is the intellectually honest position.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 11:58:53 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1442
  • Darwins +97/-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 #254 on: March 14, 2014, 01:53:40 AM »
Is there a law of nature that rules out the possibility of the supernatural?

When a law explains how something works, you don't need another explanation.

When you don't know a law to explain something, just be honest and say you don't know.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official 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