Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 7868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12244
  • Darwins +662/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #435 on: August 05, 2014, 08:49:31 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

Oh, that's all?

It is funny infuriating how you rather smugly demand everything, now, and when it isn't served up to your satisfaction, you insert a bronze age myth as your alternative.  I find it sad and discouraging that a brain could even function that way.

Our species is doomed.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #436 on: August 05, 2014, 08:53:24 AM »
See my above reply to Ataraxia.

Define "macro evolution" and "large scale biological changes".

Simply explain the biological process that, for example, lead to a dinosaur developing feathers and wings. I will keep repeating this --> the ToE is labelled a theory and a fact; therefore, the scientific method must be capable of supporting the claim that this is even possible.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6395
  • Darwins +756/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #437 on: August 05, 2014, 08:56:02 AM »
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again.

If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Skep, who has not yet replied.

How come, if the theory of evolution is wrong, scientists can go to a newly discovered fossil bed, determine its age, and then predict what will and will not be found in it. They can say with complete certainly things like "These rocks are 150 million years old. We may find a stegosaurus, but we won't find a T-rex". Conversely, they can find much younger rocks and say "We won't find a stegosaurus, but we might find a t-rex".

How come, when we look at 500 million year old rocks, we find only small organisms. When we look at 250 million year old rocks, we find larger, more complex organisms. When we look at 100 million year old rocks we find giant trees and huge dinosaurs and terrifyingly large meat eating sea creatures. When we looks at rocks that are 50 million years old, all the dinosaurs are gone, but mammals have appeared in large numbers.

We can tell you right now that we will never find trilobite fossils in rocks less than 250 million years old. All you have to do is go out and find trilobites in rocks we have said are younger than that, and you ruin everything for us.

We can date rocks before looking in them. And the fossils we find in those rocks are always, as in every frickin' time, exactly the fossils we would expect to find from that time period. Sure, we find new stuff all the time too, but everything we find is consistent with the evolutionary time frame we've developed by looking at the evidence. And we never find fossils from two different ages together. Yea, you guys think everything is 6,000 years old, but if our claims are wrong, why all the consistency?

All you have to do to disprove evolution is go out and find a stegosaurus and a t-rex buried side by side. That would disprove everything. Why aren't you guys working on that?

Again, all you have to do is go to a fossil bed, ask ahead of time how old scientists say it is, and start digging. And then all you have to do is find something that science says won't be there, and we're in trouble. What could be easier.

Do it, or shut up, creationists.

Why this long winded explanation of fossil predictions, etc? It does nothing to demonstrate that birds-from-dinosaurs is an evolutionary FACT supported by the scientific method.

You should be far more concerned about why it is true and why it does not match your theology. You have no explanation for the geological mechanism I explained. Your beliefs have no room for the above to be true. If science can say categorically that there are no trilobites in sea fossils 150 million years old, and you say its impossible because the whole planet is only 5,000 years old, you are not explaining why there are no trilobites amongst those fossils. If fossilized ancient creatures are the result of your motherf**king flood, why are fossils that the very wrong scientists (as per you) ALWAYS found exactly where science says they can be found, and never found in the random order that the flood would have produced?

Why can't your religion explain the geological record? Why don't you even try? Why to you hang on the incredulous (how could something little evolve into something big?) and ignore things like, oh, you know, facts. The fact is, fossils are NOT MIXED UP! They are found in very specific order, and that order is so frickin' consistent with evolution that it hurts.

And worse yet for you guys, we would know we evolved even if there wasn't a single fossil on this planet, because the record contained in all genetic material points towards evolution. Even if you don't personally like it. But right now that's beside the point.

I brought up the fossils in an effort to get the fundy explanation for the fossil record. The record described in great detail by science. The record is so well defined that science cannot say "Oh, sorry, we made a mistake, we meant to say that those fossils were twice as old as we first said, now that you found a fossil that we said wouldn't be there." Science can't do that. Science has found a very specific relationship between time and fossils, and it is consistent world-wide. Show us why it can't be true so we can stop wasting our time and yours.

This is relevant to the discussion. If the best you can do is blow this post off with a flippant remark that exposes even more of your ignorance, then that will mean you are in more trouble than you thought.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #438 on: August 05, 2014, 08:56:46 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

Oh, that's all?

It is funny infuriating how you rather smugly demand everything, now, and when it isn't served up to your satisfaction, you insert a bronze age myth as your alternative.  I find it sad and discouraging that a brain could even function that way.

Our species is doomed.

And I find it extremely disturbing that sellers of the ToE do so based on blatant lies and outright deceit.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #439 on: August 05, 2014, 08:58:04 AM »
<snip blurb>

At least take a look at the link I posted before posting your ready made response.

Well, have you looked at it? Did you watch and read it before you responded to it?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #440 on: August 05, 2014, 09:09:39 AM »
You should be far more concerned about why it is true and why it does not match your theology. You have no explanation for the geological mechanism I explained. Your beliefs have no room for the above to be true. If science can say categorically that there are no trilobites in sea fossils 150 million years old, and you say its impossible because the whole planet is only 5,000 years old, you are not explaining why there are no trilobites amongst those fossils. If fossilized ancient creatures are the result of your motherf**king flood, why are fossils that the very wrong scientists (as per you) ALWAYS found exactly where science says they can be found, and never found in the random order that the flood would have produced?

Why can't your religion explain the geological record? Why don't you even try? Why to you hang on the incredulous (how could something little evolve into something big?) and ignore things like, oh, you know, facts. The fact is, fossils are NOT MIXED UP! They are found in very specific order, and that order is so frickin' consistent with evolution that it hurts.

And worse yet for you guys, we would know we evolved even if there wasn't a single fossil on this planet, because the record contained in all genetic material points towards evolution. Even if you don't personally like it. But right now that's beside the point.

I brought up the fossils in an effort to get the fundy explanation for the fossil record. The record described in great detail by science. The record is so well defined that science cannot say "Oh, sorry, we made a mistake, we meant to say that those fossils were twice as old as we first said, now that you found a fossil that we said wouldn't be there." Science can't do that. Science has found a very specific relationship between time and fossils, and it is consistent world-wide. Show us why it can't be true so we can stop wasting our time and yours.

This is relevant to the discussion. If the best you can do is blow this post off with a flippant remark that exposes even more of your ignorance, then that will mean you are in more trouble than you thought.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The fossil record can SUGGEST the progression of various species but unless you can demonstrate that there are biological processes capable of performing these alleged transitions, the aspect of the ToE that purports to demonstrate this is NOT a theory and a FACT…..and that is simply because it cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method. Period.

edit: fixed quotes
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 09:15:50 AM by BibleStudent »

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
  • Darwins +59/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #441 on: August 05, 2014, 09:12:53 AM »
BibleStudent; perhaps you could address the questions here as Skep is busy at work?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27189.0.html
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #442 on: August 05, 2014, 09:17:45 AM »
<snip blurb>

At least take a look at the link I posted before posting your ready made response.

Well, have you looked at it? Did you watch and read it before you responded to it?

Yes, I watched it. How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #443 on: August 05, 2014, 09:19:03 AM »
<snip blurb>

At least take a look at the link I posted before posting your ready made response.

Well, have you looked at it? Did you watch and read it before you responded to it?

Yes, I watched it. How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

You watched it before you responded to it?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6395
  • Darwins +756/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #444 on: August 05, 2014, 09:23:29 AM »
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The fossil record can SUGGEST the progression of various species but unless you can demonstrate that there are biological processes capable of performing these alleged transitions, the aspect of the ToE that purports to demonstrate this is NOT a theory and a FACT…..and that is simply because it cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method. Period.

Well, I'm not missing the point. Rather, you are hanging on to your feeble hopes. Which are based on your lack of knowledge on just about everything involved. That you can't believe that the genetic mechanism of evolution has been demonstrated by the scientific method, over and over and over, complicates the matter immensely. And that you refuse to confront another huge hunk of evidence against your also feeble beliefs on the matter demonstrates desperation, not sound debating skills.

Can you demonstrate why, given that genes change constantly from generation to generation (which should be obvious unless you look exactly like both your mother and your father) why, over the billions of years science says evolution has taken place, all organisms would stay exactly the same? If genetic material is never copied exactly in organisms, why would they not change? Why wouldn't a single cell organism become a two celled organism, and later that one become a four celled or eight celled organism. And, why, over time, wouldn't trillion cell organisms evolve? What would stop it? All the tools are there.

If all you can do is ask questions and never answer ours, then you don't have a thing to go on. You are Davy Crockett at the Alamo, desperately swinging Ol' Betsy around at the charging Mexicans, hoping for a happy ending even as the musket balls tear in to you from a hundred rifles. But you won't get to be a folk hero, so it is all for naught.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #445 on: August 05, 2014, 09:23:42 AM »
<snip blurb>

At least take a look at the link I posted before posting your ready made response.

Well, have you looked at it? Did you watch and read it before you responded to it?

Yes, I watched it. How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

You watched it before you responded to it?

I started to watch it, stopped it, read the commentary on the webpage and then posted my reply.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10968
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #446 on: August 05, 2014, 09:25:27 AM »
Simply explain the biological process that, for example, lead to a dinosaur developing feathers and wings.

I already did, which you clearly didn't even read.
Post scriptum: I had predicted this response, as well as a part of your other response to Ataraxia that you directed at me as well. I can get screenshots of where I told this to a member, as well as his/her testimony.
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 BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #447 on: August 05, 2014, 09:26:17 AM »

That you can't believe that the genetic mechanism of evolution has been demonstrated by the scientific method, over and over and over, complicates the matter immensely.

Seems we might finally be getting somewhere. I am anxious to see the scientific evidence you have for this...and, again, please remember what constitutes a theory and a FACT.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #448 on: August 05, 2014, 09:29:25 AM »
Simply explain the biological process that, for example, lead to a dinosaur developing feathers and wings.

I already did, which you clearly didn't even read.
Post scriptum: I had predicted this response, as well as a part of your other response to Ataraxia that you directed at me as well. I can get screenshots of where I told this to a member, as well as his/her testimony.

You have done no such thing. You are either being willfully dishonest or you have been duped into believing that what you stated somehow demonstrated that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact. You do understand what is necessary to deem something a theory and a fact in science, don't you?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1351
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #449 on: August 05, 2014, 09:30:26 AM »
How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

Why do you say evolution is not "a theory and a fact"? Do you think evolution is not a theory?
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 Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #450 on: August 05, 2014, 09:39:17 AM »
<snip blurb>

At least take a look at the link I posted before posting your ready made response.

Well, have you looked at it? Did you watch and read it before you responded to it?

Yes, I watched it. How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

You watched it before you responded to it?

I started to watch it, stopped it, read the commentary on the webpage and then posted my reply.

Wow, so in the space of 2 minutes and 40 seconds:

....
....

you managed to start watching a 3 minutes and 41 second video, stop it before it was even at minute long, then read through four paragraphs worth of further explanation (which follows on from the video), then you managed to type out this in response:

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.

You're a fucking liar and a really crap one to boot. You had a ready made response regardless of the whether the response you got answered your question. You're a fucking fraud - a bullshitting, head in the sand bible thumper who has no intention of ever listening to or digesting new information that could potentially alter your perspective.

Why anyone should ever again even attempt to answer you or provide you with information is beyond me.

We're done.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #451 on: August 05, 2014, 09:39:51 AM »
How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

Why do you say evolution is not "a theory and a fact"? Do you think evolution is not a theory?

Define "theory" and then I will tell you what whether I think evolution meets the criteria or not.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #452 on: August 05, 2014, 09:42:26 AM »

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1351
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #453 on: August 05, 2014, 09:50:00 AM »
How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

Why do you say evolution is not "a theory and a fact"? Do you think evolution is not a theory?

Define "theory" and then I will tell you what whether I think evolution meets the criteria or not.

Do you mean to say that you have been using a word without knowing what it means?
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 BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #454 on: August 05, 2014, 09:52:33 AM »
How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

Why do you say evolution is not "a theory and a fact"? Do you think evolution is not a theory?


Define "theory" and then I will tell you what whether I think evolution meets the criteria or not.

Do you mean to say that you have been using a word without knowing what it means?

I just want to see which definition you subscribe to. Do you have one?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1351
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #455 on: August 05, 2014, 10:04:22 AM »
You see, the definition of ‘speciation’ that you use is vague and misleading. It dupes people such as yourself into thinking that because one species of birds won’t do the nasty with another species of birds anymore that somehow it makes a case for snakes evolving from lizards.

So you accept microevolution of birds, that pigeons are related to ostriches, and probably you accept the microevolution of dogs that poodles came from wolves. How about the much smaller microevolution among the apes, now that humans "won't do the nasty" with other apes anymore.
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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1351
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #456 on: August 05, 2014, 10:06:22 AM »
How does it demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact?

Why do you say evolution is not "a theory and a fact"? Do you think evolution is not a theory?


Define "theory" and then I will tell you what whether I think evolution meets the criteria or not.

Do you mean to say that you have been using a word without knowing what it means?

I just want to see which definition you subscribe to. Do you have one?

You are the one making the claim that you know better than the experts. It is your definition which matters.
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

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #457 on: August 05, 2014, 10:08:33 AM »
I'd never heard of this Douglas Axe, so I went and looked.  He apparently works for something called the Biologic Institute, funded by the Discovery Institute.  Interestingly enough, he has a PhD in chemical engineering.  So you will have to excuse me if I don't accept him as an authority on either evolutionary biology or probability theory.

It would be one thing if he were actually an expert on evolutionary biology or probability theory (preferably both), but using a paper written by a chemical engineer to argue that macro-evolution is too 'improbable'?  I can only conclude that this is an argumetium ad verecundiam (argument from authority) logical fallacy.

Furthermore, his actual paper attempts to use mathematical equations to 'prove' that complex adaptations would have been limited to between two and six base changes in the lifetime of the Earth.  All this proves is that the equations he selected have those limitations; it does not prove that evolutionary adaptation is so limited.  The most he could have shown is that the question is still not settled; he certainly did not show that adaptations requiring more than six base changes would have been impossible.

That completely leaves aside the fact that organizations like the Discovery Institute are focused on trying to disprove evolutionary theory to replace it with an evolved version of an ancient creation story.  Yet even if they somehow managed to actually disprove evolutionary theory (something they have not even come close to doing, despite all the dust and smoke they kick up), it would not establish that their chosen alternative was true.  Not at all.  That means they're practicing a bait-and-switch tactic, rather than practicing actual science with the intent of discovering anything.

If they ever managed to disprove evolution, I would wager real money - all of my income for the rest of my life - that they would not spend any real time or effort demonstrating that their alternative had any scientific value.  Instead, it would be presented as a fait accompli, something that was true because evolution was supposedly false, even though this is a false equivocation.  Even if BibleStudent were right that evolutionary biologists were practicing "blatant lies" and "outright deceit", it would in no way justify the Discovery Institute and other such organizations doing the same thing to 'prove' their own beliefs.

Also note that his claims aboug evolutionary biologists being deceitful liars has in no way been proven and is thus an argumentum ad hominem (argument at the person) logical fallacy.  The only thing he has succeeded in demonstrating is that he his blatantly prejudiced against evolutionary biology to the point of considering its proponents to be deceitful liars.  This accomplishes nothing.

What matters is whether creationist organizations such as the Discovery Institute can present evidence that conclusively shows  that their alternative, creationism, is more valid than evolutionary biology.  This does not mean presenting bad arguments (such as the ones that Axe expounds on in the paper that BibleStudent linked) to try to weaken evolutionary biology to the point where they can supplant it with creationism.  The reason this does not work is that even if evolutionary biology were in fact weakened to that point, it would not mean that scientists would automatically flock to creationist ideas.  Instead, they would examine the actual evidence and come up with an alternative theory that worked better.

Realistically, what is far more likely is that someone will eventually come up with an explanation that explains the things that evolutionary biology does not yet explain well, as Peter Higgs did with the Higgs field, and thus the new explanation would incorporate evolutionary biology into itself.  Comparatively, the idea of creationist "intelligent design" cannot even come close to providing the explanatory power for how life on Earth came to be so diverse.  It can only propose that organisms were made to order by some higher entity, which explains practically nothing of value.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6395
  • Darwins +756/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #458 on: August 05, 2014, 10:12:37 AM »

That you can't believe that the genetic mechanism of evolution has been demonstrated by the scientific method, over and over and over, complicates the matter immensely.

Seems we might finally be getting somewhere. I am anxious to see the scientific evidence you have for this...and, again, please remember what constitutes a theory and a FACT.

Maybe we are getting somewhere. If you can first explain why you think that the millions of scientific papers explaining different details of the mechanism of genetics are all wrong, I'll understand more precisely where you're coming from. And if you can explain how the scientific method was ignored in each and every one of them, that would really help too.

Sadly, I've got to go to work so I won't have a chance to be flustered by your response until this evening.

Nervously yours,

ParkingPlaces

P.S. Science doesn't delve in to facts very much. The fact that you will be killed if you jump off a high cliff isn't relevant to the theory of gravity. Given that science is always finding out new stuff, it is careful not to call anything a fact, even when, for all practical purposes, it has found many a fact. Science is careful like that. And given that you are religious and all, I'd think that facts are of little use to you as well.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #459 on: August 05, 2014, 10:14:44 AM »
A theory is when you make a coherent picture of the way something is supposed to work (or be). The theory then persists as long as you can't find anything solid that invalidates your theory. A theory should not be about coming up a with a picture, and supporting it with evidence that you choose, and dismissing anything you don't like.

A theory could be quite nebulous, as long as a deal of facts support the picture, and none have been found that undermine it. As long as not so many facts support a premise, it would probably be called a hypothesis.

You will find that quibbling about whether Evolution meets your rigged expectations, is somewhat different to establishing a Theory of Creationism, and measuring it against all the facts we know about fossils. If there was any one institution that peer reviewed a theory of Creationism, we could start to criticize it. However no such peer reviewed edifice exists.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #460 on: August 05, 2014, 10:18:06 AM »
I'd never heard of this Douglas Axe, so I went and looked.  He apparently works for something called the Biologic Institute, funded by the Discovery Institute.  Interestingly enough, he has a PhD in chemical engineering.  So you will have to excuse me if I don't accept him as an authority on either evolutionary biology or probability theory.

Yes, but he could well be counted as part of the un-peer-reviewed swill, with no accountability, or contributions to a coherent picture. Coming up with a single fact in favour of Creationism is a difficult task, since it's such a shit idea.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #461 on: August 05, 2014, 10:18:14 AM »
Also note that his claims aboug evolutionary biologists being deceitful liars has in no way been proven...

Unfortunately, the same can't be said about himself.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4876
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #462 on: August 05, 2014, 10:21:40 AM »
Adios.
Ataraxia has a very good point.  You outright lied when you said you watched the video.  You admitted that you lied by stating that you started to watch it, stopped the video, then read over the commentary.

If you are willing to lie about something as simple as whether you actually watched a video before you made a post, when it's obvious from the posting times that you couldn't have watched it, why should anyone believe you when you claim, say, that evolutionary biologists are deceitful liars?  When you start accusing other people of being liars and deceitful, your own honesty and veracity become very important.  If someone can show that you lied about something, then accusations you made about other people lying fall apart.

Given that, I'd recommend that you apologize for lying, and apologize for calling evolutionary biologists deceitful liars.  You are, of course, free to do otherwise, but you have already impeached your own honesty, so it will be to your benefit to admit that you screwed up.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12244
  • Darwins +662/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #463 on: August 05, 2014, 10:23:35 AM »
Simply explain the biological process that, for example, lead to a dinosaur developing feathers and wings. I will keep repeating this --> the ToE is labelled a theory and a fact; therefore, the scientific method must be capable of supporting the claim that this is even possible.

Have you, you know, tried to find any information on your own?  The kind that does not come from creationists, but from actual experts on evolution?  Or are you just asking this question as part of a script, so you can get to your next line?


Oh, that's all?

It is funny infuriating how you rather smugly demand everything, now, and when it isn't served up to your satisfaction, you insert a bronze age myth as your alternative.  I find it sad and discouraging that a brain could even function that way.

Our species is doomed.

And I find it extremely disturbing that sellers of the ToE do so based on blatant lies and outright deceit.

support those claims or retract them.

I have been pretty hard on people here - atheists specifically - who accuse other members of lying.  I will be hard on you also.  You must establish within reasonable doubt that the Theory of Evolution is based on "blatant lies and outright deceit".  If you cannot, you must eat your words and your shoes.  I have started a thread for you to do it, here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27197.0.html

get to it.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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