Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 7778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12191
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #464 on: August 05, 2014, 10:25:12 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.


I agree.  Biblestudent, you should do this.
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 #465 on: August 05, 2014, 10:27:58 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.

I am not lying and I don't give a rat's ass what you are Ataraxia accuses me of. I am not lying about the sequence of events leading up to my post. Think what you want.

Same old tactics, just a different day. The pattern is quite predictable. When some of you realize that you cannot provide the scientific support for the large biological transitions claimed by the ToE, you (like many others) resort to doing anything and everything you can to discredit the opposing party.

It is your prerogative to label me any way you see fit.….BUT….the simple fact remains that you STILL have failed to demonstrate how the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact. I could be the biggest liar on planet Earth but my character does nothing to the substance of the specific request.

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 #466 on: August 05, 2014, 10:28:54 AM »
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.

You are suffering from an idea that somehow theories and FACTs are a progression hierachy of some kind.

A fact is something that is recorded, after the event. The theory of gravity predicts that something will fall out of my hand, but it does not become a FACT, until the thing falls out of my hand.

FACTs are observations, after the fact, whilst theories are belief systems based on accumulated observations, that we tend to call FACTs.

Here I use an upper case FACT, because it's the standard spelling of FACT.


Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #467 on: August 05, 2014, 10:30:13 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.


I agree.  Biblestudent, you should do this.

Under compulsion from a forum moderator I apologize, Ataraxia. I still maintain that I did not lie.

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 #468 on: August 05, 2014, 10:32:32 AM »
Same old tactics, just a different day. The pattern is quite predictable. When some of you realize that you cannot provide the scientific support for the large biological transitions claimed by the ToE, you (like many others) resort to doing anything and everything you can to discredit the opposing party.

It is your prerogative to label me any way you see fit.….BUT….the simple fact remains that you STILL have failed to demonstrate how the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact. I could be the biggest liar on planet Earth but my character does nothing to the substance of the specific request.

You seem to have it backwards. Creationists attack evolution, though they can't provide evidence that they have done much to construct a theory or criticize it using all the evidence available. There is virtually nothing for an evolutionist to attack, beside 10 lines in the Bible.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12191
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #469 on: August 05, 2014, 10:36:21 AM »
For what it is worth, it was not a compulsion.  "Should" implies it is a suggestion and it would be a good idea and in your interest to do it, though you have the option to not.  "Must" or "do this" is a directive. 

My agreeing only means that I find it is reasonable that Atartaxia believes you were intentionally deceptive and will not be asked to retract his accusation.

But I do appreciate your willingness to comply.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #470 on: August 05, 2014, 10:37:15 AM »
Same old tactics, just a different day. The pattern is quite predictable.

Which explains why I actually made a prediction about what you would (and did) say, with a witness and everything, yet you made no such prediction. You could've sent yourself a PM about your predictions, so as to avoid any dishonesty claims, then screenshot it, upload the screenshot somewhere, and post the screenshot here for all to see. You did none of those things, so I'm calling BS (heh) on this.
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 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 #471 on: August 05, 2014, 10:39:19 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.


I agree.  Biblestudent, you should do this.

Under compulsion from a forum moderator I apologize, Ataraxia. I still maintain that I did not lie.

I don't accept back handed apologies, especially not when you proceed with lying about not lying when it has been shown you have.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #472 on: August 05, 2014, 10:40:07 AM »
I am not lying and I don't give a rat's ass what you are Ataraxia accuses me of. I am not lying about the sequence of events leading up to my post. Think what you want.

Same old tactics, just a different day. The pattern is quite predictable. When some of you realize that you cannot provide the scientific support for the large biological transitions claimed by the ToE, you (like many others) resort to doing anything and everything you can to discredit the opposing party.

It is your prerogative to label me any way you see fit.….BUT….the simple fact remains that you STILL have failed to demonstrate how the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact. I could be the biggest liar on planet Earth but my character does nothing to the substance of the specific request.

Yet you refuse to accommodate a simple request which is necessary for your questions to be addressed.  Please address the request made by One Above All as follows:

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

I’d also request that you define “Theory” and “Fact”.

I’m also curious how much you actually understand and comprehend regarding the Theory of Evolution.
"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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4829
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #473 on: August 05, 2014, 10:41:05 AM »
I am not lying and I don't give a rat's ass what you are Ataraxia accuses me of. I am not lying about the sequence of events leading up to my post. Think what you want.
You stated that you watched the video.  This is, at best, an exaggeration (since you did not watch the entire video, or probably even most of it).  Exaggeration is a form of lying because it attempts to represent things as better or worse than they actually are; it would not pass the "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" test.  Admittedly, it is not as egregious as some forms of lying, but it is more of a lie than omission (which you also did at first).

Quote from: BibleStudent
Same old tactics, just a different day. The pattern is quite predictable. When some of you realize that you cannot provide the scientific support for the large biological transitions claimed by the ToE, you (like many others) resort to doing anything and everything you can to discredit the opposing party.
Actually, I had no intention of doing any such thing until you started accusing evolutionary biologists of being deceitful liars, and even then, I wouldn't have actually accused you of lying unless I could definitely show that you had (which I did).  You will note that I did not accuse you of lying about anything else; instead, I said you had impeached your own honesty and that would affect whether people believed your accusations about others lying.

Quote from: BibleStudent
It is your prerogative to label me any way you see fit.….BUT….the simple fact remains that you STILL have failed to demonstrate how the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a fact. I could be the biggest liar on planet Earth but my character does nothing to the substance of the specific request.
Naturally not, but it's important to get issues like the one I mentioned (lying by exaggeration and omission until you were pressed on it) out of the way before handling anything else.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 10:43:00 AM by jaimehlers »

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 #474 on: August 05, 2014, 10:44:14 AM »
I am not lying and I don't give a rat's ass what you are Ataraxia accuses me of. I am not lying about the sequence of events leading up to my post. Think what you want.
You stated that you watched the video.  This is, at best, an exaggeration (since you did not watch the entire video, or probably even most of it).  Exaggeration is a form of lying because it attempts to represent things as better or worse than they actually are; it would not pass the "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" test.  Admittedly, it is not as egregious as some forms of lying, but it is more of a lie than omission (which you also did at first).

It's more than just an exaggeration, it's also the time frames which are just impossible to meet and the ready made response regardless of what was posted in answer of his initial question.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12191
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #475 on: August 05, 2014, 10:45:44 AM »
Can we please not let the discussion focus on BibleStudent's deception?  We all acknowledge it, except him, and that is probably good enough for our audience.  We are not likely to twist his arm into admitting it or believing it. 

Let's please move along and get back to evolution. 

Thanks.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • 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 #476 on: August 05, 2014, 10:47:19 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?

I am still waiting. Dodging only shows up your unwillingness to think about the issues.
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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4829
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #477 on: August 05, 2014, 10:55:52 AM »
I made a post earlier, and I would like to see BibleStudent's response to it.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg627936.html#msg627936

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6608
  • Darwins +522/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #478 on: August 05, 2014, 12:48:47 PM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.
There is an invisible man living in the sky who does magic. He magicked some single cell things that he had made by magic together and that's how humans came.

Oh yes, and other things like dogs and stuff.

OK, enough of the biblical science: let's get on with real science.
Slime MoldWiki
Quote
Many slime molds, namely the "cellular" slime molds, actually do not spend most of their time in this state. As long as food is abundant, these slime molds exist as single-celled organisms. When food is in short supply, many of these single-celled organisms will congregate and start moving as a single body. In this state they are sensitive to airborne chemicals and can detect food sources. They can readily change the shape and function of parts and may form stalks that produce fruiting bodies, releasing countless spores, light enough to be carried on the wind or hitch a ride on passing animals

I think you need only consider this for a short while to see that single cell life can become multi-celled life. Or you might consider imperfect but advantageous division of cells leaving a two celled organism, etc.

OK, your celestial Dumbledor told us he took 6 days... or was that 6,000 years - and evolution takes millions of years (but sometimes less.)

The question now is, "What seems more likely, magic beings in the sky or simple, trial-and-error progress in real time with real life?"

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” Douglas Adams.


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

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6345
  • Darwins +745/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #479 on: August 05, 2014, 03:33:30 PM »
I'm going to try to explain it another way for you, BibleStudent

Science does not have the luxury of time, not on the scale required to prove evolution by duplicating it. However, we do have evidence in abundance that life evolved, over billions of years, to what it is today. When something takes hundreds of thousands, or millions of years to occur naturally, there is no way to hit a fast-forward button in the lab and duplicate it in a week or a month or a lifetime. I know that is exactly what you want, and I can assure you that scientists would love to have that exact capability, but it ain't gonna happen. At least with our current technology and knowledge base.

But if you think something else happened, you need to find a way to explain away all the evidence that has been collected. You need to explain away the geologic record, the genetic record, etc. and provide an alternative explanation that will satisfy people with its elegance.

And if you think it was your god that did it not all that long ago, you need to explain why the evidence says otherwise. Why do we have so much evidence that the earth, and the universe, have ages measured in billions of years rather than just thousands? Why, as I asked earlier, are fossils found in predictable patterns? Why does the genetic record correspond so well with our geologic record of fossils? How come we can manipulate and change organisms by mucking with their genetic code? Using mechanisms assumed to be relevant to evolution. If evolution never happened, we shouldn't be able to assume it did and artificially alter organisms by manually altering their genes. That just shouldn't work. But it does.

People such as myself are often atheists because we see no evidence of the god you claim is real. We do, however, see evidence all around us for alternative explanations of reality. Explanations that make more sense because they can be studied and confirmed, theorized and also turned in to practical applications. The claims of science match reality quite nicely. The claims of your religion, and of all religions, match nothing but the assumptions of the various adherents. There is no way to pick up a test tube or a measuring instrument or dig a hole and find results that match reality as defined by religion. There is no way to apply the scientific method you so adamantly demand from us to even one of your religious claims.

Until you can provide viable alternative explanations for the phenomena described by science as evidence of evolution, you can't possibly hope to stand there and demand one specific and currently unattainable proof and then, when it is not provided, insist that it is all wrong. Especially since you are totally unable to provide any sort of evidence (bibles don't count, and even if they did, they would be woefully lacking in both the quality and the quantity of alleged evidence).

Demanding specifics that you know don't exist  while providing nothing in return but your yammering will accomplish nothing. You need to tell your creationist Web site buddies that they are letting you down. Ask them for more half-assed claims or something. That last sentence isn't intended as an insult. It is merely an accurate description of what they've come up with so far. If you guys are hoping to wow us with bullshit, you're gonna need a lot more of it.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
  • Darwins +59/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #480 on: August 05, 2014, 04:40:26 PM »
BibleStudent; were you able to find time to look at this post?

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 shnozzola

Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #481 on: August 05, 2014, 04:51:51 PM »
   Today another ebola patient arrived in the U.S.  One of the treatments used was blood from a 14 year old boy in Africa that survived ebola.  That boy is an example of evolution.  Theists will say, thank you god, for delivering our son from the evil ebola.  Rational thinking realizes the ebola organism that is simply surviving was thwarted by the chemistry, the T-cells, something, that the boy was able to produce that beat this strain of ebola.  I'm sorry theists, but that is as exciting as evolution is - the boy will not now turn into Thor, or a malkosian.   The interesting thing becomes then, that this boy is immune to this strain of the ebola virus.  If the virus is able to mutate enough, he will no longer be immune.  Evolution vs. evolution, no god involved. 

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/08/04/ebola-serum-vaccine
edit: added link
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 04:54:31 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #482 on: August 05, 2014, 04:59:34 PM »
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?

I am still waiting. Dodging only shows up your unwillingness to think about the issues.

Why you (and others) cannot grasp what I am pointing out and asking is stunning.

If the ToE is based on science, then where is the evidence that supports HOW a single celled organism evolved into a human? HOW did that happen? If you cannot provide the scientific evidence which demonstrates the biological process(es), then you are ASSUMING that it occurred. That is NOT science. A hypothesis must be tested using the scientific method. Experimentation is required to demonstrate that the hypothesized prediction is repeatable and can confirm or falsify the hypothesis. What experimentation has been done to demonstrate, for example, that observations made in the fossil record are the result of an evolutionary mechanism?

Like it or not, a mere assumption that microevolution produces macroevolution is not a scientific basis for claiming it to be true.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #483 on: August 05, 2014, 05:03:37 PM »
Like it or not, a mere assumption that microevolution produces macroevolution is not a scientific basis for claiming it to be true.

How much is 1+1?
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 #484 on: August 05, 2014, 05:10:52 PM »
People such as myself are often atheists because we see no evidence of the god you claim is real.

Yet, you have no evidence that a biological process exists which is capable of evolving a human being from a single celled organism and you cling to it. You can't see God and you can't see the biological process of evolution taking place so, technically speaking, you have simply chosen (for whatever reason) to believe what you do.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #485 on: August 05, 2014, 05:12:29 PM »
Like it or not, a mere assumption that microevolution produces macroevolution is not a scientific basis for claiming it to be true.

How much is 1+1?

2.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #486 on: August 05, 2014, 05:18:11 PM »
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.

If you choose to reject the claims being made by Douglas Axe strictly on the basis of his background, then so be it. That only suggests to me that you are more interested in discrediting the author than determining if his claims have any merit or not. Personally, I would be more interested in knowing if the claims are accurate...but to each his own.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #487 on: August 05, 2014, 05:19:55 PM »
2.

And 1+1+1? And 1+1+1+1? And (...)?

My point is that to deny that "microevolution" leads to "macroevolution" is to deny that 1+1=2. Changes add up over time, completely changing the original creature (which no longer exists after just one mutation, if I might add, no matter how minor). Minor things add up to big things.
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 #488 on: August 05, 2014, 05:27:09 PM »
Yet you refuse to accommodate a simple request which is necessary for your questions to be addressed.  Please address the request made by One Above All as follows:

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

I’d also request that you define “Theory” and “Fact”.

I’m also curious how much you actually understand and comprehend regarding the Theory of Evolution.

In order to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a theory and a fact, you need to adhere to the scientific method and demonstrate that there exists an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing soup-to-humans..... and, in order to do that, you must perform experiments that are measurable and  repeatable so that the hypothesis can either be falsified or confirmed. Are you able to do that? If not, then how does the entirety of the ToE qualify as science and deemed a theory and a fact? Seriously, please explain.


Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6345
  • Darwins +745/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #489 on: August 05, 2014, 05:28:51 PM »
People such as myself are often atheists because we see no evidence of the god you claim is real.

Yet, you have no evidence that a biological process exists which is capable of evolving a human being from a single celled organism and you cling to it. You can't see God and you can't see the biological process of evolution taking place so, technically speaking, you have simply chosen (for whatever reason) to believe what you do.

No there is tons of evidence. You just don't like it. Science can tie together the genetic similarities in all sorts of life forms back to common ancestors. No other explanation makes any sense. We can see the results of the changes, we can see where they came from, we can predict what we will find in organisms based on what we know of their forebearers.

Example: Science has said for many, many years that humans and chimps and bonobos evolved from the same ancestor. But there was a problem. Humans have one less set of genes than those primates. Humans have a 23 sets. Chimps and other apes have 24. It would be impossible for one set of genes to just disappear from a species and have it survive. That would be way too large a genetic change, way too large a mutation. Nobody ever seriously suggested such a thing. Yet the difference in genes was perplexing. But many researchers reached the same conclusion. A pair of human genes must have fused together in the past, making two genes in to one, and hence causing the difference in the gene set count.

But this was long before we could delve in to DNA and find such things. It was long before we could read the genetic code, gene by gene, in a species.

But then along came scientific advances, and low and behold, we could finally go in to the individual genes and find out how they were structured. And what did we find. Human gene 2, with a pair of telomeres in the center, when telomeres are supposed to exist only at the ends, to keep them from unraveling, to hold them together. And that center placement meant that two genes had spliced together far in the past. The missing gene was found. Exactly as predicted.

So this science you say is wrong accurately predicted what it would find in a specific genetic sequence. Accurately.

What has creation science predicted?

(I know you won't believe any of this even though Mr. and Mrs. Google can tell you the same story in a thousand ways.  But my only responsibility in any conversation is to pass on the truth. If, because of religion, it is your job to reject it, that becomes your problem. I'm doing my part to the best of my ability.)
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 #490 on: August 05, 2014, 05:31:19 PM »
2.

And 1+1+1? And 1+1+1+1? And (...)?

My point is that to deny that "microevolution" leads to "macroevolution" is to deny that 1+1=2. Changes add up over time, completely changing the original creature (which no longer exists after just one mutation, if I might add, no matter how minor). Minor things add up to big things.

You are still missing the point. Unless you are able to demonstrate that there exists a '+' capable of producing the cumulative effect, a large portion of the ToE becomes unscientific. Do you see what I am driving at now? At best, you can only ASSUME that the '+' exists based on other evidence.

While your analogy makes some sense, it is by no means scientific in nature.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6345
  • Darwins +745/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #491 on: August 05, 2014, 05:34:08 PM »
BS,

No, you need to explain why a bunch of small changes wouldn't eventually become large changes. What controls those small changes to keep their influence minimal? What non-mechanism clamps down on living genes to keep them from changing so much that it insults your intelligence?

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 #492 on: August 05, 2014, 05:37:03 PM »
Science can tie together the genetic similarities in all sorts of life forms back to common ancestors. No other explanation makes any sense. We can see the results of the changes, we can see where they came from, we can predict what we will find in organisms based on what we know of their forebearers.

How do these "changes" happen? That's all I am asking. Once you answer that we will have made some progress.