Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#61 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:51 AM

Hi Ron,

In a statement you said - "These small changes have never made me, or any other human, anything other than a human. "

This is incorrectly inferring that there is a claim that evolution would make changes in an individual - I was trying to point out, by way of an analog, how this was not so. It would appear you seem to have mistook me as to trying to add some further evidence on either side or sideline the discussion. This is not the case, simply trying to point out a fallacious argument.

Thanks

#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2010 - 10:08 AM

In a statement you said - "These small changes have never made me, or any other human, anything other than a human. "

View Post


Negative. When I further said “or any other human” this made the statement “All Inclusive” of “ALL Mankind”. That would include “ALL Mankind” throughout all of history (or mankind in general)!

And, as you're sure to notice, my claim from the inception of this OP was inferring to Mankind in general:

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro” evolution):

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural” chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences” for this is presupposed and contrived.

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.


I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

View Post





This is incorrectly inferring that there is a claim that evolution would make changes in an individual - I was trying to point out, by way of an analog, how this was not so. It would appear you seem to have mistook me as to trying to add some further evidence on either side or sideline the discussion. This is not the case, simply trying to point out a fallacious argument.

View Post


Since there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution in the first place, the point is moot when it comes to the individual or the group. So, we can argue the logic and/or the logistics of evolution on that scale, but, regardless of semantics, macro-evolution has no empirical base.

Having said that, when you come to the understanding that I was inferring to “Mankind” in general, you’ll then figure out that the only fallacious argument, is in attempting to maintain macro-evolution as anything other than speculation.

#63 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 December 2010 - 10:23 AM

Negative. When I further said “or any other human” this made the statement “All Inclusive” of “ALL Mankind”.  That would include “ALL Mankind” throughout all of history (or mankind in general)!

And, as you're sure to notice, my claim from the inception of this OP was inferring to Mankind in general:
Since there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution in the first place, the point is moot when it comes to the individual or the group. So, we can argue the logic and/or the logistics of evolution on that scale, but, regardless of semantics, macro-evolution has no empirical base.

Having said that, when you come to the understanding that I was inferring to “Mankind” in general, you’ll then figure out that the only fallacious argument, is in attempting to maintain macro-evolution as anything other than speculation.

View Post


I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make - It seems to me that your statement, having included reference to a single individual, was claiming that evolution should be observable in a single individual (this could well be throughout all of history, the important factor is whether it is observable in a single instance of a species). If I have misinterpreted, this excuse me.

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2010 - 10:39 AM

I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make

View Post

To understand the points, one need simply read the OP, and follow the context.

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro” evolution):

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural” chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences” for this is presupposed and contrived.

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;
An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

View Post



- It seems to me that your statement, having included reference to a single individual, was claiming that evolution should be observable in a single individual (this could well be throughout all of history, the important factor is whether it is observable in a single instance of a species). If I have misinterpreted, this excuse me.

View Post

Here’s the thing… it doesn’t matter if it’s the individual or the group. The fact that Macro is a presupposition thusly renders that point moot! But, if you feel you must argue it, instead of the points in the OP, that is your prerogative.

#65 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 December 2010 - 10:48 AM

To understand the points, one need simply read the OP, and follow the context.
Here’s the thing… it doesn’t matter if it’s the individual or the group. The fact that Macro is a presupposition thusly renders that point moot! But, if you feel you must argue it, instead of the points in the OP, that is your prerogative.

View Post


Hi Ron,

The difficulty I am pointing out is not in the points, but in the single point I highlighted - it seems fairly clear cut, and I have given you my interpretation of it, and I fail to see how any other can be made. You came back with to my mind a fairly ambiguous explanation, then claimed it did not matter. I am trying to understand whether you are saying that because no single individual has been observed to change to another species this shows evolution to be untrue or not, but I am no further to realizing this.

Although you seem to regard this is a null point, I would regard it as fairly fundamental, as if you believe that evolution claims this it is a fairly wide divergence between what you and I consider evolution to be, and further discussion would need to take that divergence into account.

If you could, I would be grateful if you could clarify whether you believe that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true or not.

Thanks

#66 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2010 - 11:35 AM

Hi Ron,

The difficulty I am pointing out is not in the points, but in the single point I highlighted - it seems fairly clear cut, and I have given you my interpretation of it, and I fail to see how any other can be made. You came back with to my mind a fairly ambiguous explanation, then claimed it did not matter. I am trying to understand whether you are saying that because no single individual has been observed to change to another species this shows evolution to be untrue or not, but I am no further to realizing this.

Although you seem to regard this is a null point, I would regard it as fairly fundamental, as if you believe that evolution claims this it is a fairly wide divergence between what you and I consider evolution to be, and further discussion would need to take that divergence into account.

    If you could, I would be grateful if you could clarify whether you believe that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true or not.

Thanks

View Post


The point you are missing, is that it doesn't matter, because macro-evolution is a presupposition!

#67 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 17 December 2010 - 11:37 AM

Sorry for the late reply, been busy with a couple things lately.

I see you’re still attempting to restrict the superiority of Man to intelligence. That’s fine, but it is far less than you need to do to rebut the assertion; especially due to the massive amounts of evidence to support that assertion. Therefore I’m going to cut out all your fluff, set aside all the other evidences that prove Man’s superiority, and take it to a concise point, so as to disallow your wiggle room:

After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have (supposedly) evolved superior intelligence? Why has there been NO other creature(s) to “evolve” superior intelligence.

I have provided numerous facts to support Man’s superiority. And it wasn’t even close to being exhaustive. Therefore you will be allowed NO fluff, NO equivocation, NO quibbling… Just facts!

View Post



The reason why only man has evolved superior intelligence, is because Evolution isnt a ladder, and each species evolves at their own pace. Its the same as asking why a Cheetah has evolved such superior speed. Other animals can be fast, but none of them exceed the natural running speed of the cheetah. And they dont need to, because they can survive just as well without it. Hyenas dont need to be as fast as the cheetah, because they can survive just fine by simply scavenging for leftover carcasses of other animals.

I dont think i restricted mans intelligence, as i agreed that mans intelligence is a great thing. What you missed in my reply, is the evaluation of that attribute. And thats quite important. An easy example, would be a 100 meter race for the olympics. If we look at the evaluation of a race, in the simplest terms, we place value on "Who is the fastest of them all". These athletes can be as dumb as a whistle, but as long as they are fast, the value that we place on them, is high. Yet, at the same time, the evaluation is restricted. We dont allow people to use artificial means, like cars, or steroids, because we are looking for "Natural" speed.

Now, running itself has nothing to do with intelligence. Many things, dont, and have not for hundreds of years. Yet we still value them, we still give gold medals out and millions of dollars because of this attribute that some humans have. But, in a science symposium, in a chemistry lab, their value is small. And thats the point.

#68 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 17 December 2010 - 11:46 AM

The problem is, you didn’t make a good case as to why abiogenesis hasn’t happened over and over. I added the caveat of “hypothesized abiogenesis reality” to further pull apart your hypothesis.  You still haven’t gotten past either of them. In fact, you are attempting to use the probability argument that the majority of atheistic evolutionists fight against (tooth and nail). The difference is, you’re attempting to use it in reverse. And its use on your part is illogical.

The bottom line on this is “if something happens, it has the ability to continue happening over and over”!

But in the case of abiogenesis AND the macro evolution of intelligence, this just isn’t the case. And, all you’ve done so far is equivocate and prevaricate on the subject. You haven’t provided one shread of evidence to back up your claim.

But i believe I did, and the reason why i say that, is because i never really got a reply from you regarding how specific circumstances are not necessariliy always repeating in a set amount of time. The response you gave, instead, was claiming that the probability for Abiogenesis to occur in the first place, is too low, which isnt really the argument i made in the first place. My argument isnt "The probability that abiogenesis occurred the first time, is high", its "If the circumstances that caused Abiogenesis to occur in the first place, did not repeat, which is very high, because as far as human knowledge and evidence goes, we have no example of proto-earth conditions popping up again, then we would not see abiogenesis occur again". I mean, id be glad to discuss the likelyhood of abiogenesis occuring in the first place, but i believe this to be separate of what my original argument was.

Again, i have no objection to that. No scientist is saying that Abiogenesis could never happen again. But just because it can happen, doesnt mean it will. Just like, just because you won the lottery once, doesnt mean you will again. I fail to see where ive equivocated or prevaricated my argument, as ive only tried to push a single argument forward. And as I told you before, im not arguing evidence, im arguing that the basis of your(singular) claim is based on faulty reasoning.


Abiogenesis isn’t a growing field, its an illogical fairytale that is faith based and nothing more. It is not a theory; it is nothing more than a model of a hypothesis with no basis in reality. The problem is, atheistic evolutionists want it to be true so badly, that they attempt to tag it with the “theory” label (as you are attempting above). 

Actually, it is. 50 years ago, we wouldnt have had the slightest idea of how to create synthetic RNA from organic molecules. 100 Years ago, we wouldnt have the slightest idea how to create amino acids from natural processes. These are all necessary steps to Abiogenesis. If you think were still a long ways away, i agree with you there. But clearly progress has been made.


That is the whole point (that you are also failing to grasp/understand/ reconcile! You cannot produce any evidence for either one; therefore you are stuck with your equivocations and prevarications on the subject, instead of acknowledging the truth of the statement!


This brings me back to a very confusing aspect of your argument. I dont know how you can produce evidence that supports the fact that no scientist has ever claimed that Abiogenesis cannot happen again. Infact, quite the opposite, the Lack of evidence that no scientist has ever said that, supports my argument, just like a lack of evidence that a Murder victim was ever in my house, supports an argument that i didnt kill anyone in my house.

You “don’t know what the exact circumstances” were? My friend, you don’t know what any of the circumstances were! Therefore, you are correct in stating that you don’t know if they “in fact” happened! Further, you have absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis, let alone when it “might have occurred”. Abiogenesis is illogical (irrational and unscientific) for many reasons; therefore “abiogenesis” is nothing more than a faith-based myth at best! So your hypothesis on the primitive atmosphere of proto-earth conditions is moot!

Although i listed the circumstances that we do know, i mean, if you have a refutation for that, id be glad to discuss that too, but so far, we do know a few things about the circumstances required to produce life. And, again, quibbling about how there is no evidence for abiogenesis, has nothing to do with my argument that i made against your OP.

And, if you re-read the paragraph that I just rebutted, you see a prime example of an atheistic evolutionists faith statements.
No, actually, you did not… Humans have many abilities that no other creatures have.  Humans have the further ability to improve upon, and make superior, the abilities of all other creatures.

Name me one ability that Humans have, that no other creature has, which is not predicated upon the ability of Human intelligence.

You’ll have to provide the link/post number where you replied to Air-run in this thread.

View Post

Sorry, its post #29

Although you already replied to it, so i suppose this is sorta moot now....

#69 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 December 2010 - 12:10 PM

The point you are missing, is that it doesn't matter, because macro-evolution is a presupposition!

View Post


This is a strange and unexpected response from someone in a creationist/evolution discussion board!

You have claimed it is not important, however I explained why I felt it was important for the purposes of the discussion. You seem to have dismissed this out of hand and reverted to claiming it is not important without clarifying your position on it. I'll try one last time, even if you feel it is not important, could you clarify if you consider that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true?

Thanks

#70 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 17 December 2010 - 12:12 PM

I said: "We can agree that small changes over generations may occur. You would refer to it as adaptation."

Indeed! It was extremely cold outside this morning; so before I left for work, I put on a jacket and gloves. That were designed, tested and manufactured by the creature called man (I might add). Another change will occur this spring, and another in the summer as well.

These small changes have never made me, or any other human, anything other than a human.


I meant adaptation in the sense of changes over generations (such as antibiotic resistance emerging in a colony bred from one non-resistant bacterium) rather than choices made during an individual's lifetime.

Long-term evolution and common ancestry is a myth promulgated by evolutionists, and projected upon fossils via mere supposition, opinion and “a priory” wants. Provide a step-by-step gradual transitioning line of fossils, instead of the massive leaps and gaps normally provided as evidence; then you’ll have something to talk about. Otherwise you are simply preaching the evolution gospel.

View Post


We have half a dozen transitional sequences. There are gaps but we are lucky that fossilization is possible at all. The sequences are determined by anatomical principle.

Quite a few posts since yesterday. Thanks to AFJ. Two points:

Sure, humans have greatest mastery of their environment. If you define superiority in terms of running or walking on the ceiling then cheetahs and spiders are superior to humans. I don't see how human technological superiority invalidates evolutio. Natural Selection is a bias toward what works in any given scenario and could take a species in any direction.

Another reason why abiogenesis may no longer be happening is the possible environmental differences with an early Earth.

#71 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 17 December 2010 - 12:58 PM

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro” evolution):

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural” chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences” for this is presupposed and contrived.

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.


I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

View Post


Addressing just Point #2

To be perfect honest I would believe less in evolution if there were more than one space faring species (or Hamlet writing or radio or TV building or whatever) inhabiting this planet. Evolution promotes diversity but the attributes required to perform those task are very specific and highly advanced (ie requiring a highly evolved brain).

#72 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2010 - 02:54 PM

This is a strange and unexpected response from someone in a creationist/evolution discussion board!

View Post


Not unexpected at all, because it logically follows:

Life from non-life is illogical, irrational and unscientific.

Abiogenesis is life from non-life.

BUT: if Abiogenesis “were” possible, it wouldn’t be a one time event. It (abiogenesis) should have happened many-many times over the supposed millions (or billions?) of years it had the chance to do so; AND should be happening still today. There is absolutely NO reason why it wouldn’t.

Further: But, since there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis EVER having had happened, any discussion of it is presupposition, is therefore moot, AND not important.


You have claimed it is not important, however I explained why I felt it was important for the purposes of the discussion. You seem to have dismissed this out of hand and reverted to claiming it is not important without clarifying your position on it. I'll try one last time, even if you feel it is not important, could you clarify if you consider that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true?

View Post


But, it is NOT important, because you haven’t provided one shred of empirical evidence FOR abiogenesis. The ONLY thing you have provided is conjecture.

SO, it doesn’t matter if macro-evolution for a single person, or a whole population is promulgated by you (or anyone else); because it is moot when kept in context of THIS OP!

Anything else (that is ON TOPIC)?

#73 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 17 December 2010 - 08:31 PM

Hi ron,

  I have not mentioned abiogenisis, and at no point has it come up during our sub-topic. I have asked you a simple yes or no question to try to clarify your position. I can only assume you are trying to duck giving a clear answer, in which case I would be forced to assume that your purpose is not one of knowledge, but one of spreading doubt and confusion.

I don't wish to think this of a fellow man, so I am willing to concede this may be my mistake, and as such I will ask again, can you clarify, do you think that evolution should be observable in an individual? A simple yes or no is all I ask (though feel free to add whatever explanation you feel fit to it).

Thanks

View Post


I see what you are not getting.

It's not important because BOTH, whether you "believe" the changes are occurring in a "population" OR a "single individual", are "irrelevant". Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE for EITHER!

The one idea (of evolution occurring in "populations") is promulgated by evolutionists but it still has no evidence to support such a notion. So whether someone says it occurs in an "individual" or "population" doesn't matter since BOTH have never been proven.

That is what Ron has been explaining. You have NO evidence that MACRO-evolution occurs in a "population" let alone in an "individual". Therefore, it is not a question as to whether it's "because" Creationists think that evolution doesn't occur in an individual verses a population. It's that NEITHER have occurred. You can "say" it occurs in a "population" all you want, but until you can provide evidence that THAT is what happens verses evolution occurring in an individual, you need "Evidence" to support at least ONE of these notions.

But since BOTH have NO evidence to support either, then the point is moot as to whether "we" believe that it's an "individual" verses a "population" that evolves. NEITHER happen

I hope that helps.

#74 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 December 2010 - 08:38 PM

I see what you are not getting.

It's not important because BOTH, whether you "believe" the changes are occurring in a "population" OR a "single individual", are "irrelevant". Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE for EITHER!

The one idea (of evolution occurring in "populations") is promulgated by evolutionists but it still has no evidence to support such a notion. So whether someone says it occurs in an "individual" or "population" doesn't matter since BOTH have never been proven.

That is what Ron has been explaining. You have NO evidence that MACRO-evolution occurs in a "population" let alone in an "individual". Therefore, it is not a question as to whether it's "because" Creationists think that evolution doesn't occur in an individual verses a population. It's that NEITHER have occurred. You can "say" it occurs in a "population" all you want, but until you can provide evidence that THAT is what happens verses evolution occurring in an individual, you need "Evidence" to support at least ONE of these notions.

But since BOTH have NO evidence to support either, then the point is moot as to whether "we" believe that it's an "individual" verses a "population" that evolves. NEITHER happen

I hope that helps.

View Post


Hi Seth,

No, I am sorry, but that is entirely unhelpful, for the same reasons that I have stated previously. While you and perhaps ron may consider that because you have decided that evolution is not true, the definition of evolution is not important, I do not, and have a very hard time following your logic - both he and yourself are on a discussion board that claims to be about discussing evolution vs creationism, therefore I would assume that the definition of evolution was at the very least an interest to you. If you are claiming that the definition of evolution is irrelevant, then I have a very hard time understanding why you are here at all.

It is not a difficult question - does ron (or yourself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?

If you can answer this, we can clear this up quickly and move on. If you cannot (or choice not to) then I am left confused about your purpose here, and feel that it is somewhat other than the stated purpose of the forum to have a civil debate and understand each other.

Thanks

#75 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:19 PM

The definition of evolution is NOT in question here.

It's NOT "... whether Ron (or myself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?"

It's that evolution (Macro) should be Observable PERIOD!

How can one who does not even believe in evolution (and sees it as complete and utter nonsense, as I most certainly do) even answer that question?

It's like asking. Do you think Santa brought my gifts after 12 midnight or before? Answer: NEITHER. Why? Because...Santa DOES NOT EXIST!

So arguing, or questioning, as to what time we think Santa left our gifts is moot since He doesn't even exist. Just like MACRO Evolution doesn't even exist.

So for evolution (MACRO) to be believed, it must be "OBSERVED" period! Whether it "supposedly" happens in an "individual" or a "population"... it doesn't matter. SHOW us either case or scenario!

Now, not trying to get off topic here, I hope this helps give "some" clarification so that you can get back on topic. :)

#76 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:38 PM

The definition of evolution is NOT in question here.

It's NOT "... whether Ron (or myself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?"

It's that evolution (Macro) should be Observable PERIOD!

How can one who does not even believe in evolution (and sees it as complete and utter nonsense, as I most certainly do) even answer that question?

It's like asking. Do you think Santa brought my gifts after 12 midnight or before? Answer: NEITHER. Why? Because...Santa DOES NOT EXIST!

So arguing, or questioning, as to what time we think Santa left our gifts is moot since He doesn't even exist. Just like MACRO Evolution doesn't even exist.

So for evolution (MACRO) to be believed, it must be "OBSERVED" period! Whether it "supposedly" happens in an "individual" or a "population"... it doesn't matter. SHOW us either case or scenario!

Now, not trying to get off topic here, I hope this helps give "some" clarification so that you can get back on topic. :)

View Post


Quite right Seth :)

Just like in Mathematics, you have a bell curve. There will always be outliers.

In the same respect, there should always be some outliers for evolution, ie- there should be some individuals / populations that show macro-evolution... This should occur in all species, so it shouldn't be too hard to find at least a handful, or even one.

#77 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:46 PM

The definition of evolution is NOT in question here.

It's NOT "... whether Ron (or myself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?"


Hi Seth,

it is, or more precisely, it is your and rons understanding of evolution which is in question - it makes little sense trying to progress a discussion unless we agree on what is being discussed.

It's that evolution (Macro) should be Observable PERIOD!


Indeed, but let's try to establish one thing first - ron made what at first appeared a rather unambiguous statement. When refuted however, he skirted around it, declared it unimportant and refused to clarify. No discussion can be progressed on that basis, hence I am asking again for clarification. If it is not important, then it should be easily dismissed with a quick yes or no answer - his and now your refusal to do so would indicate that you consider it important and dangerous.


How can one who does not even believe in evolution (and sees it as complete and utter nonsense, as I most certainly do) even answer that question?

It's like asking. Do you think Santa brought my gifts after 12 midnight or before? Answer: NEITHER. Why? Because...Santa DOES NOT EXIST!


I do not see the similarity - perhaps a question such as 'if santa delivers gifts, should you be able to see him doing so or not' would be a compatible question, in which case I would find it very easy to answer - 'yes, on the premise that santa exists, I would believe you should be able to see him doing such'.


So for evolution (MACRO) to be believed, it must be "OBSERVED" period! Whether it "supposedly" happens in an "individual" or a "population"... it doesn't matter. SHOW us either case or scenario!


But it does not happen in an individual, nor does anyone make the claim it does. Ron put forth that because he has not been altered, nor witnessed in any individual, that is evidence that evolution does not take place. This has no bearing on what evolution actually is, and as such I feel that to discuss evolution, it is important that we understand what each other mean by evolution. Ron's statement shows that what he understands as evolution is different that my understanding, and I would like to quickly (although that seems unlikely now) resolve this difference in order to allow the discussion to continue.

Now, not trying to get off topic here, I hope this helps give "some" clarification so that you can get back on topic. :)


I'm really unsure what the difficult in clarification is - 'yes, I believe that evolution should be observable in an individual' 'no, I do not believe evolution should be observable in an individual' or even 'I am unsure if evolution should or should not be observable in an individual'.

Honestly, this was a quick response to a erroneous presumption, I really cannot fathom why it is so difficult to give a clear precise answer, unless the purpose is to confuse the topic.

#78 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:54 PM

This has no bearing on what evolution actually is, and as such I feel that to discuss evolution, it is important that we understand what each other mean by evolution.

View Post


Actually it does, if you can't observe it then evolution ceases to be empirical, hence it ceases to be scientific. Hence it is a social science, rather than actual science.

#79 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 December 2010 - 10:16 PM

Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?

View Post


I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.

Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations)

#80 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 December 2010 - 10:55 PM

"Ron put forth that because he has not been altered, nor witnessed in any individual, that is evidence that evolution does not take place. This has no bearing on what evolution actually is, "
Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains...

View Post


Huh, so how did I take your words out of context? I said that because it isn't observed it makes it NOT empirical, hence it does change "what it is", because things that are not empirical are not scientific.

Basically I am giving evidence for the claim that evolution is not scientific, on the basis that it isn't observed, (on any level).

You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users