Jump to content


Photo

Evolution On Trial


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 03 January 2018 - 09:15 AM

I was thinking about this too, the definition of evolution was bound to come up. I think it should be defined as two parts to be fair to evolutionists, 1. Abiogenesis and 2. macro biological evolution. It shouldn't be argued as to the semantics of what is evolution, we know that even if abiogenesis is not technically the same as life diversifying, but rather life's natural creation, nevertheless both A and E only have relevance to each other. Without evolution theory there would be no reason for an abiogenesis since only macro evolution reduces a giraffe to cells on a fourth dimensional plane so to speak.

 

I wasn't thinking about the definition of evolution, just that the subject as used on the forum is extremely broad and could potentially narrow down to a specific technical aspect of physics, or cosmology, or astronomy, or geology, or chemistry/biochemistry, or abiogenesis, or biology proper, or paleontology, or as Dave suggested psychology, or sociology, or history, or all three combined with moral philosophy. Or, it could contain all of the above. I am just wondering what I have gotten myself into lol, but I suppose that is up to Blitz.

 

With that in mind is it fair enough for me to say Goku, that Darwin's protein springing up in a warm pond, was the first serious suggestion of some kind of abiogenesis, since it's prime relevance is that of providing a conjectural ancestor by which all forms stemmed from? So then from my perspective as a logical objectivite, just as a logical claim I would say that the story of evolution depends on both. That is to say, without some form by which macro could act no evolution and without evolution to reduce all forms to that initial form then no abiogenesis.

 

That is not a criticism as I don't intend to debate it, that is just an assessment for the context by which it may be argued for during this pre-trial discussion I act as your legal advisor. :P

 

The idea of abiogenesis goes as far back as ancient Greece with spontaneous generation. Of course, ancient Greece had their own version of the evolutionary ladder too.

 

As for your view of the evolutionary story needing both, it depends on what is meant by the evolutionary story and how the parts are related in more detail than what you've given here. Virtually every field of science is connected to every other field of science because each field of science is looking at different aspects of the exact same universe, but obviously different fields will have different relationships with other fields, and a healthy appreciation of explanation scope for a given theory is helpful too.
 



#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2018 - 11:27 AM

Goku I don't want to debate it here, so as to avoid a debate. I have wrote an answer, I may give it if is necessary, at a later stage as one of my Judge-mike-diatribes



#23 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 January 2018 - 03:27 PM

Mike and Goku. Points well-taken.

 

I'm open to anything. A lot will depend on Blitz's take on this so far, and what he comes up with as the "crime" to put evolution on trial for. Personally, I'm more interested in the process rather than the details or the results.

 

Mike, I don't think the trial will necessarily be a search for the truth of evolution. I'm just looking at it as an exercise in having fun by doing something in a different way. And, sometimes trials are not fair to one of the parties. Remember that Al Capone wasn't brought down because he was a mob kingpin responsible for causing murder and mayhem, but because he didn't pay his taxes. And, I'm pretty confident that Goku is up to whatever gets thrown at him.



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:27 AM

Ok Dave, I "get" a better picture of what you want now. I'll just watch the thread and see what goes down.



#25 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 January 2018 - 02:07 PM

I was thinking about this too, the definition of evolution was bound to come up. I think it should be defined as two parts to be fair to evolutionists, 1. Abiogenesis and 2. macro biological evolution. It shouldn't be argued as to the semantics of what is evolution, we know that even if abiogenesis is not technically the same as life diversifying, but rather life's natural creation, nevertheless both A and E only have relevance to each other. Without evolution theory there would be no reason for an abiogenesis since only macro evolution reduces a giraffe to cells on a fourth dimensional plane so to speak.


I wasn't thinking about the definition of evolution, just that the subject as used on the forum is extremely broad and could potentially narrow down to a specific technical aspect of physics, or cosmology, or astronomy, or geology, or chemistry/biochemistry, or abiogenesis, or biology proper, or paleontology, or as Dave suggested psychology, or sociology, or history, or all three combined with moral philosophy. Or, it could contain all of the above. I am just wondering what I have gotten myself into lol, but I suppose that is up to Blitz.

With that in mind is it fair enough for me to say Goku, that Darwin's protein springing up in a warm pond, was the first serious suggestion of some kind of abiogenesis, since it's prime relevance is that of providing a conjectural ancestor by which all forms stemmed from? So then from my perspective as a logical objectivite, just as a logical claim I would say that the story of evolution depends on both. That is to say, without some form by which macro could act no evolution and without evolution to reduce all forms to that initial form then no abiogenesis.
That is not a criticism as I don't intend to debate it, that is just an assessment for the context by which it may be argued for during this pre-trial discussion I act as your legal advisor. :P


The idea of abiogenesis goes as far back as ancient Greece with spontaneous generation. Of course, ancient Greece had their own version of the evolutionary ladder too.

As for your view of the evolutionary story needing both, it depends on what is meant by the evolutionary story and how the parts are related in more detail than what you've given here. Virtually every field of science is connected to every other field of science because each field of science is looking at different aspects of the exact same universe, but obviously different fields will have different relationships with other fields, and a healthy appreciation of explanation scope for a given theory is helpful too.
"I wasn't thinking about the definition of evolution,"

Blitz defines "evolution" as Abiogenesis followed by a Microbe slowly "evolving" into a Microbiologist (And every other kind of flora and fauna that has ever existed on planet Earth) AKA "UCA" over the course of "3 to 4 Billion years".

Blitz is being quite magnanimous by not challenging and allowing the defense to assert that Abiogenesis happened somehow DESPITE the well established fact that it has been demonstrated scientifically to be impossible by a factor of AT LEAST 1000 OVER the accepted scientific threshold of impossibility 10 > 80. (Coincidentally the number of atoms in the known universe) A VERY BIG NUMBER....

Blitz is pointing out the fact that well known examples of Adaptation, Variation, and Devolution are not permitted in this courtroom as evidence for UCA due to the myriad of problems related to irreducible complexity and symbiotic relationships that simply cannot be explained away using logic, reason, and critical thinking but instead must rely on either forcing the prosecution to "Prove it didnt happen" (Unscientific) OR by forcing the court to use their imagination far beyond anything that they can reasonably visualize in order to convince themselves that it did happen.. Blitz contends that this belief is not based on "Science" but is merely based on a philosophical worldview that tries to pretend that our creation doesnt need a creator..
Blitz can also get into the reasons for such a strong belief in what has been shown to be scientifically impossible and they are due to the implications of "Evolition" In fact the well known Evolutionist Richard Dawkins tells us the reason very clearly..

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:56 PM

Judge mike: The defence can now respond to The right honourable Blitzking's opening gambit before Mr BK moves his first pawn. The floor is yours, right honourable Goku mogul warrior. 



#27 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 07 January 2018 - 07:12 PM

Judge mike: The defence can now respond to The right honourable Blitzking's opening gambit before Mr BK moves his first pawn. The floor is yours, right honourable Goku mogul warrior. 

 

Thank you, your honor. 

 

"I wasn't thinking about the definition of evolution,"


Blitz defines "evolution" as Abiogenesis followed by a Microbe slowly "evolving" into a Microbiologist (And every other kind of flora and fauna that has ever existed on planet Earth) AKA "UCA" over the course of "3 to 4 Billion years".

Blitz is being quite magnanimous by not challenging and allowing the defense to assert that Abiogenesis happened somehow DESPITE the well established fact that it has been demonstrated scientifically to be impossible by a factor of AT LEAST 1000 OVER the accepted scientific threshold of impossibility 10 > 80. (Coincidentally the number of atoms in the known universe) A VERY BIG NUMBER....

Blitz is pointing out the fact that well known examples of Adaptation, Variation, and Devolution are not permitted in this courtroom as evidence for UCA due to the myriad of problems related to irreducible complexity and symbiotic relationships that simply cannot be explained away using logic, reason, and critical thinking but instead must rely on either forcing the prosecution to "Prove it didnt happen" (Unscientific) OR by forcing the court to use their imagination far beyond anything that they can reasonably visualize in order to convince themselves that it did happen.. Blitz contends that this belief is not based on "Science" but is merely based on a philosophical worldview that tries to pretend that our creation doesnt need a creator..
Blitz can also get into the reasons for such a strong belief in what has been shown to be scientifically impossible and they are due to the implications of "Evolition" In fact the well known Evolutionist Richard Dawkins tells us the reason very clearly..

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

 

The defense thanks the prosecution for giving us their definition of evolution.

 

As far as the defense can tell the "charge" revolves around the validity of UCA, or Universal Common Ancestor to all extant life on Earth. An interesting charge to pursue given that that issue is not settled within evolutionary science, nor does it directly address any core issue regarding the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

The defense asks the prosecution how striking down UCA will tear apart the fundamental fabric of evolutionary theory making it untenable. Namely, while the scientific community tends towards the idea of UCA, the scientific community does not rule out multiple abiogenesis events resulting in extant life on Earth ultimately coming from distinct evolutionary branches that don't (or rarely) intertwine at the taxonomic level of domain (i.e. prokaryote, eukaryote, archaea).

 

The defense also asks that the prosecution's statement about the probabilities of abiogenesis be stricken from the record as inadmissible due to irrelevance on the charge of UCA. This is because the prosecution has agreed to assume abiogenesis as reality for the purposes of the case.

 

Moving on into the substance of UCA itself, the defense will assert that multiple lines of evidence can be used to infer the possibility of UCA. These lines of evidence are related to the overarching patterns in the fossil record, the observation of adaption providing a mechanism of change, transitional fossils which when combined with the other two pieces establish the likelihood of macroevolution at levels below domain, and similarities between all domains of life which are consistent with the UCA model.

 

For emphasis, the defense would like to reiterate that even if UCA was found to be untrue it would not render the underlying features of evolutionary theory obsolete. For example, UCA is not required for the statement "microorganism to microbiologist" to be true.

 

The defense requests that the prosecution's Dawkins quote of Darwin and atheism be stricken from the record as inadmissible due to irrelevance. The same request is made for Hoyle's quote about abiogenesis for two reasons: One, the prosecution has already agreed not to challenge the validity of abiogenesis, and two, Hoyle is an astronomer with no training in biology or any related field to be considered professional testimony on this subject. You may as well ask Richard Dawkins to give his opinion on the multiverse's ability to reconcile Relativity and quantum field theory.

 

With that, the defense rests at this stage.



#28 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 January 2018 - 10:58 PM

 

Judge mike: The defence can now respond to The right honourable Blitzking's opening gambit before Mr BK moves his first pawn. The floor is yours, right honourable Goku mogul warrior. 

 

Thank you, your honor. 

 

"I wasn't thinking about the definition of evolution,"


Blitz defines "evolution" as Abiogenesis followed by a Microbe slowly "evolving" into a Microbiologist (And every other kind of flora and fauna that has ever existed on planet Earth) AKA "UCA" over the course of "3 to 4 Billion years".

Blitz is being quite magnanimous by not challenging and allowing the defense to assert that Abiogenesis happened somehow DESPITE the well established fact that it has been demonstrated scientifically to be impossible by a factor of AT LEAST 1000 OVER the accepted scientific threshold of impossibility 10 > 80. (Coincidentally the number of atoms in the known universe) A VERY BIG NUMBER....

Blitz is pointing out the fact that well known examples of Adaptation, Variation, and Devolution are not permitted in this courtroom as evidence for UCA due to the myriad of problems related to irreducible complexity and symbiotic relationships that simply cannot be explained away using logic, reason, and critical thinking but instead must rely on either forcing the prosecution to "Prove it didnt happen" (Unscientific) OR by forcing the court to use their imagination far beyond anything that they can reasonably visualize in order to convince themselves that it did happen.. Blitz contends that this belief is not based on "Science" but is merely based on a philosophical worldview that tries to pretend that our creation doesnt need a creator..
Blitz can also get into the reasons for such a strong belief in what has been shown to be scientifically impossible and they are due to the implications of "Evolition" In fact the well known Evolutionist Richard Dawkins tells us the reason very clearly..

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

 

The defense thanks the prosecution for giving us their definition of evolution.

 

As far as the defense can tell the "charge" revolves around the validity of UCA, or Universal Common Ancestor to all extant life on Earth. An interesting charge to pursue given that that issue is not settled within evolutionary science, nor does it directly address any core issue regarding the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

The defense asks the prosecution how striking down UCA will tear apart the fundamental fabric of evolutionary theory making it untenable. Namely, while the scientific community tends towards the idea of UCA, the scientific community does not rule out multiple abiogenesis events resulting in extant life on Earth ultimately coming from distinct evolutionary branches that don't (or rarely) intertwine at the taxonomic level of domain (i.e. prokaryote, eukaryote, archaea).

 

The defense also asks that the prosecution's statement about the probabilities of abiogenesis be stricken from the record as inadmissible due to irrelevance on the charge of UCA. This is because the prosecution has agreed to assume abiogenesis as reality for the purposes of the case.

 

Moving on into the substance of UCA itself, the defense will assert that multiple lines of evidence can be used to infer the possibility of UCA. These lines of evidence are related to the overarching patterns in the fossil record, the observation of adaption providing a mechanism of change, transitional fossils which when combined with the other two pieces establish the likelihood of macroevolution at levels below domain, and similarities between all domains of life which are consistent with the UCA model.

 

For emphasis, the defense would like to reiterate that even if UCA was found to be untrue it would not render the underlying features of evolutionary theory obsolete. For example, UCA is not required for the statement "microorganism to microbiologist" to be true.

 

The defense requests that the prosecution's Dawkins quote of Darwin and atheism be stricken from the record as inadmissible due to irrelevance. The same request is made for Hoyle's quote about abiogenesis for two reasons: One, the prosecution has already agreed not to challenge the validity of abiogenesis, and two, Hoyle is an astronomer with no training in biology or any related field to be considered professional testimony on this subject. You may as well ask Richard Dawkins to give his opinion on the multiverse's ability to reconcile Relativity and quantum field theory.

 

With that, the defense rests at this stage.

 

Thank you your honor.

 

May I please ask the court to indulge the prosecution in attempting to clarify a few terms before continuing to try to determine a mutually acceptable understanding as to what is the definition of "Evolution"? 

 

I saw several members of the jury with confused looks while others were scratching their heads upon hearing the terms "Evolutionary Science"  and "The Scientific Community" and I myself have no idea what is meant by these terms...

 

Would you please ask the defense to explain what these terms mean in layman's terminology as otherwise they might (Rightfully) be misconstrued as purposely vague, deceptive, and ambiguous and our purpose is to avoid any misunderstandings in this courtroom as my attempt is to discover the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

 

So help me God (Places hand on the Bible).



#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 January 2018 - 11:29 PM

 

 

Dave: I mentioned the example of a series of teen suicides because an over-zealous teacher had depressed his students, making them think their lives were worthless because of evolution. That's one possible scenario.

 

Another one might be evoluton's influence on genocidal murderers like Hitler.

 

Another one might be evolution's influence on Margaret Sanger's bloodbath of abortion.

 

It's up to you but one problem to note with this type of argument is that it's unfortunately a bit of an appeal to consequences. But really I am only here to inform people as to the legitimacy of their arguments so my own views are that of a neutralist for the sake of the trial. In that regard as an inbiased judge I do have to submit that the truth-value of something won't be dependent upon it's consequences. (though I do appreciate you are not arguing as such, evolution's veracity based on it's consequences but you are providing more of a theme or premise for the trial, but I just mention it for mentioning it's sake.)

 

For example if E=MC2 leads to an atom bomb, will that mean the truth value of the formula is up for debate? In that sense it would be dishonest of me to expect Goku to justify evolution's existence by defending it's reputation for these moral consequences in society.

 

However it is your trial, and perhaps then in the case of seeing it in a criminal context, that evolution has charges brought against it in that context. So don't misunderstand, all I am saying is that to be fair to Goku as an objective judge, I couldn't predicate the truth-value of evolution on it's consequences in society. So bare in mind if we do take this more, "humane" or, "human" preference of focus, I have to in my mind, dole out a correct measure of fairness to Goku, if I am to truly be 100% unbiased.

 

In other words Dave, I am the mikey-judge and the jury will disregard your last statement. ;) :D

 

 

"For example if E=MC2 leads to an atom bomb, will that mean the truth value of the formula is up for debate?"

 

(Blitz, removing prosecutor Suit and tie for a few minutes) points out..

 

 

No, it just means that Atom Bombs should not be used for their INTENDED PURPOSE as they are very DANGEROUS to society and, in fact the world..

 

 

Just like Evolution (Invented for the sole INTENDED PURPOSE of eliminating any influence of the Judeo Christian God from Society) should not be taught in Science class as a Fact as it is very Dangerous to society and, in fact the world..

 

 

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile"  Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf

 

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Sir Arthur Keith (British anthropologist, and atheistic evolutionist.)



#30 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 January 2018 - 12:48 AM

May I please ask the court to indulge the prosecution in attempting to clarify a few terms before continuing to try to determine a mutually acceptable understanding as to what is the definition of "Evolution"? 

 

I saw several members of the jury with confused looks while others were scratching their heads upon hearing the terms "Evolutionary Science"  and "The Scientific Community" and I myself have no idea what is meant by these terms...

 

Would you please ask the defense to explain what these terms mean in layman's terminology as otherwise they might (Rightfully) be misconstrued as purposely vague, deceptive, and ambiguous and our purpose is to avoid any misunderstandings in this courtroom as my attempt is to discover the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

 

So help me God (Places hand on the Bible).

 

In the simplest terminology possible (assuming everyone is an adult with a high school education), in the context of my statement the term "scientific community" is referring to those with professional qualifications dealing with Universal Common Ancestry; mainly biologists and biochemists, particularly those with concentrations within relevant fields. 

 

The use of the term "evolutionary science" is again, in context, dealing with the accumulated knowledge of those professionally qualified to speak on the subject of UCA.



#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 January 2018 - 04:20 AM

Judge mike: I can see that despite my attempts to avoid getting into the issue of abiogenesis and the UCA, I am not going to be able to avoid it. 

 

Can both counsellors please approach the bench for a moment.

 

*Blitzking and Goku approach the judge's seat* 

 

...Please gentlemen, for the moment can we try and set ourselves some focus rather than getting into the trifles and extraneous bickerings. Right honourable Sir Blitzking, please don't question the judge's objective standards, ;).... while evolution may be false or true the issue of it's anti-Christian effects and so forth, aren't what the trial is about at this stage. Gentlemen at this stage the trial's focus is the theory of evolution. Please try to make your points germane, succinct and as short as possible for the sake of old Judge mike who is already starting to sigh....abiogenesis can be discussed but it won't be the main theme, so please limit your focus on that issue.

 

*Blitzking and Goku counsellors return to their seats*

 

judge mike comment on UCA and abiogenesis

 

 

 

Goku: The defense requests that the prosecution's Dawkins quote of Darwin and atheism be stricken from the record as inadmissible due to irrelevance.

 

Sustained.

 

 

 

Goku: The defense also asks that the prosecution's statement about the probabilities of abiogenesis be stricken from the record as inadmissible due to irrelevance on the charge of UCA

 

Over-ruled,.....but taken into account. The judge will decide what can or can't be discussed, even if the prosecution asserts they won't challenge something, if the judge deems it has significance then he must insist it is part of the trial.

 

My comment about abiogenesis and UCA is that it will be debated because of it's high and unique relevance to evolution theory given if evolution is false, there can be no UCA given giraffes may then be created and exist from the beginning as one possibility. But no mathematics for probabilities will be allowed in my court gentlemen, for the reason that I believe people can appeal to such figures and baffle the jury. Instead you can discuss two things;

 

- how probability might be an issue (you can argue as to why it is more probable or less probable, or rather more or less likely to a sense of rational credulity) It should be noted rational credulity isn't the same thing as arguing from credulity/incredulity. 

 

- You can argue how abiogenesis is fundamental to evolution theory or isn't. It won't be defined as evolution theory, so it's a half-half victory for each side.. .

 

Please no more debating with the judge. That's how I see it, I think abiogenesis is part of the scientific attempt to answer the problem of life from their perspective, but there won't be a great focus on that issue in this trial.

 

It would be tedious to explain the points so far so I shall frequently report how the points stand for argumentation.

 

So far;

 

Blitzking: -1, +1, +1 = 1

Goku    : -1. +1, -1, +1, +1 = 1

 

(Points are low, for now I see mostly assertions from both sides) I can't credit extra points based on extra posts, so bare in mind the focus is on quality not quantity. 

 

(m)Right honourable Blitzking, you shall obey the court's procedure young man, or risk contempt of court! I will come down on you like a tonne of Darwinian bricks if you disrupt procedure again! I don't know how they conduct court down in Texas, but on Seti Alpha 5 we do things the right way!(/m) :P

 

(m = mischief content)



#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 January 2018 - 05:08 AM

Judge mike: For further clarification for the laymen jury members, think of evolution and abiogenesis as conjoined twins. You have two distinct people that have their own minds yet you cannot separate them. Since I am enforcing stone cold neutral logical notation, a "primordial UCA" is actually not strictly a real lifeform that has been found. Such an, "ancestor" is an assumption of both theories. So then abiogenesis creates that ancestor, which is some hypothetical form of life, and the evolution of life, if in reverse, converges upon that same ancestor in the past.

 

In other words if I write two stories, and both stories contain the same character, then we can say that although any book might share similar themes with other books, that in fact these two particular books, share the same theme. Furthermore this is compounded by the mainstream scientific community all accepting that the scientific answer is this conjoined approach, where abiogenesis is to their minds, true in some form, and complimenting evolution with those shared assumptions. Potentially this can lead to circular reasoning; example; "abiogenesis is true as evolution is, evolution is true because abiogenesis is, abiogenesis is true because evolution is...." etc....IOW it can lead to passing the book. But the trial is an attempt to uncover the truth, so then if I dismiss one theory, I potentially dismiss where the truth lies, which is all that matters to the court.

 

(Please, no responses to this statement) let us now start to present arguments back and forth. The prosecution should go first, then the defence will defend. make arguments extremely clear for the jury and make sure you stick to the subject like a man on a tightrope or I will lash your hides out of Kansas. I will ride you like seabiscuit's long lost heir, I will rodeo your backs like ticks on a boar..I will cast you down with the sodomites.

 

(The jury will dismiss the colourful movie quotes highlighted in blue.)



#33 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 January 2018 - 10:56 AM

(Points are low, for now I see mostly assertions from both sides)

 

*The defense steps up to the bench and whispers in the honorable Judge Mike's ear*

 

The opening statements are not meant to get into the minutia, but rather let the court know what our basic line of attack will be, and thus allow the opposition to prepare their next set of statements. For example, in a murder trial both the prosecution and defense may assert in their opening statements that their side is correct without giving the details as they both know giving those details will come later in the trial.

 

Since both sides are even in the Judge's eyes at the moment, this exchange is meant to clarify for the judge, not to argue.



#34 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 January 2018 - 11:12 AM

(m)Judge mike in commanding voice: I KNOW COUNSELLOR GOKU!!  "I Know that, Mr Man!!" - Annie Wilkes.

 

Tell him off Spock;

 

"Luitenant Counsellor, the Admiral Judge is well aware of the regulations." - Mr Spock, The Wrath Of Khan.

 

(*cough, cough* or "ahem, ahem" as Umbridge might say, if I could just come out of character for a moment, basically I just sensed in both opening statements that both seemed to be surreptitiously attempting to score goals over each other or so it seemed, though that may just be the nature of EFF forum, however since it's only 1 a piece, no harm done.) 

 

Your judge is a jealous judge, visiting the iniquities on the third and fourth generation and will strike down on thee with great anger and furious rebukes all those who attempt to poison my brothers and sisters.........*sorry, wrong character*(/m)

 

;)



#35 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 January 2018 - 07:07 PM

Judge mike: For further clarification for the laymen jury members, think of evolution and abiogenesis as conjoined twins. You have two distinct people that have their own minds yet you cannot separate them. Since I am enforcing stone cold neutral logical notation, a "primordial UCA" is actually not strictly a real lifeform that has been found. Such an, "ancestor" is an assumption of both theories. So then abiogenesis creates that ancestor, which is some hypothetical form of life, and the evolution of life, if in reverse, converges upon that same ancestor in the past.
 
In other words if I write two stories, and both stories contain the same character, then we can say that although any book might share similar themes with other books, that in fact these two particular books, share the same theme. Furthermore this is compounded by the mainstream scientific community all accepting that the scientific answer is this conjoined approach, where abiogenesis is to their minds, true in some form, and complimenting evolution with those shared assumptions. Potentially this can lead to circular reasoning; example; "abiogenesis is true as evolution is, evolution is true because abiogenesis is, abiogenesis is true because evolution is...." etc....IOW it can lead to passing the book. But the trial is an attempt to uncover the truth, so then if I dismiss one theory, I potentially dismiss where the truth lies, which is all that matters to the court.
 
(Please, no responses to this statement) let us now start to present arguments back and forth. The prosecution should go first, then the defence will defend. make arguments extremely clear for the jury and make sure you stick to the subject like a man on a tightrope or I will lash your hides out of Kansas. I will ride you like seabiscuit's long lost heir, I will rodeo your backs like ticks on a boar..I will cast you down with the sodomites.
 
(The jury will dismiss the colourful movie quotes highlighted in blue.)




Understood your honor.. But I was merely trying to clarify for our jurors the meaning of these nebulous terms thats all.. If you dont want me to do so for time constraints, I will try to continue with my opening remarks, however, I will attempt one last time to do so before moving on as I believe it is very important..

Here is the transcript of the defense's "Answer" from the court stenographer in response to my petition for clairifcation of the aforementioned terms currently in dispute..

"In the simplest terminology possible (assuming everyone is an adult with a high school education), in the context of my statement the term "scientific community" is referring to those with professional qualifications dealing with Universal Common Ancestry; mainly biologists and biochemists, particularly those with concentrations within relevant fields."

According to the defense, in his context, is it possible that there may exist people who posess his referenced "professional qualifications" that ALSO happen to categorically and unconditionally REJECT the "theory of evolution" Or, More accurately.... Mindless MYO Mud to Microbe to Man?

AND

"The use of the term "evolutionary science" is again, in context, dealing with the accumulated knowledge of those professionally qualified to speak on the subject of UCA."

According to the defense, in his context, is it possible that there may exist people "professionally qualified that ALSO categorically and unconditionally REJECT the "theory of evolution" Or, more accurately...
Mindless MYO Mud to Microbe to Man?

#36 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 January 2018 - 08:36 PM

Here is the transcript of the defense's "Answer" from the court stenographer in response to my petition for clairifcation of the aforementioned terms currently in dispute..


"In the simplest terminology possible (assuming everyone is an adult with a high school education), in the context of my statement the term "scientific community" is referring to those with professional qualifications dealing with Universal Common Ancestry; mainly biologists and biochemists, particularly those with concentrations within relevant fields."

According to the defense, in his context, is it possible that there may exist people who posess his referenced "professional qualifications" that ALSO happen to categorically and unconditionally REJECT the "theory of evolution" Or, More accurately.... Mindless MYO Mud to Microbe to Man?

AND

"The use of the term "evolutionary science" is again, in context, dealing with the accumulated knowledge of those professionally qualified to speak on the subject of UCA."

According to the defense, in his context, is it possible that there may exist people "professionally qualified that ALSO categorically and unconditionally REJECT the "theory of evolution" Or, more accurately...
Mindless MYO Mud to Microbe to Man?

 

It is possible to have a professional understanding of evolutionary theory and reject it, as is the case with literally any theory. One such individual is Todd Wood, Ph.D. in biochemistry and YEC who helped develop baraminology. If there is no objection from the bench I would like to introduce into the record one of Mr. Wood's blog posts on this exact issue from September 30, 2009, and read allowed a shortned version of it.

 

In Mr. Wood's blog (here) he states, and I quote (emphasis in original): "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.... There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.... Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure."

 

Mr. Wood clearly explains why he rejects evolutionary theory in said blog, and I quote: "It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.... Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."

 

I am certain the prosecution can find another person professionally qualified to speak on the issue that believes evolution is fundamentally flawed scientifically, but as we can see with Mr. Wood's online "rant", even professionals can reject a theory for reasons completely unrelated to the scientific merits of said theory.
 



#37 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 January 2018 - 09:40 PM

Here is the transcript of the defense's "Answer" from the court stenographer in response to my petition for clairifcation of the aforementioned terms currently in dispute..

"In the simplest terminology possible (assuming everyone is an adult with a high school education), in the context of my statement the term "scientific community" is referring to those with professional qualifications dealing with Universal Common Ancestry; mainly biologists and biochemists, particularly those with concentrations within relevant fields."
According to the defense, in his context, is it possible that there may exist people who posess his referenced "professional qualifications" that ALSO happen to categorically and unconditionally REJECT the "theory of evolution" Or, More accurately.... Mindless MYO Mud to Microbe to Man?
AND
"The use of the term "evolutionary science" is again, in context, dealing with the accumulated knowledge of those professionally qualified to speak on the subject of UCA."
According to the defense, in his context, is it possible that there may exist people "professionally qualified that ALSO categorically and unconditionally REJECT the "theory of evolution" Or, more accurately...
Mindless MYO Mud to Microbe to Man?


It is possible to have a professional understanding of evolutionary theory and reject it, as is the case with literally any theory. One such individual is Todd Wood, Ph.D. in biochemistry and YEC who helped develop baraminology. If there is no objection from the bench I would like to introduce into the record one of Mr. Wood's blog posts on this exact issue from September 30, 2009, and read allowed a shortned version of it.

In Mr. Wood's blog (here) he states, and I quote (emphasis in original): "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.... There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.... Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure."

Mr. Wood clearly explains why he rejects evolutionary theory in said blog, and I quote: "It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.... Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."

I am certain the prosecution can find another person professionally qualified to speak on the issue that believes evolution is fundamentally flawed scientifically, but as we can see with Mr. Wood's online "rant", even professionals can reject a theory for reasons completely unrelated to the scientific merits of said theory.


Ah Yes... The old tried and True "Todd Wood" AKA "Evolutionist in sheeps clothing" logical fallacy.

WONT WORK HERE..


I have written to your example TODD WOOD several letters asking him to present evidence for his claims.. He hasnt addressed my questions AT ALL.... I will present them to the court..

Your Honor.. I ask that you strike the ridiculous reference to Todd Wood from the record as he appears to be a hostile (To the word of God) witness..

EXHIBIT A FOR OUR HONORABLE JUDGE MTW


Re: There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.

Jim Thinnsen
to me, toddcharleswood, James
Feb 10, 2017 Details

Hi Todd, I have been studying the subject of "Evolution" for over 20 years and am confident that I know as much or more about the subject of origins than 99.99% of the humans on this planet.

When I saw your assertion in this article about "Gobs and Gobs of "evidence" for "Evolution" It really caught my attention to say the least, I would love for you to PLEASE give me a few examples
of what this "Evidence" is, because up until now "Evolutionists have been hiding it from Creationists and telling us that we just dont understand how "evolution works" and need to "Trust Science"

Just to clarify, When you use the word "Evolution" in your context, one should assume that you are referring to UCA all flora and fauna and NOT merely variation and adaptation like moth colors,finch beaks, bacterial resistance, and dog variety, Correct? BTW the word "Micro" Evolution is a marketing ploy / Bait and Switch deception used to fool people that is "Evolution" WHEN IT IS NOT.

Just a reminder. Wishful Speculation, Hopeful Assumptions, Unverified Speculation, Myths, Legends, and Circular Reasoning should not be acceptable to Anyone when it comes to Evidence that must conform to the Scientific Method to be considered Empirical Science (Or do you not agree with that?)

BTW, I am also curious about the "amazing explanatory power" that "Evolution" has..

For example, Evolution can explain why we should expect "Evolution to Occur...

Instantly ("Hopeful Monsters" or "Saltation")

Rapidly. (Spontaneous Generation)

Slowly.. (decent with minuscule modifications over MOYs)

Never.... (400 Million Year Old Living Fossils)

Yup.... How very impressive is the "Amazing explanatory power of Evolution" Indeed..


HERE IS WHAT YOU WROTE FOR REFERENCE..

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true"

Kind regards Blitzking (Jim Thinnsen)

#38 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 January 2018 - 10:21 PM

EXBIBIT B

Jim Thinnsen
to me, toddcharleswood, James
Feb 11, 2017Details

Hi Todd,

Do you know how I can get in contact with Ken Ham?, Do you have his email? Would you please forward this to him?
I would love to ask him about this as well. I need to know where AIG stands on your article you published if I am going to continue to support their cause..



Jim Thinnsen
to Jim, Todd
Feb 15, 2017 Details


Hi Todd, I have been studying the subject of "Evolution" for over 20 years and am confident that I know as much or more about the subject of origins than 99.99% of the humans on this planet.

When I saw your assertion in this article about "Gobs and Gobs of "evidence" for "Evolution", it really caught my attention to say the least, I would love for you to PLEASE give me a few examples of what this "Evidence" is, because up until now "Evolutionists have been hiding it from Creationists and telling us that we just dont understand how "evolution works" and need to "Trust Science"

Just to clarify, When you use the word "Evolution" in your context, one should assume that you are referring to UCA all flora and fauna and NOT merely variation and adaptation like moth colors,finch beaks, bacterial resistance, and dog variety, Correct? BTW the word "Micro" Evolution is a marketing ploy / Bait and Switch deception used to fool people that is "Evolution" WHEN IT IS NOT.

Just a reminder. Wishful Speculation, Hopeful Assumptions, Unverified Speculation, Myths, Legends, and Circular Reasoning should not be acceptable to Anyone when it comes to Evidence that must conform to the Scientific Method to be considered Empirical Science (Or do you not agree with that?)

BTW, I am also curious about the "amazing explanatory power" that "Evolution" has..

For example, Evolution can explain why we should expect "Evolution to Occur...

Instantly ("Hopeful Monsters" or "Saltation")

Rapidly. (Punctuated Equilibrium)

Slowly.. (decent with minuscule modifications over MOYs)

Never.... (400 Million Year Old Living Fossils)

Yup.... How very impressive is the "Amazing explanatory power of Evolution" Indeed.. LOL


HERE IS WHAT YOU WROTE FOR REFERENCE..

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true."


Jim Thinnsen
to Todd, James, me
Dec 5, 2017 Details

Hello Todd.. Thanks for the letter.. At least you finally responded, but you continue to avoid answering my questions for some reason..

You made this claim about me.

"Your recent behavior is distressing to the cause of Christ."


Sorry Todd, You have it backwards.. YOURS IS..

Jesus rebuked the pharisees and called them whitewashed tombs!

What is TRULY distressing to the cause of Christ is lying to people
and telling them that there is "Gobs and Gobs" of evidence to
support Satan's great lie of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all
flora and fauna, and THEN when your lie was properly called to
attention by me, You tell people that you wont explain yourself as to why you planted all of the seeds of doubt and corruption and gave every
single Godless university professor in the land plenty of ammunition
in order to finish off the deconversion of millions of kids, from Christian homes, (Already doubting their faith after 4 years of high school biology indoctrination) to Atheists because "EVEN People like Todd Wood", the well known YEC "knows" that there is just Gobs and Gobs of "Evidence.to support it!! WHAT A CROCK OF BALONEY!!

You don't know how many Atheists I run into on the internet who
champion your name. It is brought up all of the time. So, I wrote
you a letter asking for clarification as to what exactly you meant
with your column.. (I AM STILL ASKING BTW!!) And, instead of at
least giving a boiler plate "Answer" to me (and undoubtedly many
others that surely questioned you on your baseless assertion) you
simply say you refuse to do so AND to top it off, tell us we can
find plenty of "Evidence" in Darwin's Origins... INCREDIBLE..

I read that piece of Satanic Garbage and found ZERO Evidence to
support the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of "Evolution' NONE.


I pray that you have a road to Damascus moment, renounce your
pride, and issue a correction to your article admitting that you now
realize that you were completely wrong and Satan influenced you
to write such garbage.. AND, ask for forgiveness, which I and others
would be more than happy to give you, and start off with a clean
slate with this issue.. Time will tell... It is now between you and God.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth, “

The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).

.“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level-preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new-the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.” John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist


"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins


"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist)


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

#39 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:47 AM

*BANG*..*BANG*....*BANG*....ORDER!

 

 

 

You are now both in contempt of court, Dave please escort the prisoners to the nearest jail cell.

 

*Three days later Blitzking and Goku are released from prison having had only water to drink, and tortured by having to read endless MTW posts on EFF to train their minds in critical thinking.*



#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:57 AM

 Let us now forget the Tom Wood business, the jury will regard a scientist as one qualified in a field of science with the relevant qualification, what they believe or don't believe will not be regarded as having any weight with the jury members. EXAMPLE; "This cop is dirty, I saw him eating salami sandwiches."

 

Judge Mike doesn't care if he is a buddhist, atheist, Muslim clown on Saturday's and a cowboy sheep herder on Sundays, as long as he does what a cop should do when on duty.

 

*BANG*..*BANG*....*BANG*....ORDER!

 

The prosecutor will present his case against evolution when he is ready to address the court.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users