Jump to content


Photo

Evolution On Trial


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 Dave

Dave

    Member

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

Posted 09 January 2018 - 10:14 AM

Gentlemen, we are overwhelmed with pre-trial shenanigans that are best conducted outside the purview of this pending trial.

 

Judge Mike, please close these pre-trial proceedings and instruct prosecutor to present the government's charges against the accused. So far, as far as I can tell, we have an accused sitting in jail with no charges brought against him. If pre-trial arguing between attorneys continues, the accused will have to be set free.

 

Judge Mike, please enforce the following order:

 

1)   Prosecutor open a new topic officially starting the trial and announcing charges against the accused.

2)   Prosecutor and defense must present to the judge their list of witnesses and evidence.

3)   Prosecutor makes his opening statement.

4)   Defense makes his opening statement.

5)   Prosecutor presents his evidence and calls witnesses.

6)   Defense may cross-examine.

7)   Prosecution rests.

8)   Defense presents evidence and calls witnesses.

9)   Prosecution may cross-examine.

10) Defense rests.

11) Prosecution makes closing remarks.

12) Defense makes closing remarks.

13) Judge rules guilty or not guilty.

 

Judge Mike, please instruct attorneys to follow the above order inside the trial topic. No taking a turn out of order, so to speak. Remind them that once the evidence and witnesses are announced to you, they may not present additional "surprise" witnesses without express permission from you, and without allowing discovery from the opposing attorney. A mis-trial could result from violation of this rule.

 

If attorneys wish, they may "consult" with each other, make deals, etc., in a separate topic outside of the trial topic ... as may members of the trial audience among each other. However, Judge Mike, you are responsible for maintaining order in the court and may remove disruptive members from the audience. Order in the court must be maintained at all costs in order to prevent a mis-trial.

 

As a side note: This arguing back and forth about what is or is not evolution is irrelevant to the trial itself. The government has charges to bring, and that's what the trial is about. If elements of the prior argument come up, it is up to you, Judge Mike, to sustain or overrule objections from opposing attorneys, and then demand that the offending attorney move on with his case. Judge Mike, it is your job to keep the trial on point, and not get distracted from what the defendant is being accused of.

 

Let the trial begin.



#42 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 - 11:16 AM

Judge mike, judge mike, judge mike!!! It is a flushbunking manhunt for the judge I tell you, they were after me from the start!!!! everything is my fault!!!!

 

 

 

Dave: Judge Mike

 

"Can't you stop your lips from flapping for just one little minute?" - Peter Venkman, - Ghostbusters.

 

Who is this Dave anyway? Does he know the powers I have as judge mike, does he know who he is messing with here?

 

 

....*ahem, ahem*......I'm sorry, the power went to my head there for a moment.

 

Please escort Dave to prison, contempt of court!!!!

 

....*ahem ahem*, what I mean to say is, of course sir, yes I shall do that according to the procedure you outlined. Very good Sir!

:D :farmer: 



#43 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 January 2018 - 12:50 AM

Judge mike, judge mike, judge mike!!! It is a flushbunking manhunt for the judge I tell you, they were after me from the start!!!! everything is my fault!!!!
 

 
 
Dave: Judge Mike

 
"Can't you stop your lips from flapping for just one little minute?" - Peter Venkman, - Ghostbusters.
 
Who is this Dave anyway? Does he know the powers I have as judge mike, does he know who he is messing with here?
 
 
....*ahem, ahem*......I'm sorry, the power went to my head there for a moment.
 
Please escort Dave to prison, contempt of court!!!!
 
....*ahem ahem*, what I mean to say is, of course sir, yes I shall do that according to the procedure you outlined. Very good Sir!
:D :farmer: 

I beseech our honorable MTW permission to spend a few more days to prepare opening dialog.. I got distracted by the reference of Todd Wood by the defense.. I just LOVE it when Accidentalists bring up the sacred name of "Todd Wood" in their defense of the "Slow Frog like creature to Prince like Creature" Mythstery of AbioDarwinism as if Todd (Who was exposed as a fraud by me) is someone that anyone in their right mind should listen to... LOL.. (How did it work out?) LOL

ANYWAY.. Time to get down to business....

#44 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 10 January 2018 - 05:10 AM

 

 

Blitzking: I just LOVE it when Accidentalists bring up the sacred name of "Todd Wood" in their defense of the "Slow Frog like creature to Prince like Creature" Mythstery of AbioDarwinism as if Todd (Who was exposed as a fraud by me) is someone that anyone in their right mind should listen to... LOL.. (How did it work out?) LOL

 

Well since Dave says the trial begins with the "Trial" topic BK, I suggest your opening bid should start with a topic called, simply, "The Official Trial Topic".

 

Meaning I suppose it is okay to give my own quick personal opinion here. My opinion is that basically Goku is selecting someone that for whatever reason, personally sees evolution theory in the same light as evolutionists do (which isn't immediately incorrect, but it depends on a better explanation from Wood, but Goku's statement he quoted is a bit of a quote mine given it is only a statement with no explanation of what Wood specifically means, you could also quote-mine some things I have said such as when I have said evolution counts as science, but it requires explanation). There are certainly other scientist YECs who are not only having a science background but there are also designists and non-evolutionists with science backgrounds. Perhaps not evolution-science backgrounds. 

 

Though to state, "all evolutionary biologists are evolutionist and none creationist" would highly likely count as a rather feeble tautology, since someone becomes an evolutionary biologist, 99.9999999999999% of the time, because they have a love of scientific causes even for miraculous life. Meaning they highly likely chosen that field because they loved evolution, accepted evolution, and believe in the common scientific theme that all things can be explained scientifically. That is the great quest of the mainstream, a united, "theory of everything". 

 

Jonathan Sarfati is a qualified chemist, and chess master YEC, like you he excels at the chess, and can beat twelve people simultaneously if I recall correctly. John Sanford is a co-inventor of the gene gun. It's very clear that within "science" there are a group of intelligent, knowledgeable, educated people who don't accept evolution theory or dispute it to a point. Even just dissenters like David Berlinski. (I have listened to perhaps five hours of interviews and talks from Berlinski by the way, I note he is one person you have previously mentioned)

 

So the problem with "the scientific community" is that it's basically an appeal to consensus-science. however consensus science have you noticed, doesn't raise it's head when we talk of forces or formulas, for with a force or a formula, you can experimentally prove they exist. 

 

So to my mind, the "what does the consensus mean" topic is a separate matter. We can accept the majority accept evolution but for the trial we can't accept this as an argument for evolution because it is an indirect argument, whereas an argument for E=MC2, or centripetal force, would be direct argumentation.


  • Blitzking likes this

#45 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 January 2018 - 10:27 PM

The Official Trial.

I would like to start by simply stating that the whole fairytale of Metaphysical Naturalism (Big Bang / Abiogenesis / UCA ) has nothing to do with Science.. And never did.. REAL Scientific Rigor doesnt require "Mulligans" to help hypotheses along.. Ignoring Scientific Laws and principles like these ONLY for Philosophical Reasons is NOT SCIENTIFIC..

Scientific laws of

Cause and Effect
Biogenesis
FLOT
SLOT

As well as

Symbiotic Relationships (Thousands of examples)

Irreducible Complexity (Thousands of examples)

Inability to provide a plausible order of Vital Organs

I would also like to point out that Science Fiction is not that same as Science.. In 30 years of inquiry, I have NEVER seen ONE Example of Evidence that conforms to the Scientific Method to support the idea that a Microbe slowly evolved into a Microbiologist (UCA) over the course of over 1 billion years.. So aside for the aformentioned reasons to NOT believe in UCA, we lack ANY evidence TO believe in it!!

THEREFORE

Philosophical considerations aside (Like the desire to remove a need for a creator for our creation), Why on Earth SHOULD anybody believe in it.. REMEMBER.. We have Thousands of reasons NOT to believe in it, yet ZERO Reasons TO believe in it!!

#46 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 January 2018 - 10:56 PM

The Official Trial.

I would like to start by simply stating that the whole fairytale of Metaphysical Naturalism (Big Bang / Abiogenesis / UCA ) has nothing to do with Science.. And never did.. REAL Scientific Rigor doesnt require "Mulligans" to help hypotheses along.. Ignoring Scientific Laws and principles like these ONLY for Philosophical Reasons is NOT SCIENTIFIC..

Scientific laws of

Cause and Effect
Biogenesis
FLOT
SLOT

As well as

Symbiotic Relationships (Thousands of examples)

Irreducible Complexity (Thousands of examples)

Inability to provide a plausible order of Vital Organs

I would also like to point out that Science Fiction is not that same as Science.. In 30 years of inquiry, I have NEVER seen ONE Example of Evidence that conforms to the Scientific Method to support the idea that a Microbe slowly evolved into a Microbiologist (UCA) over the course of over 1 billion years.. So aside for the aformentioned reasons to NOT believe in UCA, we lack ANY evidence TO believe in it!!

THEREFORE

Philosophical considerations aside (Like the desire to remove a need for a creator for our creation), Why on Earth SHOULD anybody believe in it.. REMEMBER.. We have Thousands of reasons NOT to believe in it, yet ZERO Reasons TO believe in it!!

 

I formally request clarification on what the specific charge is against my client.



#47 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 13 January 2018 - 12:40 AM

The Official Trial.
I would like to start by simply stating that the whole fairytale of Metaphysical Naturalism (Big Bang / Abiogenesis / UCA ) has nothing to do with Science.. And never did.. REAL Scientific Rigor doesnt require "Mulligans" to help hypotheses along.. Ignoring Scientific Laws and principles like these ONLY for Philosophical Reasons is NOT SCIENTIFIC..
Scientific laws of
Cause and Effect
Biogenesis
FLOT
SLOT
As well as
Symbiotic Relationships (Thousands of examples)
Irreducible Complexity (Thousands of examples)
Inability to provide a plausible order of Vital Organs
I would also like to point out that Science Fiction is not that same as Science.. In 30 years of inquiry, I have NEVER seen ONE Example of Evidence that conforms to the Scientific Method to support the idea that a Microbe slowly evolved into a Microbiologist (UCA) over the course of over 1 billion years.. So aside for the aformentioned reasons to NOT believe in UCA, we lack ANY evidence TO believe in it!!
THEREFORE
Philosophical considerations aside (Like the desire to remove a need for a creator for our creation), Why on Earth SHOULD anybody believe in it.. REMEMBER.. We have Thousands of reasons NOT to believe in it, yet ZERO Reasons TO believe in it!!


I formally request clarification on what the specific charge is against my client.
The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.... The prosecution recognizes that it is not a crime to believe in fairytales or hold any other epistemological beliefs without evidence to support them, HOWEVER, The prosecution moves that such beliefs should NOT be taught in ANY public school science curriculum at taxpayer expense and INSTEAD should be taught in either religious studies and philosophy OR simpy taught at privately funded schools..

#48 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:12 AM

The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it . . .

i disagree.
i feel there is plenty of evidence that a particular genome can produce a very wide variety of species within a very short period of time.
the question seems to be "where did this information come from"?
complex programs, which is what DNA seems to be, never "arise randomly".

. . . and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.

i haven't seen anything that says abiogenesis is impossible.
OTOH, molecular biologists will tell you that no one understands prebiotic chemistry.

when it comes to our schools, i'm afraid that i must relegate to either:
1. no religion at all taught in our schools.
2. a class or semester devoted to the worlds religions taught in a scholarly manner.

#49 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 13 January 2018 - 11:15 AM

Judge Mischief T. Justice: *order*, *order*. *bang* *bang*

 

 

what If

i disagree.
i feel there is plenty of evidence that a particular genome can produce a very wide variety of species within a very short period of time.
the question seems to be "where did this information come from"?
complex programs, which is what DNA seems to be, never "arise randomly".

 

JMTJ: Please Sir, don't enter my courtroom while in session and blurt out these statements. 

 

Please take the prisoner away, he is forced to read MTW posts for five months then take 500 MTW quizzes, only released from prison if he gets 90 percentile.

 

 

 

What If: i haven't seen anything that says abiogenesis is impossible.
OTOH, molecular biologists will tell you that no one understands prebiotic chemistry.

 

JMTJ: The jury will dismiss these comments, the defence's lunatic wasn't given permission to speak. ;) (Judge: nobody understands pre-aerodynamic Peter Pan mechanisms of flight, because there is no such thing. Technically, there is no such thing as "prebiotic" chemistry, there is either chemistry which isn't organic or organic chemistry, it seems to me, of which all of the latter is either prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells.)

 

 

 

 

Right honorable Blitzking:The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.... The prosecution recognizes that it is not a crime to believe in fairytales or hold any other epistemological beliefs without evidence to support them, HOWEVER, The prosecution moves that such beliefs should NOT be taught in ANY public school science curriculum at taxpayer expense and INSTEAD should be taught in either religious studies and philosophy OR simpy taught at privately funded schools.

 

JMTJ:Right honorable Mogul warrior will now respond. *Goku puts "What If" back in his handcuffs and gags him with gimp mouth piece.*



#50 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 13 January 2018 - 02:45 PM

Judge Mischief T. Justice: The law (Dave) has insisted the official trial topic be opened to begin the trial, and there can be no interruptions in that official trial thread. Judge MTJ shall open the topic in due course.

 

I shall now throw Dave into the dungeons for 40 days, because he doesn't acknowledge my supreme omnipotent wizardry in this trial;

 

Clap! Snap! the black crack!

Grip, grab! Pinch, nab!

And down down to Goblin-town

You go, my lad!

 

Swish, smack! Whip crack!

Batter and beat! Yammer and bleat!

Work, work! nor dare to sherk,

While Goblins quaff, and Goblins laugh,

Round and round, far underground,

Below my lad! - Page 82 - The Hobbit.



#51 Dave

Dave

    Member

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

Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:22 AM

I shall now throw Dave into the dungeons for 40 days, because he doesn't acknowledge my supreme omnipotent wizardry in this trial;

 

Clap! Snap! the black crack!

Grip, grab! Pinch, nab!

And down down to Goblin-town

You go, my lad!

 

Swish, smack! Whip crack!

Batter and beat! Yammer and bleat!

Work, work! nor dare to sherk,

While Goblins quaff, and Goblins laugh,

Round and round, far underground,

Below my lad! - Page 82 - The Hobbit.

LOL



#52 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:40 PM

The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.... The prosecution recognizes that it is not a crime to believe in fairytales or hold any other epistemological beliefs without evidence to support them, HOWEVER, The prosecution moves that such beliefs should NOT be taught in ANY public school science curriculum at taxpayer expense and INSTEAD should be taught in either religious studies and philosophy OR simpy taught at privately funded schools..


If the case for evolution were found insufficiently empirical what should we teach regular kids unable to go to private schools about the origin of species? The case for supernaturally created distinct living kinds would be equally insufficient - do you contend that the origin of species only be approached through religious studies or philosophy?

Some questions that might arise from publically educated students:

Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?
Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?
Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?
Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc?

#53 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 15 January 2018 - 04:24 AM

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?

 

It follows that if the universe has certain elements those things within it will have those elements. It's like asking is it coincidence that artist's paintings all use paint. The Creator of the chemical elements is going to use the ones that work best the same as an artist will use the paint best for a particular picture.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?

 

This is logically, a compositional error. By focusing on what all living things share, you basically get to ignore the WILDLY different make up of their anatomy. I trust you wouldn't believe wood is basically the same as skin? Does this not answer your former question perfectly? If you can, from certain chemicals and genetic material, get both skin and wood, then isn't this medium, perfect being so dynamic/diverse? For example cartilage is perfect for stretching and growing because it solidifies into bone. Why have any other material in another similar creature? It would be like me saying this to you, "great phone, but some phones should be made from jello or wood."

 

Why?

 

Why from a designer's perspective? If it is a BASIC matter, there is no need to change it. Why would a new fiction book be written in a variation of english when english is all that's needed?

 

So this fits with design, we see it all of the time, designers don't used different things where it has no advantage or no reason to be different.

 

Essentially you are saying, "is it a coincidence many books are written in the same language?" Well, no, because language can communicate everything, in any book. In the same way, genetic material can create any creature, be it a rodent, tree, bunny or seaweed. Meaning there is no reason, creatively speaking, to use anything different and there are advantages in symbiosis too.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?

 

This is an interesting one because from my perspective I believe a CORRECT prediction for evolution, would be that had we evolved onto land, then there would only be land creatures with that structure. I believe whales, manatees, dolphins and ichthyosaurs, very much don't fit with that pattern, despite being "icons" of evolution, by propaganda, the truth is they don't fit and there's no proper evidence they evolved. You should also note that while homologies are argued to favour evolution, homoplasies are their true logical contradiction. If you are saying something is common among creatures, it seems you pick and choose how relevant that commonality is. For example notice you don't choose eyes to focus on, because you know that that particular commonality they have a story for, that they evolved separately some forty times, despite being, "common".

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc? 

 

Creationists don't argue that lifeforms can't adapt, and we accept population genetics, there is just nothing in that science which leads to macro evolution.

 

As you can see, a lot of the arguments put forward for evolution, just aren't that hard to address. And this is the problem, evolution is based largely on conjecture. For it is more likely that where there is an extreme coincidence, in fact there is teleology. For example, if all five victims had an upside down cross placed on their heads, the chances are it was done on purpose.

 

Things being done on purpose, by design, can be shown to answer for coincidences in a better way than anything else. For example, imagine if you had to explain that there was some natural chance reason the crosses were on their heads instead, think how weak that would be compared to the argument that it was done on purpose!

 

So basically in a classroom, pupils should be taught how easily design and engineering addresses these issues. For example has it ever even entered your head how many mammals, and reptiles etc...there are with the same bone structure but by design they are poles apart? Like for example a bat's forelimb compared to a horse's? So then doesn't that prove it awfully coincidental that the particular plan of the bones in the anatomy, just so happen by design, to be able to be modified into things as diverse as horse's and pterosaurs? Isn't that, "TOO" perfect? I would say that from the viewpoint of design, it would be like designing a chassis that was able to be modified to be a chassis in all types of vehicles. Cars, bikes, planes, helicopters, boats. Now if someone designed something like that, they would be the most famous person on the planet in one day, five times more clever than Einstein.

 

So then, is it a coincidence that the homological pattern of bones, just happens to kill about 1000 birds with one stone?

 

How did evolution know the perfect pattern that would lead to such limitless diversity of the same basic design of skeleton? It has no prescience. Oh I forget, when it indicates the miraculous, we abandon coincidences as coincidence, but when it fits evolution we magnify them and argue they can't be coincidence.



#54 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:30 AM

The charge is against promoting a belief, at public expense, in a Fairytale that has ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support it and (as shown) faces plenty of empirical scientifc evidence against it.... The prosecution recognizes that it is not a crime to believe in fairytales or hold any other epistemological beliefs without evidence to support them, HOWEVER, The prosecution moves that such beliefs should NOT be taught in ANY public school science curriculum at taxpayer expense and INSTEAD should be taught in either religious studies and philosophy OR simpy taught at privately funded schools..

If the case for evolution were found insufficiently empirical what should we teach regular kids unable to go to private schools about the origin of species? The case for supernaturally created distinct living kinds would be equally insufficient - do you contend that the origin of species only be approached through religious studies or philosophy?
Some questions that might arise from publically educated students:
Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?
Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?
Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?
Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc?
"If the case for evolution were found insufficiently empirical what should we teach regular kids unable to go to private schools about the origin of species?"

THE TRUTH.. Instead of teaching lies, just teach the truth to the kids about the myth..It will soon go the way of phlogiston, blood letting, geocentricism and all of the other myths that were once thought to be true. The CURRENT textbooks can be used in private schools or taught in Philosophy or Religious Studies..

"Some questions that might arise from publically educated students:"

"Is it coincidental that living things and other matter are composed from the same palate of chemical elements and compounds?"

No, it merely means that the same supernatural intelligent agent that created DNA that man cant even fathom how
to begin to imagine how it was created (Yes, that means a supernatural phenomena)
utilized the same building blocks for several reasons that I can explain if needed.


"Is it coincidental that all living things share the same form of genetic material?

See Above..

"Is it coincidental that all mammals, reptiles and amphibians share a common skeletal structure?"

See above..

"Is it coincidental that selective pressures in the wild can affect gene pools in a way comparable to breeding of pets/agricultural products etc?"

Now THAT should be taught..it is observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable SCIENCE!!! but, of course that is not "Evolution" either! Again..variation, speciation, DEvolution and adaptation, are NOT Evolution!



"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

(Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities
  • mike the wiz likes this

#55 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 15 January 2018 - 12:12 PM

Wiz,

Paints are synthetic; if such art supplies were no better than those occurring naturally there would be no art supplies industry. Living things are composed of water, hydrocarbons, nitrates etc, stuff you might find in the ground or a nebula.

Point of the coincidences is they look like what you might expect to see if the origins of life were natural and lifeforms related. Your point re common genetic material and common trans-phyla structures seems to be that the commonality was fit for design purpose - that's reasonable were the designer a mere alien but design proponents really suspect an omnipotent deity who created ex nilho and has since performed miracles. Wouldn't divine intervention in life be a bit more obvious than alleged deficiency in naturalistic explanation?

I know that (roughly) this line of reasoning occurred to me as a school kid...

#56 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 15 January 2018 - 01:02 PM

 

 

Cheeseburger: Paints are synthetic; if such art supplies were no better than those occurring naturally there would be no art supplies industry. Living things are composed of water, hydrocarbons, nitrates etc, stuff you might find in the ground or a nebula. 

 

No, that's misleading misinformation. Living things are composed of organic chemistry which doesn't exist in the ground or nebula. You won't find proteins with specified complexity in the ground. All you will find is racemic amino acids. I don't see why this is unexpected for creation, we expect specified complexity, just as with paints you have to take the elements and make the ones you want. Really this is where evolutionists fail to study, they seem to think the specified complexity in organic chemistry is found in the ground, and is mundane. No, you have to understand the elements/features of intelligent design, properly. The features of design aren't physical themselves. Specified complexity, contingency planning, goals, information, the manipulation of chemistry to get DNA double helux strand or a kinesin motor, it is the invisible thought realm, that is responsible for these things.

 

So then the problem is one of logic, take a live frog, then take a dead frog and stick it in a blender. You now have a bowl of mush that has everything the living frog has physically, but you have just destroyed all of the design. 

 

Where is evolution here? I see no relevance.

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Point of the coincidences is they look like what you might expect to see if the origins of life were natural and lifeforms related. Your point re common genetic material and common trans-phyla structures seems to be that the commonality was fit for design purpose - that's reasonable were the designer a mere alien but design proponents really suspect an omnipotent deity who created ex nilho and has since performed miracles. Wouldn't divine intervention in life be a bit more obvious than alleged deficiency in naturalistic explanation? 

 

But it's a red-herring. Remember your initial request was why we shouldn't teach evolution. Really when we talk of the things we find in life, the design in it, we really aren't inventing it. It's there. So then to complain about the possible inventor of that design seems to me to be an emotional response which has little to do with the issue. We cannot help it if life speaks of a miraculous designer. If that is the truth, then that is the truth.

 

As for an alien inventing life, that really only pushes the problem to another place in the universe, because the alien would also presumably be designed. But the reality is when we look at life, the knowledge and intelligence required is beyond that even of fictional aliens. The chief problem with fictional aliens, especially the popular cultural fictional bipedal greys or little green men, is that most people don't realise that those aliens are endowed with supernatural abilities anyway. Think about it, we have reports of feats by UFOs which wouldn't make sense to physics, they can defy physics, and the cause they tell us of this, is supreme technology, but people really need to stop and ask themselves this; why would advanced technology allow a race of beings to perform things beyond the physically possible? It's absurd, and we know for example, you can't go beyond light speed according to Einstein. We know that certain aerodynamic moves aren't possible without killing the lifeform within the craft. 

 

So then it seems to me, it makes far more sense that what the bible says is true, rather than constantly looking for naturalist explanations which if you deep down admit it, just aren't sufficient, even when you do juice up the stories by giving ET supernatural powers that aren't possible, and make "technology" to your minds, something that can advance to a stage that would break the laws of nature. I really don't think there is any truth to a technology that can lead to such things. I have no reason to believe God created aliens with those capabilities, and there is nothing in the science facts which would truly give us any abiogenesis and evolution of life, evolution is actually conspicuously absent in the record, by and large. The minority-reporters merely commit slothful induction, unwittingly of course.

 

I think pupils should be told there aren't any intermediates for bats, dugongs, platypus, pterosaurs, pterodactyls, ichthyosaurs, apes, trees or anything else you can think of, but rather an infinitesimal handful of untenable "candidates" which can be debunked while drinking a cup of coffee. They should be told that they have to accept by faith that the homological bones stemmed from an ancestor but eyes didn't, they should be told that this type of reasoning makes evolution theory plastic, because eyes don't fit, they should have also came from a common ancestor so instead they say they evolved independently, the same feature. Don't you think it is important to show that evolution in all of this, only exists in the imagination because the record doesn't show any of this, and in fact it is all conjecture? I think that makes it very weak science in that regard, because the true conclusion is that evolution is not there because it didn't happen.



#57 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 16 January 2018 - 12:12 AM

Organic compounds are found in meteorites and complex organic chemistry has been detected in interstellar space. Above a level life obviously has an elaborate chemistry compared with inert matter - life, after all, is life - but the core compounds and elemental chemistry are nothing exotic. Specified complexity is essentially a middle man for an incredulity:god-of-the-gaps approach.

It is completely relevant (and thus anything but a red herring ) to consider the designer when naturalistic origins are challenged by design arguments a la irreducible complexity. even were life on earth be proved to be designed it would not necessarily follow that any alien designer themselves could not have arisen naturally.

Had such a versatile and useful facility as sight only arisen the once I suspect creationists would be demanding why - what invisible supernatural force could be at work..?

#58 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 16 January 2018 - 05:18 AM

 

 

Cheeseburger: Organic compounds are found in meteorites and complex organic chemistry has been detected in interstellar space. Above a level life obviously has an elaborate chemistry compared with inert matter - life, after all, is life - but the core compounds and elemental chemistry are nothing exotic. Specified complexity is essentially a middle man for an incredulity:god-of-the-gaps approach.

 

No offence but this is dreadful reasoning. Specified complexity is something factual in our world. It means something. I can't be bothered at this stage, explaining to you what it is as I don't believe you have any genuine interest in understanding it.

 

As for the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, that particular fallacy isn't an, "approach", it is a specific error which is only made if you jump to the conclusion of supernatural cause based on an absence of data. As I have said many times, the clear intelligent design in life which is off-the-scale and demonstranly over-qualified in every feature, allows us to conclude that there is an intelligent designer of life predicated on the data, not an absence of data.

 

So the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, is sometimes used by atheists as a pseudo-form of the fallacy, where they basically pretend that any conclusion which may infer God or may suggest Him, is the god-of-the-gaps. Well, so often we are told that as creationists we don't understand things properly, are you aware that there isn't anything written in logical notation which states that a theistic conclusion is banned from all sound syllogisms?

 

Because that is what you guys are proclaiming - that any argument that includes God is a god-of-the-gaps. You reason this because you don't actually understand what the god of the gaps argument really is

 

 

 

Cheeseburger: Had such a versatile and useful facility as sight only arisen the once I suspect creationists would be demanding why - what invisible supernatural force could be at work..? 

 

But in this discussion, you requested why we don't accept evolution in schools by insisting some reasons made it clear evolution is there, or made evolution factual, so we only have to show that those arguments don't mean evolution. It is you that then brought in discussion of the supernatural. I have not even insisted that God should be mentioned in schools. What I am doing is showing you that the facts clearly show evidence much more consistent with intelligent design, yes technically you can if you want to, believe aliens are the designers, but whoever the designer was, technically, this would mean evolution's absence, which is reason enough to not teach evolution according to the parameters of your request.

 

So to my mind, like I shown with the homological bones, the pattern is, "too perfect", we can show that such a feature shows the designer of life KNEW the perfect skeletal arrangement that could be modified endlessly, and give you a bat, yet a horse, yet a man with arms instead of legs!!!! All from the same bones!!! 

 

So don't you agree that students should at least be told that as freewill human beings they should be allowed to make a decision for themselves. Traditionally people have believed and do believe God created the world because of it's majesty, beauty, diversity and order and this is something real in our world, that the world isn't a system of chaos but shows elaborate things. So then, is it right to not let the student make up their own mind? Are you saying that because to you personally you find God being the Creator of life, personally absurd that it shouldn't be possible for another person to make the decision from the facts, that God in fact made life? Aren't you then basically forcing evolution down peoples throats when many people if they were told all the facts, would likely dismiss evolution for what it is, a ridiculous belief to prop up a materialist worldview. I think that's what it is about, you guys know that people are simple, they will believe whatever is ingrained into them, so if they are only told that all people accept evolution and are only taught it and you keep creation in the dark, that will give you your majority. That's the only way to win because you sure as heck can't win in a straight fight. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users