Jump to content


Photo

Critique My Argument Against Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#101 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 February 2018 - 11:43 PM

 

I keep on correcting you.. It is closer to .00001% Why do you keep on with the insults?


Just to be clear, 0.00001% of the population is roughly 760 individuals. Let's make it an even thousand for simplicity. Are you saying you are in the top 1,000 people on the planet when it comes to knowledge of origins?

What exactly is covered under "origins"? Is this only abiogenesis, or does this extend to other fields from evolutionary biology to astrophysics that deals with various types of origins that have caught the eye of creationism?

I will let you figure that out for yourself..

You have to remember, I don't need to prove
myself to you anymore Goku.. AND I will not
allow you to drag me into a conversation where
I am forced to brag about myself.. You can
obviously believe whatever you want.. I know
that my number is much closer than Wibbles
.001 is, but, again, you surely have your own
opinions which is fine.. BTW, have you ever

seen anyone write a thesis that OBJECTIVELY

destroys the Darwinian myth like I have? Which

YOU continue to avoid like poison?  LOL You

know, the one that forces World Renown Experts

to invoke a Religious answer and not a Scientific

one? Which proves that Evolution is merely a

religious belief? Allow me to refresh your memory..

 

http://evolutionfair...ntalists/page-4

 

 

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."

(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

 

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)



#102 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2018 - 04:04 AM

 

 

Popoi:  If a thing happened, there is a natural cause for it. If may be the case that we don’t know specifically what that cause is or how it worked, and we may get in to a situation where previous evidence led us down the wrong path, but it is axiomatic that there is a cause and it is within the realm of consistently operating nature.

 

I'm afraid that's nothing more than a non-sequitur, which means logically, it does not follow that if a thing happened there is a natural cause for it. That is actually what you are arguing (that is your position, your worldview).

 

It might follow that if a thing happened within this universe that the thing itself is natural but that doesn't mean it is ultimately caused naturally or that it isn't a miracle. 

 

It's the confusion about natural function and causation, you seem to be struggling with. If some function can be described as natural, like the seeing of an eye, and how an eye sees, this does not mean that an eye is naturally caused in it's design, ultimately. That is to say, if something is natural that doesn't mean it was caused naturally.

 

So what is the proof that if a thing happened there is a natural cause for it? 

 

You have it reversed, you hypothesise life came about naturally then find consistent evidence with it which is extremely tenous in it's circumstantial nature but you can't then affirm the consequent. 

 

So your comment can't be tested can it? If God created life and invented it's ability to replicate by putting it's seed within it, as the bible describes, then it's appearance as "natural" is misleading, if it can only exist by miracle, which it seems is certainly the strongest argument, far stronger than fiction abio-slime accidents given the off-the-scale, designer sophisitcation in life, of which there just aren't any physical reasons for it to happen on it's own unless it has prescience/goals. Put a pile of bricks in a field, there are no physical reasons for them to design themselves and become a wall then a cathedral over time, in the same way aminos and nucelotides are also just "things" like bricks - what reasons do they have to become more than what they are? 

 

Then there are the personal miracles Christian's witness, and I myself have experienced. 

 

Another logical mistake is to conclude that if something is natural, material, that it isn't miraculous. But dinosaurs and trees and people and bunnies ARE miraculous, even though they are natural, because such things do not occur naturally. 

 

 

 

Popoi: but it is axiomatic that there is a cause and it is within the realm of consistently operating nature

 

Well, you can create an axiom but it would only be based on induction of those things which are caused naturally, which means your axiom is an inductive fallacy of, "some therefore all".

 

How can you know that a cause is "within nature", and that those miracles I experienced, though being in nature, were not caused by God? You seem to have an unstated premise which is this; "if something is natural substance, it has a cause within nature."

 

That doesn't follow either.

 

For example the universe is, "natural" but if it had a beginning, and everything "BEFORE" that beginning was non-existence, and there was no nature, then how can a natural cause be responsible, "within" the universe, since there was no universe?

 

Natural causation is common, a more reasonable argument would be to say that based on that it would seem probable a causation will be natural, but that's only based on limited data. Another problem is that if something is unusual or not naturally occurring like life, because it is of natural substance and is mundane, people will give a natural explanation to the thing which is by definition a miraculous thing. This perpetuates the endless problem that whatever happens it automatically is categorised as, "natural" or, "naturally occurring in some way".

 

Disclaimer: I am not saying what you said is of no merit at all, it is true and tautologous that in a natural system, there will be natural causes and processes and we come across a lot of them where foolish people have previously argued supernature. So I am not trying to urinate over everything you are saying but I think your position is too dogmatic. To make a statement more reasonable, logically, it is best to add more and more precise words such as instead of saying; "atheists are X", it would be more logical to say, "a portion of atheists are X". So then if you were going to say, "atheists are clever", or, "atheists are immoral", the less you state, the more GENERAL your statement, the less logical. The more specific a statement, the tighter the argument gets, the more reasonable it becomes. A better axiom would be that inductively, a large number of things that have happened have had natural causes, statistically, and those explanations have supplanted a lot of silly supernatural ones.

 

That argument from evolutionists/atheists, has been argued in other places I have visited, and it isn't a stupid argument, it is one I can appreciate but I myself believe this is because it is tautologous that where you have a natural system it will be riddled with natural causes/processes.



#103 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 18 February 2018 - 06:10 AM

BTW, have you ever
seen anyone write a thesis that OBJECTIVELY
destroys the Darwinian myth like I have?


I have. Me. In fact I started this thread with it.

Your argument about lungfish and man's ten vital organs is good and should convince an honest soul searcher. But many people make judgments just on stature and credentials, even though the old guard bases evolution on circumstantial fossils instead of the objective origin of proteins. People can and do argue that yes, life is amazing, but you're arguing from incredulity. I think protein is a stronger argument than just complexity, shocking though it is.

In fact, I've been working on a simplified argument. Numbers like 10^130 are way, way too big to comprehend and may require too much thinking to convince. Consider this.

Evolutionists argue that a collection of point mutations (which we call micro-evolution) results in changes in species which progress to genera and beyond (which we would call macro-evolution if it existed). But the problem is that micro-evolution either selects existing genes during reproduction or changes a single amino acid in a protein. Progression from simple to complex life requires adding thousands of new proteins and the genes that encode them. How can a bunch of point mutations add up to a new gene?

That's a rhetorical question which I think has no answer. Adding new genes for proteins which do very precise tasks is a very precise problem with evolution of species.

#104 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2018 - 08:08 AM

 

 

Goku: Just to be clear, 0.00001% of the population is roughly 760 individuals. Let's make it an even thousand for simplicity. Are you saying you are in the top 1,000 people on the planet when it comes to knowledge of origins?

 

 

Blitzking: . AND I will not
allow you to drag me into a conversation where
I am forced to brag about myself..

 

Yeah I think sometimes somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments can be taken to be totally serious as claims by Goku and the others.

 

Goku I think in context BK's response was because he was being goaded by Wibble if I remember correctly?

 

But if BK's abilities don't convince you, my soduku score should be enough to have you convinced I am the world number one on origins. ;)



#105 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 February 2018 - 11:25 AM

The problem with your assumption of "Miracles" being "Unscientific" is.. Just what is the definition of a "Miracle"?

There’s probably a lot of nuance to worry about to come up with a robust definition, but off the top of my head I’d say “an event that could not occur through the consistent operation of natural laws” 

Why wouldn’t Self replicating DNA emerging uncaused from dirt heat air and water be considered a "Miracle”?

Because it’s not such an event. 

Creationists believe that an Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order, design and complexity we see in the world / universe today..

So “magic” by your definition, sure. 

Accidentalists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What must be considered Hypocrisy on Steroids..

Here’s where you lose me. There is no hypocrisy at work here. Methodological naturalism is very consistent on this subject. If a thing happened, there is a natural cause for it. If may be the case that we don’t know specifically what that cause is or how it worked, and we may get in to a situation where previous evidence led us down the wrong path, but it is axiomatic that there is a cause and it is within the realm of consistently operating nature.What isn’t consistent is your application of such explanations. You’re perfectly fine invoking science when it suits your purpose, as when you talk about “known decay rates” meaning evidence of blood cells in dinosaur bones can’t be old. (Leaving aside that this is a conflict between two different lines of evidence that hasn’t been resolved yet) But when it comes to things like distant starlight indicating that the sources are too far away for a young universe, you start talking about ways that evidence could be confounded by miracles. If dinosaur bones didn’t seem to be inconsistent with an old earth I’m sure you’d do your best to find some reason to disregard that evidence too. 

No "Magic" there ..LOL

There isn’t any point in addressing most of this. You have no argument other than that you find those things implausible, which is largely based on your assumption that the bible is true and anything that disagrees with it must be false. 

How about the European Green woodpecker that has a tongue that wraps around the back of its head, over the top of its brain and through its right nostril, We OBSERVE that WITHOUT that special tongue, The bird CANT EAT and DIES,,,, How did that tongue "Evolve" over millions of years? Nice MagicTrick HUH??

I did want to call this out specifically because there was a long discussion about it in a previous thread. The tongue evolved by getting longer. There is no special impossible thing that needed to happen. The main thing that’s different about woodpeckers is that the hyoid horn at the back of the tongue where the muscles attach is longer. Most creationist sources I saw talking about the woodpecker got the anatomy wrong, which I think leads to a lot of people thinking this argument is way better than it is. I also think that’s a much more common situation than people realize.



"There is no hypocrisy at work here. Methodological naturalism is very consistent on this subject. If a thing happened, there is a natural cause for it"

Surely this is the crux of the matter and the very essence of our debate.. This statement is NOT scientific!! It is merely PHILOSOPHICAL in nature.. Indeed it creates a bulwark between us that simply cannot be breached, and indeed, renders this debate an exercise in futility..

Irregardless of the myriad of examples that Creationists have provided that scream out the requirement for a supernatural intelligence agent as the sole explanation for their causation, Accidentalists merely have the ageless and indefatigable philosophical bastion of simply requiring the creationist to prove that (fill in the blanks) couldnt have happened over the course of "Billions of Years" Even my question asking for an order for Vital Organs doesnt even have to be answered... We saw that when Wibble proposed it to professor A R Schmidt... His "answer" was NOT Scientific in any way.. It was purely Philosophical / Religious...This was it.."For those who belive it, no explanation is necessary, for those who dont, no explanation is required.. The EXACT SAME answer given to me by a Catholic Preist when I questioned him on Transubstantiation..


Please dont try to tell me your side represents "Science" again..

Thanks Blitz

#106 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 18 February 2018 - 04:57 PM

Surely this is the crux of the matter and the very essence of our debate.. This statement is NOT scientific!! It is merely PHILOSOPHICAL in nature..

Of course it’s philosophical in nature. Science is rooted in philosophy. You can’t use science to define science.
 

Indeed it creates a bulwark between us that simply cannot be breached, and indeed, renders this debate an exercise in futility..

That divide doesn’t seem to have any bearing on whether your charges of brainwashing, indoctrination, or hypocrisy have merit.
 

Irregardless of the myriad of examples that Creationists have provided that scream out the requirement for a supernatural intelligence agent as the sole explanation for their causation, Accidentalists merely have the ageless and indefatigable philosophical bastion of simply requiring the creationist to prove that (fill in the blanks) couldnt have happened over the course of "Billions of Years"

I’ll give you the same recommendation I gave to mike: Don’t claim you’ve proven something couldn’t happen if you haven’t.
 

Even my question asking for an order for Vital Organs doesnt even have to be answered... We saw that when Wibble proposed it to professor A R Schmidt... His "answer" was NOT Scientific in any way.. It was purely Philosophical / Religious...This was it.."For those who belive it, no explanation is necessary, for those who dont, no explanation is required.. The EXACT SAME answer given to me by a Catholic Preist when I questioned him on Transubstantiation..

If you mean Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa, this is the original response from that thread:

"It is quite difficult for me to give you advice, because the topic "evolution of organ systems" is so broad that you can only outline rough schemes in first place, which might not satisfy a creationist (if anything you say satisfies him at all).
Of course every single organ in the human body has an evolutionary history and can be traced back through related animals. Some organs have younger origins, some are old and can be traced back very deeply. Think about lungs that originated in fish for taking up aerial oxygene additionally to oxygen from the water by gills. This is an organ that evolved within vertebrates. If you take the intestinal tract, this can be traced back much longer in evolutionary history, at least as an organ composed of mouth, midgut and anus. Muscles in the form of a contractile system composed of actin and myosin are very old, nerve cells as well.
So each organ can be traced back in evolution and additionally certain states of an organ can be traced. The possession of nerve cells is very old, but the possession of a brain as humans have it is younger and evolved in the vertebrate ancestor.
I don´t know if something like this is the expected answer.”

Those are specific statements about the available evidence. You chose to interpret “If anything you say satisfies him at all” as an admission of some deficiency in the evidence, rather than what I think it is which is a recognition that no answer could satisfy you because you’re approaching the question in bad faith.
 

Please dont try to tell me your side represents "Science" again..

It does, you just don’t actually think science is a useful tool for understanding things. Or you do, but only up to the point that it doesn’t contradict your previously held beliefs.

#107 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:15 AM

BTW, have you everseen anyone write a thesis that OBJECTIVELYdestroys the Darwinian myth like I have?

I have. Me. In fact I started this thread with it.Your argument about lungfish and man's ten vital organs is good and should convince an honest soul searcher. But many people make judgments just on stature and credentials, even though the old guard bases evolution on circumstantial fossils instead of the objective origin of proteins. People can and do argue that yes, life is amazing, but you're arguing from incredulity. I think protein is a stronger argument than just complexity, shocking though it is.In fact, I've been working on a simplified argument. Numbers like 10^130 are way, way too big to comprehend and may require too much thinking to convince. Consider this.Evolutionists argue that a collection of point mutations (which we call micro-evolution) results in changes in species which progress to genera and beyond (which we would call macro-evolution if it existed). But the problem is that micro-evolution either selects existing genes during reproduction or changes a single amino acid in a protein. Progression from simple to complex life requires adding thousands of new proteins and the genes that encode them. How can a bunch of point mutations add up to a new gene?That's a rhetorical question which I think has no answer. Adding new genes for proteins which do very precise tasks is a very precise problem with evolution of species.



"I have. Me. In fact I started this thread with it."

Yes and it is very convincing indeed,but I posit that it may be too technical in nature for a large percentage of our dummied down population to even begin to understand.. Many people even have difficulties with my simple question asking for a plausible order of evolution of the vital organs..

"People can and do argue that yes, life is amazing, but you're arguing from incredulity"

No, I am not arguing from incredibility. I am asking if ANYONE can provide a plausible order for the evolution of the 10 vital organs from Microbe to Microbiologist.. The fact that NO ONE has ever been able to provide an answer that passes the comic book laugh test should speak for itself. Wouldn't you agree?

#108 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:18 AM

Surely this is the crux of the matter and the very essence of our debate.. This statement is NOT scientific!! It is merely PHILOSOPHICAL in nature..

Of course it’s philosophical in nature. Science is rooted in philosophy. You can’t use science to define science.

Indeed it creates a bulwark between us that simply cannot be breached, and indeed, renders this debate an exercise in futility..

That divide doesn’t seem to have any bearing on whether your charges of brainwashing, indoctrination, or hypocrisy have merit.

Irregardless of the myriad of examples that Creationists have provided that scream out the requirement for a supernatural intelligence agent as the sole explanation for their causation, Accidentalists merely have the ageless and indefatigable philosophical bastion of simply requiring the creationist to prove that (fill in the blanks) couldnt have happened over the course of "Billions of Years"

I’ll give you the same recommendation I gave to mike: Don’t claim you’ve proven something couldn’t happen if you haven’t.

Even my question asking for an order for Vital Organs doesnt even have to be answered... We saw that when Wibble proposed it to professor A R Schmidt... His "answer" was NOT Scientific in any way.. It was purely Philosophical / Religious...This was it.."For those who belive it, no explanation is necessary, for those who dont, no explanation is required.. The EXACT SAME answer given to me by a Catholic Preist when I questioned him on Transubstantiation..

If you mean Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa, this is the original response from that thread:

"It is quite difficult for me to give you advice, because the topic "evolution of organ systems" is so broad that you can only outline rough schemes in first place, which might not satisfy a creationist (if anything you say satisfies him at all).Of course every single organ in the human body has an evolutionary history and can be traced back through related animals. Some organs have younger origins, some are old and can be traced back very deeply. Think about lungs that originated in fish for taking up aerial oxygene additionally to oxygen from the water by gills. This is an organ that evolved within vertebrates. If you take the intestinal tract, this can be traced back much longer in evolutionary history, at least as an organ composed of mouth, midgut and anus. Muscles in the form of a contractile system composed of actin and myosin are very old, nerve cells as well.So each organ can be traced back in evolution and additionally certain states of an organ can be traced. The possession of nerve cells is very old, but the possession of a brain as humans have it is younger and evolved in the vertebrate ancestor.I don´t know if something like this is the expected answer.”

Those are specific statements about the available evidence. You chose to interpret “If anything you say satisfies him at all” as an admission of some deficiency in the evidence, rather than what I think it is which is a recognition that no answer could satisfy you because you’re approaching the question in bad faith.

Please dont try to tell me your side represents "Science" again..

It does, you just don’t actually think science is a useful tool for understanding things. Or you do, but only up to the point that it doesn’t contradict your previously held beliefs.


"Of course it’s philosophical in nature. Science is rooted in philosophy. You can’t use science to define science."

Wait a minute!! Are you saying that the Empirical Scientific Method (Science) is "Rooted in philosophy? LOL


"I’ll give you the same recommendation I gave to mike: Don’t claim you’ve proven something couldn’t happen if you haven’t."

Yes I am sure that Mike had the same reaction that I did.. WHAT???? This guy pretends to be on the side of Science YET requires us to "Prove a negative"??? Can YOU prove that leprechauns dont exist? NO? Therefore, according to your logic, they must exist.. We recognize desperation when we see it..

#109 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 February 2018 - 01:03 AM

 

Surely this is the crux of the matter and the very essence of our debate.. This statement is NOT scientific!! It is merely PHILOSOPHICAL in nature..

Of course it’s philosophical in nature. Science is rooted in philosophy. You can’t use science to define science.
 

Indeed it creates a bulwark between us that simply cannot be breached, and indeed, renders this debate an exercise in futility..

That divide doesn’t seem to have any bearing on whether your charges of brainwashing, indoctrination, or hypocrisy have merit.
 

Irregardless of the myriad of examples that Creationists have provided that scream out the requirement for a supernatural intelligence agent as the sole explanation for their causation, Accidentalists merely have the ageless and indefatigable philosophical bastion of simply requiring the creationist to prove that (fill in the blanks) couldnt have happened over the course of "Billions of Years"

I’ll give you the same recommendation I gave to mike: Don’t claim you’ve proven something couldn’t happen if you haven’t.
 

Even my question asking for an order for Vital Organs doesnt even have to be answered... We saw that when Wibble proposed it to professor A R Schmidt... His "answer" was NOT Scientific in any way.. It was purely Philosophical / Religious...This was it.."For those who belive it, no explanation is necessary, for those who dont, no explanation is required.. The EXACT SAME answer given to me by a Catholic Preist when I questioned him on Transubstantiation..

If you mean Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa, this is the original response from that thread:

"It is quite difficult for me to give you advice, because the topic "evolution of organ systems" is so broad that you can only outline rough schemes in first place, which might not satisfy a creationist (if anything you say satisfies him at all).
Of course every single organ in the human body has an evolutionary history and can be traced back through related animals. Some organs have younger origins, some are old and can be traced back very deeply. Think about lungs that originated in fish for taking up aerial oxygene additionally to oxygen from the water by gills. This is an organ that evolved within vertebrates. If you take the intestinal tract, this can be traced back much longer in evolutionary history, at least as an organ composed of mouth, midgut and anus. Muscles in the form of a contractile system composed of actin and myosin are very old, nerve cells as well.
So each organ can be traced back in evolution and additionally certain states of an organ can be traced. The possession of nerve cells is very old, but the possession of a brain as humans have it is younger and evolved in the vertebrate ancestor.
I don´t know if something like this is the expected answer.”

Those are specific statements about the available evidence. You chose to interpret “If anything you say satisfies him at all” as an admission of some deficiency in the evidence, rather than what I think it is which is a recognition that no answer could satisfy you because you’re approaching the question in bad faith.
 

Please dont try to tell me your side represents "Science" again..

It does, you just don’t actually think science is a useful tool for understanding things. Or you do, but only up to the point that it doesn’t contradict your previously held beliefs.

 

 

"Those are specific statements about the available evidence. You chose to interpret “If anything you say satisfies him at all” as an admission of some deficiency in the evidence, rather than what I think it is which is a recognition that no answer could satisfy you because you’re approaching the question in bad faith."

 

I SUGGEST YOU READ THE THREAD AGAIN.... I STILL GIVE WIBBLE CREDIT FOR ASKING A R SCHMIDT THE QUESTION...

(AND BRAVELY POSTING HIS RESPONSE!) BUT AS SOON AS HE REALIZED THE GUY COULDNT ANSWER IT, INSTEAD OF RECOGNIZINGTHAT HE COULDNT ANSWER IT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER (BECAUSE THE MINDLESS MYO MICROBE TO MICROBIOLOGIST MYTH IS A FAIRYTALE THAT NEVER HAPPENED).. HE WENT BACK INTO HIS SHELL BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING

TO BE TOO DANGEROUS OF A THREAT TO HIS PHILISOPHICAL WORLDVIEW...

 

I WROTE

 

"Hello Wibble, thank you for forwarding my question to Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa. I have to admit, Irregardless of your Epistemological beliefs, You NOW have my utmost respect due to several unexpected factors.. For one thing, you are the first
​"EvoAtheist" that has even attempted to honestly answer my question of Order of vital organs..  That shows me that you are at least somewhat interested in the truth, which is something I RARELY see in people on your side of the isle. AND THEN, you had the courage to post Andy's Embarrassing (Non) "Answer" for all the world to see instead of deleting / hiding it and just calling me names.. Which is the kind of thing that ultimately happens 99% of the time on other internet forums.. And THAT Speaks well of your Character as you didn't have to post his response at all..   Even though I am convinced that you have been indoctrinated into a belief system that is 100% false (As indeed we all have) You have set yourself apart from the crowd by showing your Integrity, honesty, and genuine desire to seek the truth and get answers (At least in this case). :gotcha:

 

NOW PLEASE ALLOW ME TO CRITIQUE ANDY'S LETTER...

 

Andy Wrote

"It is quite difficult for me to give you advice, because the topic "evolution of organ systems" is so broad that you can only outline rough schemes in first place,"

 

I am going to put you to the REAL test now... and this is going to take REAL courage.. Please write old Andy back and say.. Thanks Andy, but my Creationist

acquaintance would be more than happy if you would outline any old "rough scheme" that you can think of.. Just give him ANY Order that is plausible or Feasible.

It doesn't have to even be how you Think it might have actually happened... The Creationist was even kind enough to give us a head start Andy.. he is throwing

in Abiogenesis (Very Generous don't you think?) AND a bag of skin WITH a Crude Stomach!! And he is giving us 1 billion years to evolve our simple creature into a

Man!! That is a long time. and like we say.. given enough time ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is possible!  Please help me out Andy, this Creationist is Arrogant and

needs to be put in his place once and for all! How can you let him mock "Evolution"?? You are the Prominent World Renown Expert in this field.. If YOU cant even

give us A SINGLE Possible order.. I may have to start to doubt the Darwinian Paradigm myself! HELP ME ANDY!!

 

Then Andy Wrote..

 

'which might not satisfy a creationist (if anything you say satisfies him at all)."

 

Now, Do you see what Andy is implying here? He is saying that YOUR standard for Evidence is MUCH LOWER than that of creationists.. He is saying that you DONT NEED an order to be presented to you because you already share his philosophy that AbioDarwinism is a Scientific "Fact" so why do you need for him to present you anything, I for one would be INSULTED by his condescension and simply ask him.. "Yes Creationists are hard to please, but could you please just give ONE plausible order just for myself?

 

The "answer" that Andy gave you is EXACTLY THE SAME kind of answer that a Catholic priest gave me when when I asked him if he could provide me with scientific evidence for "Transubstantiation" and why people should believe it..

He Said the following..

 

"For those that believe it, no explanation is needed"

"For those that DONT believe it, No explanation is possible"..

Sound Familiar?  None of this has to do with Science and

is purely philosophical in nature..

 

Andy continued..

"Of course every single organ in the human body has an evolutionary history and can be traced back through related animals."

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

"Some organs have younger origins, some are old and can be traced back very deeply."

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

"Think about lungs that originated in fish for taking up aerial oxygene additionally to oxygen from the water by gills."

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

 

"This is an organ that evolved within vertebrates. If you take the intestinal tract, this can be traced back much longer in evolutionary history, at least as an organ composed of mouth, midgut and anus."

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

"Muscles in the form of a contractile system composed of actin and myosin are very old, nerve cells as well."

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

"So each organ can be traced back in evolution and additionally certain states of an organ can be traced."

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

 

The possession of nerve cells is very old, but the possession of a brain as humans have it is younger and evolved in the vertebrate ancestor.

THIS IS A PURE ASSERTION WITH ZERO EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ANYWAY!!

 

" I don´t know if something like this is the expected answer."

 

YES INDEED, IT SURE WAS,,,  THE SAME KIND OF ANSWER AS THIS CHART GIVES US.. LOL

 

image.jpg

 

 

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)


  • mike the wiz likes this

#110 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2018 - 04:38 AM

Blitzking if those truly were the answers you got all he basically given was a statement of what evolution theory says, and basically the conjecture they use surrounding it. It seems to me he basically used the standard summary-arguments for evolution we have all been told to accept as facts (elephant hurling), a lot of his statements were begging the question. The elephant hurling is somewhat understanding but basically he was changing the nature of the argument, mid-argument.

 

This is as you know, what evolutionists classically do, they start to repeat what evolution theory argues rather than answer the specific question, or pretend that it is a misunderstanding of evolution theory to ask such a question, because then they don't have to answer the charge put to them. Well done on sticking to your guns there because it seems to me there is a false aura of scientific legitimacy coming from these people but let's face it, this guy didn't know how to answer because he has been in his lazy boy for too long. That's why when I write on scientists blogs and come out with technical terms and critical thinking responses, they don't write back because they are largely not put to the test, and are not taught how to critically examine their theory, they have always been sheltered by the majority acceptance of accidental slime creation via mudecule swamps on the science-fiction version of earth with it's reducing atmosphere. You may have fun reading my old blog on this;

 

https://creationworl...nd-fiction.html

 

;)



#111 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:42 AM

Wait a minute!! Are you saying that the Empirical Scientific Method (Science) is "Rooted in philosophy? LOL

Whoever taught you that repeating what someone said and adding “LOL” is a legitimate tactic did you a disservice. Feel free to contribute an actual argument if you have one.
 

Yes I am sure that Mike had the same reaction that I did.. WHAT???? This guy pretends to be on the side of Science YET requires us to "Prove a negative"??? Can YOU prove that leprechauns dont exist? NO? Therefore, according to your logic, they must exist.. We recognize desperation when we see it..

Mike tried the same thing, making the same error in identifying the actual argument. I can’t prove that leprechauns don’t exist. Therefore I cannot say that I have proven that they don’t exist. I can say that there is not sufficient evidence that leprechauns do exist, so they probably don’t.
 

I SUGGEST YOU READ THE THREAD AGAIN….

I read it the first time, I’m not interested in reading it again, especially if you’re not going to take the time to actually respond to anything I said.
 

HE WENT BACK INTO HIS SHELL BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING
TO BE TOO DANGEROUS OF A THREAT TO HIS PHILISOPHICAL WORLDVIEW…

Looking through the history of these discussions, the only thing you seem to be a threat to is people’s patience.

#112 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:58 AM

..., Accidentalists merely have the ageless and indefatigable philosophical bastion of simply requiring the creationist to prove that (fill in the blanks) couldnt have happened over the course of "Billions of Years" ...


This is why I love the protein argument. It comes close to proving that negative. There are too many possible proteins (10130 and increasing exponentially with size) to use the brute force method at a generation per second for way more than billions of years. And nothing has been identified for natural selection to filter against. And that's only for one lousy building-block protein.

#113 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:09 AM

Something is sufficiently refuted if there is what is referred to as, a conspicuous absence of evidence. In logic, we can use the modus tollens, falsification method.

 

This is easily provable, for example if someone claims that at the time of the murder, they were on CCTV for their alibi, for the whole 30 minutes, and they are not found to be on the CCTV at all, but everyone else that claims to be in that area, WAS found on CCTV, would we hold out on the conclusion that the person was not there, because technically it is feasible/possible, that if you were in that particular shop that you could have performed certain gymnastic moves in order to avoid the CCTV, then if you done a hop, skip and a jump and hid behind a shelf for 30 minutes, because this is technically a possibility, then we can't say he was not there?

 

That is ABSURD. 

 

I call this, "Hiding from falsification". :D

 

Ken/BK, have you ever noticed when someone accused you of eating too much of the bad stuff, like sugary snacks, cakes and so forth, that they tend to only ever find you when you are eating your snack. A most mysterious problem it is and a peculiar part of life, is that some kinds of evidence are INVISIBLE. That is to say, they are not going to find you NOT eating a snack, therefore the illusion of physical evidence can override the much greater absence of evidence in the human mind and the reason for that is because the negative evidence is not tangible.

 

So then imagine you had had one sugar snack today, of only say 4 grams of sugar, and the person caught you and said, "See, you fat Walrus, all you do is eat sugar, no wonder you need a diet!"

 

But did they "catch" you NOT eating all of those snacks, during the rest of the day? No, for it didn't enter their minds because they didn't see anything tangible in front of them.

 

Similarly, let us now imagine if we took the percentage of missing transitionals for evolution, and imagined what they might have looked like, and made plaster casts of all of them. This is the evidence we do not see, for it is not tangible. You would now need dozens of museums just to fit the transitionals in there would be so many, but how many real life transitions do we have for say, the Australopithecines? if my memory serves me correctly, enough to fit in one medium sized waste bin.



#114 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:19 AM

More about this problem of an absence of expected evidence, negative evidence, here in message one;

 

http://evolutionfair...ing-a-negative/



#115 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:29 AM

 

The above statements seems ignorant in light of modern day philosophy and historical evidence. The above statements might make one believe that you just bought into the philosophy of methodological naturalism or something similar.
1 - It's not that the theists believe miracles may happen (even if they do). It's rather that they believe miracle has happened. Jesus resurrection is one of the more known example. So what philosophical reason would there be (for a theist) to believe that it is (in principle) impossible for miracles to occur? That is the first question that needs to be addressed.

It doesn't, actually. The question isn't whether there's reason to believe miracles are impossible. It's inherent to the idea of a "miracle" that there can't be such a reason. The question is whether science can get done without setting aside miraculous explanations. If you can't assume you aren't looking at a miracle when you observe something, you can't have any confidence that your data means anything. If you can't assume that other people in the past weren't looking at miracles when they observed that thing, you can't have any confidence that their data means anything with respect to the present. If you can't assume that a miracle won't happen to the thing as soon as you turn away, you can't have any confidence that anybody's data means anything with respect to the future. That isn't necessarily incompatible with a theistic view, but I think you do have to at least assume that no entities are running around messing with things on a regular basis.

 


You are wrong popoi. Whatever would stop you from doing (for example) a calculation of planetary motions from your observation data. How would the thought that God could do miracles hinder that? What is really your objection? Historically we can obviously see that people believing in miracles did scientific work, so it seems your objection is historically falsified. And you never get 100% confidence in anything related to the real world. Science or no science, it really doesn't matter. And miracles (whether they are possible or not) doesn't change that.
So data can be meaningful even if people believe miracles are possible, as we can see through historical accounts. The real difference is that in an open worldview (such as theism) you might discard naturalistic explanations that are very improbable, there are no reason to cling onto impossible odds. In a closed worldview you simply don't have that option.
 

 

The whole idea that there is some sort of conflict between a theistic worldview and science is just an old myth. And when it comes to belief in methodological naturalism it needs an epistemology that rests on empirical philosophies of pragmatism or logical positivism, which seems utterly unfounded.

Feel free to present some counter arguments if you want. I'm not terribly impressed with "some philosophers disagree".

 


The supposed conflict between science and religion is mostly a myth created by White/Draper in the late 19th century. Or as Colin A. Russell describes it: "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship"
I don't think any historian still believe this myth. Why not read about it yourself?

https://www.amazon.c...m/dp/0199812098



#116 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:18 AM

You are wrong popoi. Whatever would stop you from doing (for example) a calculation of planetary motions from your observation data. How would the thought that God could do miracles hinder that?

Making any kind of conclusion requires that the motion of planets is actually consistent, and that it can’t (or at least hasn’t and won’t) be changed on a whim.
 

Historically we can obviously see that people believing in miracles did scientific work, so it seems your objection is historically falsified.

I can’t speak to how they specifically justified it, but I suspect it involved the assumption that God wasn’t running around doing miracles on things all the time. That is to say potential supernatural explanations for the phenomena being studied were disregarded, though their possibility was not denied completely. Kind of a focused deism, or naturalism for the purposes of methodology.
 

And you never get 100% confidence in anything related to the real world. Science or no science, it really doesn't matter. And miracles (whether they are possible or not) doesn't change that.

It seems like it would if you were a type of person who posts here and believes the God and other supernatural entities are out there teleporting your keys to you or making stage magicians fly around.
 

So data can be meaningful even if people believe miracles are possible, as we can see through historical accounts. The real difference is that in an open worldview (such as theism) you might discard naturalistic explanations that are very improbable, there are no reason to cling onto impossible odds. In a closed worldview you simply don't have that option.

There are several examples of naturalistic explanations being discarded as improbable that turned out to be correct.
 

The supposed conflict between science and religion is mostly a myth created by White/Draper in the late 19th century. Or as Colin A. Russell describes it: "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship"
I don't think any historian still believe this myth. Why not read about it yourself?

Russell was referring to one theory about the history of science, specifically that their relationship has exclusively been one of conflict. But this isn’t a historical argument, it’s a philosophical one. As I pointed out above, I think there are ways to make the two compatible, and I think that was probably easy enough to do for most of the history of science. The real problem comes in when science leads us to conclusions that are explicitly denied by (some) religion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users