Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#41 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

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

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:01 PM

My dad once told me an analogy about DNA forming randomly (like Abiogenesis).

It goes like this:

If You were to take all 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks and throw them up in the air, how many times would it take for those blocks to land (in a straight line) from A to Z?

Answer: never :)

View Post


To assert that something will never happen means it would have a probability of 0 and thus be impossible. A specific sequence of letters is not impossible. Given that life is based upon self-replication, a highly improbable initial configuration need only appear once.

#42 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

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

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:07 PM

But, ALL dogs are dogs, all cats are cats, all bats are bats, all birds are birds (etcetera…). We have never observed a dog “macro-evolving” into anything else. Nor have we seen a cat, bat, bird (etcetera…) evolving into anything else.

View Post


The words “dog”, “cat”, “bat” and “bird” are too general to distinguish between the small changes that may occur over generations.

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:40 PM

As Air-Run says, if a complex self-replicating molecular process emerged in the wild it would be devoured by extant life. 

View Post


First, you are presupposing life can even evolve from non-life (bereft of any supporting logical, rational or scientific evidence) via a “complex self-replicating molecular process”.

Second, you are assuming (presupposing) that it would/could be devoured by extant life. “Extant life” tends to be specific in its prey, and not prone to attempt in its devouring unknown prey. And even if it would, you are assuming that the “extant life” can safely consume the “new life” and not suffer adverse affects (inability to digest, poison etc…).

Third, you are assuming that “extant life” would have the keen ability to seek out an devour ALL emerging life (remember, if it can happen once, logically it should be able to happen over-and-over again).

Conclusion, you are placing way too much faith in your dogmatic defense of atheism (and here I thought you were an agnostic).

Anyway, you need to provide evidence of life arising from inanimate matter long before you can argue if it can, or cannot happen again. My point is, IF it did, it should still be happening. And there is absolutely no evidence for either.

It is an area of on-going lab research.

View Post


Sorry, that’s not evolution (or macro-evolution), that a case of design.

What are the unjustified presuppositions behind biogeography and the observed tree of life?

View Post


This is a deviation from the OP (you did read the Op, did you not?). But, prior to “biogeography” one must have life evolving from inanimate matter (i.e. self-replicating molecular process emerging). Then you must provide evidence why it couldn’t happen in particular areas. But, since you really have no idea where it could (or could not happen), because you have absolutely no evidence of it being able to happen in the first place, you have absolutely no idea where it could or could not happen.

But, had life the ability to replicate from non-life (i.e. self-replicating molecular process emerging), it (logically) would happen more than once (and continue to do so). You would then have the ability (via biogeography I suppose, to possibly “predict” where it could and could not happen.
As an aside; the tree of life is not observed, its contrived.

Why should it be illogical for humans to be the most cognitively developed species?
How does this follow?

View Post


Humans are not the most cognitively developed creatures. When one considers the abilities and achievements of the Human creature, no other creature is “cognitively developed” by comparison.

Again, did you not read the OP? Maybe you can draw some comparisons between Man, and ALL other creatures, that can refute my assertion.

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:41 PM

The words “dog”, “cat”, “bat” and “bird” are too general to distinguish between the small changes that may occur over generations.

View Post


“Small changes that may occur over generations” is a faith statement, and not evidence. And macro-evolution (which you are obviously attempting to push here) is faith based, and not fact based.

#45 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

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

Posted 16 December 2010 - 02:02 PM

First, you are presupposing life can even evolve from non-life (bereft of any supporting logical, rational or scientific evidence) via a “complex self-replicating molecular process”.


Autocatalytic molecular processes have been synthesized. Is there any reason why this could not happen in the wild?

Second, you are assuming (presupposing) that it would/could be devoured by extant life. “Extant life” tends to be specific in its prey, and not prone to attempt in its devouring unknown prey. And even if it would, you are assuming that the “extant life” can safely consume the “new life” and not suffer adverse affects (inability to digest, poison etc…).


Bacteria break down organic (carbon-based) matter.

Third, you are assuming that “extant life” would have the keen ability to seek out an devour ALL emerging life (remember, if it can happen once, logically it should be able to happen over-and-over again).


It is inevitable that more adpated organisms would be more competitive than vulnerable newly-emerged self-replicators.

Conclusion, you are placing way too much faith in your dogmatic defense of atheism (and here I thought you were an agnostic).


I am agnostic, I haven't mentioned atheism.

Anyway, you need to provide evidence of life arising from inanimate matter long before you can argue if it can, or cannot happen again.  My point is, IF it did, it should still be happening. And there is absolutely no evidence for either. 


You do not need certainty to contemplate a possibility. The scientific method relies upon the drawing and testing of hypotheses.

Sorry, that’s not evolution (or macro-evolution), that a case of design.


Labs perform tests that teach us how the world works. The presence of a researcher does not prohibit extending the conclusions to the wild.

(you did read the Op, did you not?).


Yes, I quoted from it.

Humans are not the most cognitively developed creatures. When one considers the abilities and achievements of the Human creature, no other creature is “cognitively developed” by comparison.

Again, did you not read the OP? Maybe you can draw some comparisons between Man, and ALL other creatures, that can refute my assertion.

View Post


Primates can utilise rudimentary tools and demonstrate reasoning.

#46 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 December 2010 - 02:11 PM

To assert that something will never happen means it would have a probability of 0 and thus be impossible.  A specific sequence of letters is not impossible.  Given that life is based upon self-replication, a highly improbable initial configuration need only appear once.

View Post

There is obviously a corollary to your argument. Not everything that can happen has happened. For example there could be a 100 foot tall man. But in history on planet Earth this is not thought to have happened. At this point there is zero probability of it having happened.

And then, we're not only talking about one chance that it could happen. We can also point out zillions of chances that it didn't. That makes the odds so ridiculously improbable that one could easily reduce it to zero possibility. Think of all the things that don't exist and have at this point in time zero probability.

Creativity does change the odds. Through "it" we can easily bring things into existence that don't now exist and have "0" probability. Oops. Materialism ( a created idea) does away with that argument dosen't it?

What are the chances of two people being the same personality wise? Of all 6.7 billion on earth today "0" probability so far. Evo is a myth by scientific definition because we can not "observr it!"

#47 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

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

Posted 16 December 2010 - 02:40 PM

“Small changes that may occur over generations” is a faith statement, and not evidence.



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

And macro-evolution (which you are obviously attempting to push here) is faith based, and not fact based.

View Post


Long-term evolution and common ancestry is supported by the distribution of fossils through the geological layers, biogeography and phylogeny. This is moving from the OP so I'll undestand if you delete this bit or start a new thread.

#48 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 December 2010 - 06:35 PM

Given that life is based upon self-replication,

View Post

And how exactly did that happen? The life form just happens to replicate itself?

#49 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 December 2010 - 06:44 PM

You do not need certainty to contemplate a possibility.  The scientific method relies upon the drawing and testing of hypotheses.

View Post

Right-- a possibility-- a hypothesis. A made up story. I have a hypotheses that Christmas cookies have simply appeared out of no where at my office. I wonder if I could replicate it in a lab...

Long-term evolution and common ancestry is supported by the distribution of fossils through the geological layers, biogeography and phylogeny.  This is moving from the OP so I'll undestand if you delete this bit or start a new thread.

View Post

There are fossils that appear to be intermediates in some cases. I will give you that. But the geological column is not as neat and pretty as everyone seems to think it is. They are often out of order, or forced into order.

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

View Post

These adaptations happen much more rapidly than the evolutionary model would predict.

#50 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 08:44 PM

What are the unjustified presuppositions behind biogeography and the observed tree of life?

View Post

Hey WalterK,

I am by no means an expert on phylogeny, but I have noticed a few things. We have had people on here that have done sorting in contrast to say the well known Cyt-C comparisons. These supposedly show common ancestry. But sortings of other proteins do not show this same similarity. A conserved protein, to me, means that it is absolutely necessary for a common function, no matter the species. Just like if I need a Bobcat to dig a trench, I'm not going to go rent a jack hammer.

It's the same with DNA sequencing and the resulting proteins. They are translated into common proteins. For instance, both a chimp and myself can digest the same things because we share common enzymes which can break down the same food. So I would expect that there would be similar DNA. A termite can digest wood, so I would expect a termite to have some different sequencing in order to produce cellulose digesting enzymes that I do not have.

A chimp has a liver, pancreas and a heart, so do I. So naturally we would share common sequencing. A dog and I are mammals, and have eyes and ears, so I would expect some similar sequencing in our DNA.

As for other common sequences in non coding areas, the verdict is not yet in on so-called junk DNA, introns and the like. There is no proof that viruses and/or transposons have not left their mark on DNA in both humans and other species.

But I am starting with an assumption that all was created by God. You, perhaps, are starting with the assumption that evolution is a fact. So, in turn, you are interpreting similar sequencing as evidence of inheritance. There is absolutely no proof of this. My interpretation of necessity for function in common proteins is just as legitimate and can not be disproved. Neither can yours in a scientific sense--as both are interpreting the unseen past. I am simply giving food for thought.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 05:45 AM

Autocatalytic molecular processes have been synthesized. 

View Post


First – Designed, not natural.

Second – Neither you, nor anyone else has observed life coming from non-life in this manner. If you had, we would all know it, as that is the stuff that world-wide notoriety is made of.

Third – The “organization of living systems” and the “origin of living systems” are two entirely different things.

Is there any reason why this could not happen in the wild?

View Post


Sure:

First – it was designed, not natural.

Second – It has never been observed in the wild. And, as my initial point made, if it were to have happened, it would “STILL” be happening today. And not just as a design in a laboratory.

Third – Life from Non-life is simply illogical, irrational, and unscientific.

Bacteria break down organic (carbon-based) matter.

View Post


Do bacteria break down ALL organic (carbon-based) matter? Because, if that were the case, there would be no life as we know it today. It would just be bacteria breaking down ALL organic (carbon-based) matter!

It is inevitable that more adpated organisms would be more competitive than vulnerable newly-emerged self-replicators.

View Post


It is not “inevitable”, it is presupposed! Again, if that were the case there would be no life as we know it today. It would just be bacteria breaking down ALL organic (carbon-based) matter!

I am agnostic, I haven't mentioned atheism.

View Post


Actually, if you read the OP, it is addressed to “Atheistic Evolution”. And it is to that which you are attempting to defend (within the context of this OP). Therefore, by definitional context, you are talking about (and therefore mentioning) atheism.
Agnostic literally means “no-knowledge” , which means you should be seeking knowledge, and not attempting to defend a stance that (within the context of this OP) is definitive

You do not need certainty to contemplate a possibility.  The scientific method relies upon the drawing and testing of hypotheses.

View Post


It is possible that there are spotted geese on Mars, or a tea cup in orbit. But it is not logically, rationally or scientifically probable. In fact, statistically, it is impossible within the realm of probability. And yes, the scientific method does rely upon the drawing and testing of hypotheses. And it validates, or invalidates said hypotheses via inductively observable methodology.

Empirical science does not proceed by defending as “fact” those things which are not facts. Empirical science proceeds by testing>observing>testing some more> until it validates or renders invalid said hypotheses.

Every statement beyond scientifically validated “Facts”, are purely speculation and faith based.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 05:46 AM

Labs perform tests that teach us how the world works. 

View Post


No, tests are performed in labs to validate, or render as invalid proposed hypotheses under laboratory conditions. The ONLY way to know how things work in nature; is to perform the tests in nature! And, as I said; Life from non-life has NEVER been observed in the laboratory OR nature. It is not logical, rational or scientifically validated. You can hypothesize on it all day long, twenty-four hours a day, three-hundred and sixty-five days a year, and you are still only speculating via faith.

The presence of a researcher does not prohibit extending the conclusions to the wild.

View Post


A conclusion is a decision made or an opinion formed after considering the relevant facts or evidence. Life from non-life has NEVER been observed in the laboratory OR nature. Therefore, you are incorrect, because there are no facts or evidence to support it ANYWHERE.

Yes, I quoted from it.

View Post


Oh, good, then you’ll be able to answer the following:

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

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile.

Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.


Primates can utilise rudimentary tools and demonstrate reasoning.

View Post


So, these primates you are using as an example “invented” these “utilized tools” by designing them using a rigorous process of engineering, then manufactured prototypes, rigorously tested them, then mas produced said “utilized tools” for the local general primate population. Of course, they had to manufacture the facilities and products with which to do all the designing and manufacturing first (but that is a given).

Again, did you actually read the OP, or did you just ignore that part?

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 05:57 AM

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

View Post


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

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

Long-term evolution and common ancestry is supported by the distribution of fossils through the geological layers, biogeography and phylogeny.  This is moving from the OP so I'll undestand if you delete this bit or start a new thread.

View Post


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

#54 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 07:10 AM

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

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


Evolution does not claim to make changes in individual humans - it is through slow changes in generations that these changes are applied. They will not make an individual different from what they are, however over many generations, a creature may be different from a distance ancestor.

We believed that the earth was flat because that is how it looks and it was a sensible conclusion - from a localized view the earth does indeed look flat. But when extending that view, and applying scientific tools such as measurements, repeated observation, testing etc. it becomes clear the earth is a globe. Likewise, we see humans giving birth to other humans, monkeys giving birth to other monkeys etc. and it seems sensible to conclude that all monkeys come from monkeys, all humans come from humans etc. However, we have scientific means at our disposal to widen our view, look beyond the three or four generations we have direct experience of and it become apparent that the further we look, the more diverse and transitory life is.

#55 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 December 2010 - 07:30 AM

Evolution does not claim to make changes in individual humans - it is through slow changes in generations that these changes are applied. They will not make an individual different from what they are, however over many generations, a creature may be different from a distance ancestor.

We believed that the earth was flat because that is how it looks and it was a sensible conclusion - from a localized view the earth does indeed look flat. But when extending that view, and applying scientific tools such as measurements, repeated observation, testing etc. it becomes clear the earth is a globe. Likewise, we see humans giving birth to other humans, monkeys giving birth to other monkeys etc. and it seems sensible to conclude that all monkeys come from monkeys, all humans come from humans etc.  However, we have scientific means at our disposal to widen our view, look beyond the three or four generations we have direct experience of and it become apparent that the further we look, the more diverse and transitory life is.

View Post


I suggest you read this pages before you push flat earth:

http://www.yecheadqu...flat_earth.html
http://www.yecheadqu...at_earth.1.html
http://en.wikipedia....phy_of_Columbus
http://reformation.o...th-exposed.html

Washington Irving thought this up and put it in his book. He was an atheist looking for a way to discredit Christians, and even admitted that what was done by him was fictional. While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopedias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopaedia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).

#56 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 07:39 AM

I suggest you read this pages before you push flat earth:

http://www.yecheadqu...flat_earth.html
http://www.yecheadqu...at_earth.1.html
http://en.wikipedia....phy_of_Columbus
http://reformation.o...th-exposed.html

Washington Irving thought this up and put it in his book. He was an atheist looking for a way to discredit Christians, and even admitted that what was done by him was fictional. While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopedias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopaedia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).

View Post


Hi,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I am not pushing flat earth - I was trying to make the point that most things can appear sensible and accurate given a small enough perspective. Perhaps a less controversial example - if I peer through a keyhole and see a blue flat surface, it may be sensible for me to assume that the room is blue, however when I open the door I see the room is green, with a blue box sitting opposite the keyhole. Basically stating that there are no perceived changes in a single generation tells us nothing about what changes may occur over many generations.

Thanks

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 07:47 AM

Evolution does not claim to make changes in individual humans - it is through slow changes in generations that these changes are applied. They will not make an individual different from what they are, however over many generations, a creature may be different from a distance ancestor.

View Post


Two things:

First - The above is a total faith statement based upon suppositions and “a priori” evolutionary wants, because there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that Man is discernibly different than he has always been.

Second - The above is an attempt to facilitate Macro-evolution without any evidence “FOR” macro-evolution. Which, by the way, is a violation of forum rules, and an attempt at the “Saying it’s so, makes it so” fallacy.

We believed that the earth was flat because that is how it looks and it was a sensible conclusion - from a localized view the earth does indeed look flat. But when extending that view, and applying scientific tools such as measurements, repeated observation, testing etc. it becomes clear the earth is a globe.

View Post


The above is what’s known as a “red herring”, which is an attempt to divert attention from the crux of an argument (in this case the OP) by introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary facts, tangential references (Flat Earth), and the like.

It is also a “straw man”, as it is basically an attack on a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth (i.e. “Flat Earth” versus “adaptation or acclamation”). Why, because “Flat Earth” is a claim that atheists, evolutionists, liberal elitists, and political progressives, like to level at theists in general, and theists in particular. It is a touchstone for these so-called “progressives” to use as basically an “ad Hominem abusive”, so as to somehow take the intellectual high ground. The perpetrator of the “straw man” will then proceed to attack this easily refuted position believing they have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying. Does that mean foxnsox is lying, or that he is purposefully attempting to deceive? Not necessarily. It could mean that he is simply regurgitating the evolutionists hard line.

One – We can observe that the Earth is indeed not flat.

Two – “Common Ancestry” is not observable, and therefore not falsifiable. Observing irregular and non-gradual, non-transitional fossils does not “Common Ancestry” make! In other words; we have never “observed” one species give birth to another species. Whether via punctuated equilibrium OR gradual transitional speciation.

Likewise, we see humans giving birth to other humans, monkeys giving birth to other monkeys etc. and it seems sensible to conclude that all monkeys come from monkeys, all humans come from humans etc. 

View Post


Those are the only “facts” that you have stated so far.

However, we have scientific means at our disposal to widen our view, look beyond the three or four generations we have direct experience of and it become apparent that the further we look, the more diverse and transitory life is.

View Post


One thing… Provide the empirical evidence, or admit the supposition.

#58 foxnsox

foxnsox

    Junior Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 08:41 AM

Hi Ron,

Just want to point out my main gist of what I was trying to say was your statement claiming that no individual is changed via evolution was erroneous, in that no body (that I am ware of) claims that one individual would be changed. I will respond to your other statements below.

Two things:

First - The above is a total faith statement based upon suppositions and “a priori” evolutionary wants, because there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that Man is discernibly different than he has always been.


There is evidence than man was not always on this planet, there is evidence of life forms vastly different from man a long time ago, as we get close and closer to present day there are more examples of 'similar' life forms, and there are many examples of new 'features' of life, appendages adapting to other uses etc.

Second - The above is an attempt to facilitate Macro-evolution without any evidence “FOR” macro-evolution. Which, by the way, is a violation of forum rules, and an attempt at the “Saying it’s so, makes it so” fallacy.


Apologies if it appears so, I certain would not wish to appear to be arguing from authority - as mentioned above, my main point was to demonstrate how your counter argument was invalid, not to 'prove' evolution in a brief statement.

The above is what’s known as a “red herring”, which is an attempt to divert attention from the crux of an argument (in this case the OP) by introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary facts, tangential references (Flat Earth), and the like.


Certainly not, I have no desire to divert - again my purpose was to demonstrate that your process 'i.e. I have not changes, therefore it is not true' is faulted, not use it as a means to divert.

It is also a “straw man”, as it is basically an attack on a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth (i.e. “Flat Earth” versus “adaptation or acclamation”). Why, because “Flat Earth” is a claim that atheists, evolutionists, liberal elitists, and political progressives, like to level at theists in general, and theists in particular. It is a touchstone for these so-called “progressives” to use as basically an “ad Hominem abusive”, so as to somehow take the intellectual high ground. The perpetrator of the “straw man” will then proceed to attack this easily refuted position  believing they have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying. Does that mean foxnsox is lying, or that he is purposefully attempting to deceive? Not necessarily. It could mean that he is simply regurgitating the evolutionists hard line.


I apologies if you feel I was making ad hominem attacks, certainly not my intention - I was hoping taking an example which we can all agree on and understand, and show how it can be applied would help facilitate understand, in this I appear to be incorrect. As above I have changed this example in the hope it will be seen as less critical.


<edit: I fixed your post... It was giving me a headache. Please do a "post preview" prior to submiting your post when you have multiple "quotes", as it will help you to edit. > Ron

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:25 AM

Hi Ron,
Just want to point out my main gist of what I was trying to say was your statement claiming that no individual is changed via evolution was erroneous, in that no body (that I am ware of) claims that one individual would be changed. I will respond to your other statements below.

View Post


I never made such a claim, I think you misconstrued what I did say. When I use the word “man”, it is used as a generalization for human kind, or Mankind (etc…).
There is absolutely NO empirical evidence that “MAN” is qualitatively any different now than he has always been. Nor is there any empirical evidence that man evolved from an ape-like creature. All of the “evidence” evolutionists claim to have is nothing more than opinion and speculation.


Two things:
First - The above is a total faith statement based upon suppositions and “a priori” evolutionary wants, because there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that Man is discernibly different than he has always been.

There is evidence than man was not always on this planet, there is evidence of life forms vastly different from man a long time ago, as we get close and closer to present day there are more examples of 'similar' life forms, and there are many examples of new 'features' of life, appendages adapting to other uses etc.

View Post

First – No one claimed that man was always on this planet. In fact, the Book of genesis bears this out. So, I would wonder where you got that from.
Second - There is evidence of life forms vastly different from man a right now.
Third – There is absolutely no “Empirical Evidence” of appendages evolving from one type to another. ALL claims are nothing more than speculations. Otherwise there would be gradual transitional fossilization. And, if you had such evidence, you would provide it, instead of simply “saying it is so”.


Second - The above is an attempt to facilitate Macro-evolution without any evidence “FOR” macro-evolution. Which, by the way, is a violation of forum rules, and an attempt at the “Saying it’s so, makes it so” fallacy.

Apologies if it appears so, I certain would not wish to appear to be arguing from authority - as mentioned above, my main point was to demonstrate how your counter argument was invalid, not to 'prove' evolution in a brief statement.

View Post


But, you have failed to do so. Again, if you are going to make a “factual” assertion, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the facts to back up your assertion. In other words, when you say something like “there are many examples of new 'features' of life, appendages adapting to other uses”, YOU need to provided the fossilized gradual transition that show a “Fin” evolving into an “arm” or a “leg” (etcetera…), because, if you cannot. If you are simply going to show a fin, and a leg, and say “this evolved into this”, then you are simply making a faith statement of presupposition. That is all!

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:26 AM


The above is what’s known as a “red herring”, which is an attempt to divert attention from the crux of an argument (in this case the OP) by introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary facts, tangential references (Flat Earth), and the like.

Certainly not, I have no desire to divert - again my purpose was to demonstrate that your process 'i.e. I have not changes, therefore it is not true' is faulted, not use it as a means to divert.

View Post


But you totally failed to provide any evidence for your assertion (which is less than you ought to be doing). Therefore your statements are specious, yet moot, because they are bereft of any evidence or proofs!

Even if you were attempting to make logical arguments, you still have to use the “Laws of Logic” to do so.


It is also a “straw man”, as it is basically an attack on a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth (i.e. “Flat Earth” versus “adaptation or acclamation”). Why, because “Flat Earth” is a claim that atheists, evolutionists, liberal elitists, and political progressives, like to level at theists in general, and theists in particular. It is a touchstone for these so-called “progressives” to use as basically an “ad Hominem abusive”, so as to somehow take the intellectual high ground. The perpetrator of the “straw man” will then proceed to attack this easily refuted position  believing they have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying. Does that mean foxnsox is lying, or that he is purposefully attempting to deceive? Not necessarily. It could mean that he is simply regurgitating the evolutionists hard line.

I apologies if you feel I was making ad hominem attacks, certainly not my intention - I was hoping taking an example which we can all agree on and understand, and show how it can be applied would help facilitate understand, in this I appear to be incorrect. As above I have changed this example in the hope it will be seen as less critical.

View Post


But your analogy was totally false, and you were using it incorrectly to cover your point! I think, what we can agree on, is that you (meaning all of us), needs actual facts to back up our assertions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users