Forum Faq

[Fred Williams 0]

All,

 

I have created a forum FAQ intended to address some common points of contention:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

Please review and provide any comments, criticisms, suggestions you may have. I plan on posting this more prominently on the site after this review. It will be a "working" document that I will periodically add to. If you have any suggestions for additional FAQ items please feel free to offer them any time. This review is open to creationists and evolutionists alike.

 

Feel free to speak freely, our "ban" trigger finger will be relaxed in this thread, though you should know a few points will not be open to debate, particularly the first FAQ item on "What is evolution". Many here know this one to be a pet peeve of mine. So anyone who argues that micro can lead to macro will simply be told that this certain argument is not up for debate in this thread during thre review of the FAQ.

 

In relation to this, I've noticed lately that several evolutionists have joined and immediately appealed to this equivocation (micro is evidence for evolution), but I believe in their case (if we can trust their stated age) it may be more out of ignorance than intentional intellectual dishonesty. Ultimately this FAQ will be a useful place to quickly refer such newbies who try to make this argument to let them know it will not be tolerated here.

 

Thanks,

Fred

[chance 1]

Hi Fred, I have some recommendations for your, Evolution Fairytale Forum FAQ. My recommendations are in bold. Did a bit of paragraphing for clarity, also.

 

Definitions:

 

What is evolution? – When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to either, chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution.

 

By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life);

 

By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe galaxies, stars, planets, etc;

 

By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species, from a common ancestor (arbitrarily a single cell).

 

delete this bit - So when we use the word evolution it can mean any of the above.

 

Debaters are encouraged to qualify which evolution a topic is referring to if there may be some doubt, and preferably in the opening post.

We do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists), on this forum since all sides agree it occurs. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, then large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even my college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1]). Anyone who continues to use such equivocal arguments for evolution after being referred to this FAQ will be banned from the forum. For more on this, see my article The Evolution Definition Shell Game.

 

What is information? – The type of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is sufficient to communicate enough data to build some object, such as a car, a computer, or in the case of the origins debate, an organism. To that end, I hereby offer coded information as the type of information to debate on this forum. By coded information I mean any type of information that is a language, as described by symbols, syntax, and semantics. These three components encompass three of the five elements of Gitt information (I submit the other two components of Gitt information, pragmatics and apobetics, are somewhat inherent and natural extensions of the first three; these later two are open to discussion but not required). Examples of coded information include the English language (or any foreign language), Morse code, C++, etc. By requiring our definition of information to be that which is sufficient to build something should rule out anecdotal musings such as tree rings and redshifts. Other types or descriptions of information, such as Shannon information at the lowest level, to Demski's complex specified information, to Algorithmic information theory, to Gitt information at the highest level, are welcome for discussion provided it is in the spirit of understanding the proposed description/type of information. We encourage however that members use the working definition of coded information given above when debating information and its role in creation or evolution.

Arguments deemed unacceptable for this forum include spurious claims such as "tree rings and redshifts prove that information can originate naturalistically", "ripples in the sand represent information", etc. These common phenomena are more accurately described as data (or embedded data) , Such arguments do nothing to establish the kind of information that is postulated as a requirement to produce all life if evolution is true.

 

FRED – I like the idea you have of qualifying ‘information’ as ‘coded information’ with respect to information debates, I feel this will clarify and simplify the debate as we are both aware the term ‘information’ is used very loosely across various disciplines.

 

 

 

What is “Scienceâ€ÂÂ? – The word science has it’s origins in the Latin word scientia, for knowledge. Webster’s first listed definition states: “1 - the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandingâ€ÂÂ. There are many ways to gain knowledge, ranging from forensic science (ie arson investigation, SETI), to historical science (ie geology, paleontology, written records), to operational science (scientific method).

 

Certain evolutionists will embrace operational science as the only acceptable definition, but only when it suits them (ie. when they claim creation is not science; ironically the same definition renders evolution unscientific). FRED I would delete this as it has been my experience that the opposite is mainly true, i.e. the claims from YEC are that science can’t produce this or that using empirical methods, where te stated scientific method has been ‘forensic’.

 

 

They also have attempted to re-define it to be only that which is naturalistic. This view limits the amount of knowledge obtainable, and therefore subverts the true meaning of science.

 

FRED – I have yet to see any other definition of science that allows the use of non-naturalistic explanations. To include such you would have to employ “creation science†(for the want of a better term).

 

Consider arson investigation or the SETI project – both have rightly been called scientific by science , and are used to determine if there is an intelligent source connected to the evidence gathered. It is a double standard to agree this is science, yet on the other hand deny that the same principles do not apply to origins and the question of intelligent design if provided.

Bottom line: We use the traditional view that “science†is the search for knowledge based on sound evidence; this rules out naturalistic-only equivocation, and speculation.

 

FRED – It has been my experience that all the ‘proofs’ for ID’ take the form of, “if not X, then, Yâ€ÂÂ. This style of argument does not ‘support’ ID, as there is no grounds to have a creator as a default when science does not know something. If I have not convinced you of this then will you propose some other definition that is understood, i.e. “science status quoâ€ÂÂ

 

What is Species/Speciation? – It is widely known that the term species is highly controversial and there is no consensus among scientists of what constitutes a species[2]. The term was invented by the famous creationist Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, as the lowest taxonomic rank in his classification system (Linnaean classification). Creationists generally agree that certain flavors of speciation occur, such as allopatric speciation where a population becomes geographically isolated and develop enough differences over time where they no longer readily inbreed. Creationists however propose this simply as variety within a kind of animal, and certainly not evidence for large-scale evolution. Many varieties of domestic dogs, while not classified as different species, will not readily interbreed, such as a Chihuahua with a St Bernard.

 

So why aren’t they classified as separate species? They certainly should be if we were to be consistent with the general definition of species.

FRED - You have already stated there is some controversy, I feel this is unnecessary.

 

 

 

FRED – these bulk of remaining FAQ seems to be having certain points taken as established fact. To me this will limit debate if such views are disputed. The upshot is, there will be less and less to debate as more and more topics boil down to:

 

e.g.

<chance> “I dispute Xâ€ÂÂ

<moderator> according to the FAQ, X is this way.

 

now what?

 

One would expect a forum not to be a comfort blanket, it is a place to present opposing views, there will be some “rough and tumble†philosophy is a tough gig.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do not use arguments such as: “Noah could not have possibly fitted millions of species on the ark†without first qualifying species, YEC use the term Kind as that contained in the Arc and as such is not limited to the status quo used to define modern species.

 

In short, discussion on speciation when debating creation vs. evolution is generally off-limits. What is instead encouraged is debating change at the family taxonomic rank or higher. Debating sympatric speciation is also acceptable.

 

FRED – I’m not sure I understand the last sentence, but it seems to restricting opposing views, i.e. “you will discuss this topic within these guidelinesâ€ÂÂ. I fear this type of “over clarification†has the potential to escalate where discussions reach an impasse of breaching the guidelines, and we are reduced to discussing the weather.

[Fred Williams 0]

Hi Chance,

 

Thanks for taking the time to review the FAQ and offer suggestions.

 

What is evolution? – When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to either, chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution.

 

By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life);

 

By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe galaxies, stars, planets, etc;

 

By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species, from a common ancestor (arbitrarily a single cell).

 

delete this bit - So when we use the word evolution it can mean any of the above.

 

Debaters are encouraged to qualify which evolution a topic is referring to if there may be some doubt, and preferably in the opening post.

 

All good suggestions, I’ll incorporate these.

 

What is information? – The type of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is

 

Sounds good, though I may change the first use of type to ‘kind’, ie The kind of information…

 

These common phenomena are more accurately described as data (or embedded data) , Such arguments do nothing to establish the kind of information that is postulated as a requirement to produce all life if evolution is true.

 

I believe the former leaves room for equivocation; I also don’t think the later is much improvement, though I do think the sentence can use improvement. I might change the sentence to something like: “Such arguments do nothing to establish the kind of information required by evolution to produce all life over time from a common ancestor.”.

 

Certain evolutionists will embrace operational science as the only acceptable definition, but only when it suits them (ie. when they claim creation is not science; ironically the same definition renders evolution unscientific). FRED I would delete this as it has been my experience that the opposite is mainly true, i.e. the claims from YEC are that science can’t produce this or that using empirical methods, where te stated scientific method has been ‘forensic’.

 

OK, I have heard this from both sides so it’s not appropriate for me to just single out evolutionists, so I’ll remove it. In fact one of our moderators objected on somewhat similar grounds, and I didn’t do a great job of conveying the point I was trying to make.

 

They also have attempted to re-define it to be only that which is naturalistic. This view limits the amount of knowledge obtainable, and therefore subverts the true meaning of science.

 

FRED – I have yet to see any other definition of science that allows the use of non-naturalistic explanations. To include such you would have to employ “creation science” (for the want of a better term).

 

I disagree, and the primary reason why I want the definition. Naturalists have tried to redefine science to only be naturalistic phenomena, so they can declare by default that they are the only ones using science, and by extension are the only ones who are legitimate scientists. Case in point is this equivocation:

 

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’ - Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

 

Consider arson investigation or the SETI project – both have rightly been called scientific by science , and are used to determine if there is an intelligent source connected to the evidence gathered. It is a double standard to agree this is science, yet on the other hand deny that the same principles do not apply to origins and the question of intelligent design if provided.

Regarding the former, I’ll just leave out “by science” altogether. I don’t like the later suggestion (‘if provided’ addition), sorry.

 

So why aren’t they classified as separate species? They certainly should be if we were to be consistent with the general definition of species.

FRED - You have already stated there is some controversy, I feel this is unnecessary.

 

I agree this is clunky, so I’ll either remove it or re-word it.

 

FRED – these bulk of remaining FAQ seems to be having certain points taken as established fact. To me this will limit debate if such views are disputed. The upshot is, there will be less and less to debate as more and more topics boil down to:

 

e.g.

“I dispute X”

according to the FAQ, X is this way.

 

now what?

 

One would expect a forum not to be a comfort blanket, it is a place to present opposing views, there will be some “rough and tumble” philosophy is a tough gig.

 

When you say “the bulk of the remaining FAW seems to…”, you need to be more specific.

 

In short, discussion on speciation when debating creation vs. evolution is generally off-limits. What is instead encouraged is debating change at the family taxonomic rank or higher. Debating sympatric speciation is also acceptable.

 

FRED – I’m not sure I understand the last sentence, but it seems to restricting opposing views, i.e. “you will discuss this topic within these guidelines”. I fear this type of “over clarification” has the potential to escalate where discussions reach an impasse of breaching the guidelines, and we are reduced to discussing the weather.

 

The species definition was one of the more difficult to address. Its primary purpose is to avoid the spurious argument that speciation is evidence or even proof of evolution, which I believe is covered fairly well in the current version in the FAQ. However, I don’t want to limit debate on what constitutes a kind, I think this is fair game. The last sentence doesn’t convey this very well, so I will attempt to re-word it.

 

I also think your last comment is a little too much paranoia. The primary purpose of the forum FAQ is to remove the spurious types of debates that are usually brought up by newbies and eat up a lot of time of regular participants. In some cases it should help clarify definitions that both sides legitimately look for, such as a definition of information. All in all there is still a ton of area open for debate. I know from years of debating on various forums that the more informed members on both sides can have long, productive discussions without ever breaching into the problems as outlined by the FAQ. What I’ve found is that once we hammer each other on certain issues that we strongly believe detract from the debate or we find intellectually dishonest, both parties will tend to avoid them. Examples include how creationists pound home the speciation argument, and how evolutionists pound home the “common ancestor” verse ‘humans evolved from apes’ argument.

 

I’ll work on updating the FAQ and post it here for further comments/review. Also feel free to suggest any items to the FAQ if any come to mind. Thanks again for your help!

 

Fred

[chance 1]

I look forward to re reading the FAQ. Upon re reading my suggestions some were less than clear.

 

 

 

One suggestion, do you remember the “Helium In Zircons…†incident? You might consider something along these lines:

 

Posting text of other peoples arguments from other forums or blogs, specifically when debate has turned to exchanging insults between two parties is not welcome, please limit your responses to the facts of the debate (or, at a minimum post a cautionary note that the content has turned ‘personal’).

[Fred Williams 0]

The forum FAW has been updated to include some of the suggestions I'vre received. Please feel free to make further comments/suggestions. I'm going to try to work a link in to the main page for this FAQ, and will also pin this thread.

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

Fred

[HSetterfield 0]

I haven't had a chance to read it slowly and in depth, Fred, but I noticed that you spelled Bill Dembski's name wrong -- it has a 'b' in the middle of the last name.

 

Also, don't be afraid of discussing speciation. There are some funny points you can make which are very telling:

 

1. It is the only taxonomic classification with any sort of a definition attached. There are no definitions for kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, or genus.

 

2. The definition of species is dependent upon the mating cues of the animals involved! Here is what I mean. All pet type dogs are canis familiaris, right? But that includes everything from chihuahua to great Dane, to St. Bernard, to toy poodle, etc. Why are they all the same species, despite vast differences? Because their mating cues are olfactory. If it smells good, try for it. Size is the only prohibiting factor! Now take a look at hummingbirds. I don't know how many species have been declared, but it's a lot. And it takes an expert to tell the difference between some of them, they are so much alike. Why are they different species? Because they refuse to mate with any bird that looks even slightly different -- the mating cues are primarily visual. Thus a wrong shape to the tail, a wrong color, a wrong spot, and forget that one! So while they try to define species, they are at the mercy of mating cues and it has nothing to do with gentics or physical appearances.

 

3. Up until sometime around the early nineteenth century 'species' and the biblical 'kind' were considered the same. However as biology progressed and variations were noted, the two definitions parted company. So any evolutionist who tries to equate species with kind ('baramin') is running about 200 years behind and needs to be informed that. The biblical kind is probably fairly close, most of the time, to the modern taxonomic classification of family or sub-family (equine, canine, feline, bovine, etc.) Variation within these kinds are often considered different genuses and species, but that is our choice and has little or nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

 

4. There is a natural limit to variation within any kind. There are a number of good articles and books concerning this. Additionally, there is nothing we have ever been able to do to any organism, be it E.coli or fruit fly or anything else which has changed it from what it is. We can kill them, deform them, enlarge them, dwarf them, but we cannot make them anything other than the same old E.colis, fruit flies, or whatever else the original organism was.

 

 

Regarding 'evolution' itself, the word simply means 'change'. So of course 'evolution' happens. But the type that is being argued about is the type that changed a bacteria to a bear and that has no evidence for it and tons of evidence against it genetically and in every other associated field.

 

At any rate, hope that helps a bit.

 

God bless.

[Fred Williams 0]

Hi Helen,

 

Thanks for your input! I thought I should begin by sharing the reason behind why we created the FAQ, to help give you an idea of what our goal is. The primary purpose of the FAQ is to avoid certain time-wasting, ad nauseam topics that are especially common among newbies to the forum. It’s a place for us to quickly point to if a member pops in and uses a flawed argument, to save us time from having to respond and rehash the argument again. The classic example is what ‘evolution’ means. As you know many evolutionists will jump on a forum and claim ‘evolution means change’ and since change does indeed occur, they claim “victory!” We don’t want to have to constantly deal with this type of intellectually dishonest argument, and hence why the FAQ idea was born. From my experience on forums over the years, once a creationist makes clear his objection to this type of argument, the more seasoned evolutionists will avoid it. So it isn’t meant to stifle debate, it instead should allow us to avoid certain common fallacious arguments altogether, and move on to a topic of substance.

 

In regards to speciation, I admit this was one of the tougher ones to deal with in the FAQ, and I really appreciate your input and will incorporate your ideas. In fact my first cut at it was too severe and would have stifled debate, as the evolutionist ‘chance’ rightly pointed out earlier in this thread. The type of fallacious argument I want to avoid is mostly the “speciation proves evolution" argument, in addition to the very one you brought up when you wrote “So any evolutionist who tries to equate species with kind ('baramin') is running about 200 years behind and needs to be informed that.” I touched on this when I mentioned the “Noah could not have possibly fitted millions of species on the ark” as a common strawman argument that is borne of the fallacy you mentioned. However I’ll try to make this clearer.

 

Regarding the mating connection to speciation, I agree with how you described it, in fact I used a somewhat similar example (jackrabbits) in my article on the ‘Evolution Definition Shell Game”. The reason I used the dog analogy was to show how the definition of speciation is so loose one could separate into species certain varieties of dog if one were to be consistent with how evolutionists have cataloged species. For example, it is fairly well known now that Darwin’s finches can and do interbreed, yet they remain separate species, probably because the finch is such a darling of evolution that the evolutionists are too embarrassed to correct the classification.

 

I just made some changes to the species definition, if you get a chance please let me know what you think.

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

Thanks again!

Fred

[HSetterfield 0]

Hi Helen,

I just made some changes to the species definition, if you get a chance please let me know what you think.

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

Thanks again!

Fred

10804[/snapback]

Good job! At least IMHO....smile....

 

When I get into the 'information' argument/debate with anyone, I also try to distinguish between Gitt and Shannon. One of the easiest ways to do this is to explain that Shannon's definition simply involves compressibility for purposes of transmission. A message is presumed but not required. For instance, for Shannon,

"A" is a piece of information. "ZZZZZZZ" is a piece of information that can be compressed to (7)Z. There is 'more' information in the second example than the first, but neither contain a known message.

 

Cellular/biological information must contain a message and the cell must be able to 'comprehend' or follow it. Thus, even ignoring the rather logical idea that a piece of meaningful information must be encoded by some kind of intelligence, and allowing evolution the benefit of the doubt that such a message could occur accidently, evolution is still faced with the obstacle of the receiver. The idea that a cell would be able to follow a strange direction or use a strange protein goes against everything, but EVERYTHING, we have seen in biology and genetics. If the cell survives the introduction of a strange protein, it quickly dissembles it to use the amino acids for the construction of proteins it knows and can use.

[Fred Williams 0]

FYI, I've now added links on the forum page to the FAQ, so I'm going to "un-pin" this topic. If there are any further suggestions please let me know, or repsond to this thread. Thanks,

 

Fred

[MRC_Hans 0]

Interesting construction, your FAQ. Of course, FAQ (for frequently asked questions) is not really the proper term for what you have there, it is more a set of "Rules for Engagement".

 

I'm a little intrigued at your purpose here. By ruling out entire sections of the opposition's argumentation, and I notice that the rules are almost entirely one-sidedly addressing evolutionist's arguments and what evolutionists may and may not argue, you create an environment where one player is forced to play with one hand tied to one foot, whereas the other is free to change the rules at will.

 

As this is your ballpark, you are, of course, at liberty to do that, but what will you gain from participating in such a game? Of course provided you can get anybody to play, but some of us (and this includes me, sometimes) are naive and/or masochistic enough to play such games.

 

I do see a clear danger in this: If this kind of uneven conditions make some novice here believe he is a master of argumentation and that evolutionists are no match for him, and this belief makes him venture off and try his skills at an open forum, he will be in for a rude awakening.

 

 

Cheers,

Hans

[ikester7579 19]

Being seasoned debaters, we are well aware of evolution tactics to waste time. We get tired of the same old predictable excuses for each question that cannot be answered. And we don't won't our members having to deal with the same. This also keeps the forum under control, so it don't get out of control.

 

A ministry forum is not like a debate forum per say. The one who owns it, and the ones who help have a message to relay. It stops being a ministry if we allow a wrong message that totally blocks this ministries goal.

 

Just like some atheist-evolutionist forums that have the goal of not promoting God. And therefore have rules where one can get banned just at the mention of God, or his word. So a creationist can't even debate his side, but watches as the evolutionist mock his view.

 

Same difference.

 

Evolution has it's ministry of keeping God out of the picture. We have a ministry of keeping things out that make some lose their faith in God.

 

In fact with all the forums up for debating these issues. I am sure you can find some, like christianforums.com, that will allow a almost anything goes atmosphere.

 

The atmosphere here is controlled for a reason.

[MRC_Hans 0]

A ministry forum is not like a debate forum per say. The one who owns it, and the ones who help have a message to relay. It stops being a ministry if we allow a wrong message that totally blocks this ministries goal.

That is, of course your right. I have not challenged that.

 

Just like some atheist-evolutionist forums that have the goal of not promoting God. And therefore have rules where one can get banned just at the mention of God, or his word. So a creationist can't even debate his side, but watches as the evolutionist mock his view.

I think that would be even more wrong, since people promoting objectivity should be endorsing it. But I have not met such forums. If you have a link to one, I shall gladly go there and take them to task.

 

 

Evolution has it's ministry of keeping God out of the picture.

Well, there we'll have to disagree. I assume atheist groups want to keep God out, but evolution as such is not an atheist thing (although, of course, atheists need to accept evolution, on some level).

 

In fact with all the forums up for debating these issues. I am sure you can find some, like christianforums.com, that will allow a almost anything goes atmosphere.

Why easily! I am not challenging your right to have such rules, and as you say, it is not a problem for me. Fred was inviting opinions, and I offered mine. That is all.

 

Hans

[Fred Williams 0]

I'm a little intrigued at your purpose here. By ruling out entire sections of the opposition's argumentation, and I notice that the rules are almost entirely one-sidedly addressing evolutionist's arguments and what evolutionists may and may not argue, you create an environment where one player is forced to play with one hand tied to one foot, whereas the other is free to change the rules at will.

11282[/snapback]

You would need to give me a specific example. To my knowledge I do not have any restrictions in the FAQ where an evolutionist is forced to avoid evidence that is intellectually honest. The one I suspect you may disagree with is how evolution is is defined, but as I’ve made clear many times is that my number one pet peeve is the dishonest claim that small-scale observable change, that everyone agrees occurs and both models support, is somehow proof that evolution is true and creation is false. Such claims have and never will be tolerated in this forum.

 

The primary purpose of the FAQ is mostly two-fold:

 

1) Establish a reasonable definition for both parties to work from, for some of the more ambiguously defined terms such as information and speciation.

2) Single out arguments that are intellectually dishonest that causes members to waste time refuting them ad nauseum. This was mostly the purpose behind defining the term evolution, since it is the most common equivocation out there. There are some equivocations that have been spelled out in the FAQ in regards to information, science, and speciation, but for the most part these definitions are meant to serve the goal as outlined in #1 above.

 

Finally, as I mentioned to chance earlier in this thread, I know from years of debating on various forums that both sides can have long, productive debate without ever breaching into the problems as outlined by the FAQ. The FAQ addresses mostly newbies, Talk.Origins koolaid drinkers, and those who instist on repeating arguments that the intellectually honest from both sides recognize as specious.

 

Fred

[MRC_Hans 0]

*snip*  To my knowledge I do not have any restrictions in the FAQ where an evolutionist is forced to avoid evidence that is intellectually honest. *snip*

Fred

11313[/snapback]

Now, I have absolutely no wish or reason to pursue this, so let me just say that I have on occasion noticed your defintion of intelectual honesty to be ... quite flexible. I have commented on this earler and you answered with this little analogy (quoted from memory):

 

Peasant to king: How about the fight against poverty?

 

King to peasant: We just had it, and you lost.

 

I understand and accept the message, and would not dream of intentionally stepping on His Majesty's toes, - within His realm, that is.

 

 

Hans

[Fred Williams 0]

Now, I have absolutely no wish or reason to pursue this, so let me just say that I have on occasion noticed your defintion of intelectual honesty to be ... quite flexible. I have commented on this earler and you answered with this little analogy (quoted from memory):

 

Peasant to king: How about the fight against poverty?

 

King to peasant: We just had it, and you lost.

 

I understand and accept the message, and would not dream of intentionally stepping on His Majesty's toes, - within His realm, that is.

Hans 

11342[/snapback]

Hans, do you realize you've contributed absolutely nothing to this thread? First, I never used the above in reply to intellectual honesty, I instead used that quip as a response to my right to call evolution a fairytale. Second, why were you not willing or able to provide me with a specific example where the evolutionist's "hands are tied behind his back" by something in the FAQ? Is your theory that weak that something in the FAQ keeps you from winning, or are you upset that I quote you in the FAQ? I suspect it is a little bit of both.

 

Fred

[MRC_Hans 0]

No, I'm actually flattered by your quoting me. Well, all I contributed was an opinion, as you asked for.

 

And yes, that quote is a good example of what I mean. Not that I'm necessarily right in that statement, but it is certainly no more an equivocation than your own "evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups".

 

But this is your place, and you are free to run it to any standards you will, including double standards.

 

Sorry, I really did not aim to make a discussion out of this.

 

Over and out, Hans

[Greyhound 0]

The one I suspect you may disagree with is how evolution is is defined, but as I’ve made clear many times is that my number one pet peeve is the dishonest claim that small-scale observable change, that everyone agrees occurs and both models support, is somehow proof that evolution is true and creation is false. Such claims have and never will be tolerated in this forum.

11313[/snapback]

It does rather tie the evolutionist's hand behind his back though doesn't it? Eventually, somehow, we'd have to make some claim about accumulated small changes leading to apparently larger claims - otherwise, where do we get the changes from?

 

Just a general point really since we're unlikely to shift you on that point.

 

My own personal pet-hate is having abiogenesis slung into the same package as evolution but I don't feel strongly enough to make a big thing of it.

[Springer 5]

It does rather tie the evolutionist's hand behind his back though doesn't it?  Eventually, somehow, we'd have to make some claim about accumulated small changes leading to apparently larger claims - otherwise, where do we get the changes from?

The extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is illogical because the mechanisms are different. Macroevolution requires multiple, sequential unidirectional mutations. Microevolution results from selecting out traits already existent in the gene pool.

 

 

 

My own personal pet-hate is having abiogenesis slung into the same package as evolution but I don't feel strongly enough to make a big thing of it.

The reason you hate the abiogenesis argument is because it introduces a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory. Although you may try to distance yourself from it, you must deal with every reality in the world if you're going to deny intelligent design.

[Guest Gorilla J]

The extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is illogical because the mechanisms are different.  Macroevolution requires multiple, sequential unidirectional mutations.  Microevolution results from selecting out traits already existent in the gene pool. 

The reason you hate the abiogenesis argument is because it introduces a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory.  Although you may try to distance yourself from it, you must deal with every reality in the world if you're going to deny intelligent design.

11350[/snapback]

I'm afraid I'm still new, Springer, and thus I cannot see how abiogenesis introduces anything to evolution, nor what the fatal flaw is. Would you mind enlightening me?

[Greyhound 0]

The extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is illogical because the mechanisms are different.  Macroevolution requires multiple, sequential unidirectional mutations.  Microevolution results from selecting out traits already existent in the gene pool.

The fact that this is grossly simplified and inaccurate really bears out why the removal of this debating point is such an important one.

 

The reason you hate the abiogenesis argument is because it introduces a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory.  Although you may try to distance yourself from it, you must deal with every reality in the world if you're going to deny intelligent design.

11350[/snapback]

It's very bad form to tell people why the think such and such a thing. You're also wrong. Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to deny intelligent design, it merely seeks to show the mechanism that brought a single ancestor to the myriad species we see today. If ID wants to claim that different "kinds" were made in situ 6000 years ago, then TOE will just deny it by default.

 

As I've tried to inform you several times already, even if the first cell was found to have been waved into existence several million years ago, the entire TOE would still stand as an effective mechansim for getting from that single cell to today's diversity.

[deadlock 3]

The fact that this is grossly simplified and inaccurate really bears out why the removal of this debating point is such an important one.

 

Then, explain us what is micro-evolution.

[Greyhound 0]

Then, explain us what is micro-evolution.

11357[/snapback]

I'm not sure if this is on or off topic given the nature of the thread but as far as evolutionists are concerned micro and macro are unnecessary definitions. Small-scale evolution and large-scale are considered to work on the same principles but over different time-scales.

 

To creationists I suppose microevolution is a change within a species. "Species" is a rather abitrary deliniation imho.

[deadlock 3]

I'm not sure if this is on or off topic given the nature of the thread but as far as evolutionists are concerned micro and macro are unnecessary definitions.  Small-scale evolution and large-scale are considered to work on the same principles but over different time-scales.

 

To creationists I suppose microevolution is a change within a species.  "Species" is a rather abitrary deliniation imho.

11358[/snapback]

Then let´s make an analogy.Can you jump over a 10 meters long hole using 10 little one meter jumps ?

[Greyhound 0]

Then let´s make an analogy.Can you jump over a 10 meters long hole using 10 little one meter jumps ?

11359[/snapback]

I think we ought to wait for an okay from Fred before we continue on this.

[Springer 5]

I'm not sure if this is on or off topic given the nature of the thread but as far as evolutionists are concerned micro and macro are unnecessary definitions.  Small-scale evolution and large-scale are considered to work on the same principles but over different time-scales.

There is a fundamental difference between selecting traits already existant in a gene pool and adding new information through mutations, as the general theory of evolution demands. Your contention that small-scale and large-scale change work on the same principle is patently false.