Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
de_skudd

The Religion Of Evolution

Recommended Posts

It is amazing how easily he duped the 19th century "men of the enlightenment" just think if he appeared in America today, having failed to qualify for medicine, failed even to qualify for the ministry-listen nobody in the 19th century failed to qualify for the ministry, it was the intellectual dump for folk that failed in all else-this is why Spurgeon said, wrongly for once, that evolution would be laughed at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to exalt the one you worship, even if he is no better educated than your average non-scientific christian.

27105[/snapback]

Isn't that a Bob Dylan song? :)

 

Some just won't cozy up to the fact that everyone worships something ot some one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles Darwin was an average theologian not known to be brillaint.  Most emphatically he was NOT a trained scientist :(

 

DARWIN UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

27055[/snapback]

Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument against the man)

It doesn't matter whether Darwin was a scientist, or a drug warlord, the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on Darwin at all. The ToE has made many more discoveries, predictions, and applications than Darwin could have ever imagined. A few examples:

Small Pox Vaccine

Flu Immunization Injections

Anti-Viral Therapies

Anti-Biotic Therapies

High-Yield Crops

Radically Improved Hybridization of Livestock

Stem Cell Therapies (Yes, even baldness can be cured using stem cells)

and the list goes on...

 

Not to mention the genetic data, that is explained scientifically only within the ToE:

Human Chromosome 2

ERV commonalities with our primate cousins

The emergence of Nylon consuming bacteria

and the list goes on...

 

Honestly, I really don't care about Darwin one way or another. Darwin was one of the first people to propose the concept of evolution. The ToE is supported by such a volume of evidence, it need not rely on the character or qualifications of Darwin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument against the man)

27159[/snapback]

Nope, this would be the apologetic against the theory, not the man personally. The fact that evolutionists revere him (see celebrating Darwin's birthday) as a great scientist is shot down by the fact that he wasn't a scientist.

 

It doesn't matter whether Darwin was a scientist, or a drug warlord, the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on Darwin at all. The ToE has made many more discoveries, predictions, and applications than Darwin could have ever imagined.

27159[/snapback]

The theory of evolution was dependant on Darwin, because before his highly flawed model, evolution had no traction.

 

 

A few examples:

Small Pox Vaccine

Flu Immunization Injections

Anti-Viral Therapies

Anti-Biotic Therapies

High-Yield Crops

Radically Improved Hybridization of Livestock

Stem Cell Therapies (Yes, even baldness can be cured using stem cells)

and the list goes on...

27159[/snapback]

None of these discoveries had anything to do with evolution, they had to do with understanding the design in God's creation so-as-to manipulate that design. None of these products has cause one species to "evolve" into another!

 

 

Not to mention the genetic data, that is explained scientifically only within the ToE:

Human Chromosome 2

ERV commonalities with our primate cousins

The emergence of Nylon consuming bacteria

and the list goes on...

27159[/snapback]

Again, more of the same evolutheistic fallacies: None of these discoveries had anything to do with evolution, they had to do with understanding the design in Godââ¬â¢s creation so-as-to manipulate that design. None of these products has cause one species to "evolve" into another!

 

 

Honestly, I really don't care about Darwin one way or another. Darwin was one of the first people to propose the concept of evolution. The ToE is supported by such a volume of evidence, it need not rely on the character or qualifications of Darwin.

27159[/snapback]

Show the evidence, and not just more of the evolutheistic rhetoric!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I ask again.... What scientific degree in higher learning did Darwin earn prior to writing "On the Origin of Species and The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This quote mine needs buttresses before it collapses and buries us all! smile.gif

 

But seriously, coming up with a baseless assertion followed by trying to redefine common terms and then following it up with quote mining isn't an argument.

26135[/snapback]

 

If you can show where any of these quotes were mined (i.e. taken out of context), I'd like to see it... remember, context is everything and I don't want to misrepresent. But, having read these papers for contextual continuity, and believing fully in the contextual validity, I believe you're above statement is misguided (whether intentional or unintentional).

26146[/snapback]

I didn't think so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, this would be the apologetic against the theory, not the man personally. The fact that evolutionists revere him (see celebrating Darwin’s birthday) as a great scientist is shot down by the fact that he wasn’t a scientist.

 

Was Isaac Newton a scientist? Some celebrate Isaac Newton's birthday as well. The merits of one's claim is what matters, whether or not we arbitrarily define one as a scientist.

And yes, your original statement does qualify as an Argument against the Man (argumentum ad hominem) as whether or not Darwin was a scientist is a non-sequitor, or has nothing to do with the merits of the ToE.

 

The theory of evolution was dependant on Darwin, because before his highly flawed model, evolution had no traction.

 

It doesn't matter whether the ToE had any traction before Darwin or anyone else. The qualifications of the individual making the claim does not have any effect on the merit of the claim. (ie. My 3 1/2 year old daughter explained to me how to count to 10... The fact that she is not a mathematician does not change the accuracy of her statement)

 

None of these discoveries had anything to do with evolution, they had to do with understanding the design in God’s creation so-as-to manipulate that design. None of these products has cause one species to “evolve†into another…

 

Explain to me how flu vaccines are created.

Explain to me how the smallpox vaccine was created.

Explain to me how anti-biotics are developed.

Explain to me how anti-virals are developed.

 

A "You can look this up yourself" response will not suffice. I am very well informed on how these processes operate, as they are relevant in my utilization of medicine in practice.

 

Again, more of the same evolutheistic fallacies: None of these discoveries had anything to do with evolution, they had to do with understanding the design in God’s creation so-as-to manipulate that design. None of these products has cause one species to “evolve†into another…

 

Really? Evolution predicting that in order for our 46 chromosome selves to have evolved from a common ancestor as our nearest primate ancestors (which have 48 chromosomes) 2 of our chromosomes would have had to have fused at some point, is not relevant to evolution?

 

What about ERV commonalities? Care to explain how that is not relevant to evolution either?

 

I can't escape the feeling that you feel evolution involves the birthing of a new species from another species through immediate generations. (ie. A Chimpanzee giving birth to a human) Sadly, if this is the case, it is a misinformed (albeit common) perception of what the ToE is.

 

Show the evidence, and not just more of the evolutheistic rhetoric….

27165[/snapback]

I have already shown the evidence, you have just chosen to arbitrarily brush it off as not being relevant to evolution.

 

The simplest way I can explain evolution is to define what is required for evolution to occur:

Random Mutation

Natural Selection

Reproduction

 

That's all that's required for evolution to occur. One species will never give rise to a completely new species through a single generation. Rather it requires thousands of generations before the gene pool of a geographically isolated species becomes modified enough to no longer be classified with the parent, or sister species.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Isaac Newton a scientist? Some celebrate Isaac Newton's birthday as well. The merits of one's claim is what matters, whether or not we arbitrarily define one as a scientist.

27496[/snapback]

Yes, Isaac Newton was a real scientist, but if you are attempting to postulate that his birthday has the focus of celebratory zeal of Darwin’s minions, you’ll have a long day of spin…

 

Aside from the fact that Darwin himself voiced many of the doubts that doomed any proof of his own claims, it appears when anyone outside the coven of Darwinism points to these same doubts, they meet a level resistance that boarders on religiosity.

 

And yes, your original statement does qualify as an Argument against the Man (argumentum ad hominem) as whether or not Darwin was a scientist is a non-sequitor, or has nothing to do with the merits of the ToE.

27496[/snapback]

Not a non sequitur, but very logical. He (unlike Newton) was not a scientist, and that is a fact… And these merits you protect have a great deal to do with the straw foundation of Darwinist evolution.

 

It doesn't matter whether the ToE had any traction before Darwin or anyone else. The qualifications of the individual making the claim does not have any effect on the merit of the claim. (ie. My 3 1/2 year old daughter explained to me how to count to 10... The fact that she is not a mathematician does not change the accuracy of her statement)

Explain to me how flu vaccines are created.

Explain to me how the smallpox vaccine was created.

Explain to me how anti-biotics are developed.

Explain to me how anti-virals are developed.

A "You can look this up yourself" response will not suffice. I am very well informed on how these processes operate, as they are relevant in my utilization of medicine in practice.

27496[/snapback]

It looks like your daughter has skill at memorizing rote knowledge.

 

It does matter how the model of evolution was latched onto after Darwin’s observations, therefore the qualifications of the individual making the claim makes a difference whether they can count to ten or understand calculus.

 

As a self proclaimed man of medicine, you’ll be able to elaborate on:

 

Explain how flu vaccines were designed.

Explain how the smallpox vaccines were designed.

Explain how anti-biotics are were designed.

Explain how anti-virals are were designed.

 

Because, make no mistake, they didn’t come about randomly…

 

Really? Evolution predicting that in order for our 46 chromosome selves to have evolved from a common ancestor as our nearest primate ancestors (which have 48 chromosomes) 2 of our chromosomes would have had to have fused at some point, is not relevant to evolution?

What about ERV commonalities? Care to explain how that is not relevant to evolution either?

27496[/snapback]

I was unaware that evolution has reached the level of sentience? Evolution can predict, or people of science can predict? Some give this word “evolution” great powers, as if it were a living thing.

 

ERV’s show great design, not evolution… You choose to call it a common ancestory when all things great and small give greater evidence for a common designer. If you wish to put your faith in a primate ancestor, with no more proof than the model of evolution, be my guest.

 

I can't escape the feeling that you feel evolution involves the birthing of a new species from another species through immediate generations. (ie. A Chimpanzee giving birth to a human) Sadly, if this is the case, it is a misinformed (albeit common) perception of what the ToE is.

I have already shown the evidence, you have just chosen to arbitrarily brush it off as not being relevant to evolution.

27496[/snapback]

That’s the thing… There is no evidence of any “New Species” birthing, no matter how many millions of years you hope for. And, sadly, that is what the model of evolution posits. You have shown no evidence, just amoebas and ancestry hypothesis. No fact bearing or windows into evidence vaults.

 

The simplest way I can explain evolution is to define what is required for evolution to occur:

Random Mutation

Natural Selection

Reproduction

27496[/snapback]

The simplest way you could explain evolution is by providing evidence, not propaganda… That’s all I ask for.

 

That's all that's required for evolution to occur. One species will never give rise to a completely new species through a single generation. Rather it requires thousands of generations before the gene pool of a geographically isolated species becomes modified enough to no longer be classified with the parent, or sister species.

Just my 2 cents.

27496[/snapback]

One species has never given rise to another, be it one generation, not millions of years. No matter the fairy tails you spin, or the scarecrows you build, you haven’t provided a thing… Except proof of design…

 

There's my nickel... No change required!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Isaac Newton was a real scientist, but if you are attempting to postulate that his birthday has the focus of celebratory zeal of Darwin’s minions, you’ll have a long day of spin…

 

Aside from the fact that Darwin himself voiced many of the doubts that doomed any proof of his own claims, it appears when anyone outside the coven of Darwinism points to these same doubts, they meet a level resistance that boarders on religiosity.

 

Fair enough on Isaac Newton. IIRC a scientist is an individual who utilizes the scientific method. I wouldn't be so soon to refuse Darwin the title of scientist.

 

Anytime I have seen an individual refer to Darwin's own doubts, it is usually a passage from the Origin of Species, as a part of a pretense for Darwin to throw out his own conceptualization of a solution to the doubt. Just my observation.

 

Not a non sequitur, but very logical. He (unlike Newton) was not a scientist, and that is a fact… And these merits you protect have a great deal to do with the straw foundation of Darwinist evolution.

 

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

Source: Wiki

I believe this fits your argument.

 

It does matter how the model of evolution was latched onto after Darwin’s observations, therefore the qualifications of the individual making the claim makes a difference whether they can count to ten or understand calculus.

 

Modern Evolution is no longer contigent upon Darwin's observations. It is substantiated by biology, geology, and archeology.

 

As a self proclaimed man of medicine, you’ll be able to elaborate on:

 

Explain how flu vaccines were designed.

Explain how the smallpox vaccines were designed.

Explain how anti-biotics are were designed.

Explain how anti-virals are were designed.

 

Because, make no mistake, they didn’t come about randomly…

 

I believe I was specific in requesting you explain how they came about. I even stated I already know how they came about, and that requesting me to define them would circumvent my purpose in asking you to define them.

 

I was unaware that evolution has reached the level of sentience? Evolution can predict, or people of science can predict? Some give this word “evolution†great powers, as if it were a living thing. 

 

Forgive my error. I should have stated "Evolution being used in predicting that in order for our 46 chromosome". I would appreciate a response to the topic I was refering to, please.

 

ERV’s show great design, not evolution… You choose to call it a common ancestory when all things great and small give greater evidence for a common designer. If you wish to put your faith in a primate ancestor, with no more proof than the model of evolution, be my guest.

 

I fail to see how ERVs represent design. What use would ERV commonalities provide other than the illusion of common descent?

 

The fact that we have ERV commonalities (and disassociations) in placement and ERV strain with our Primate cousins demonstrates that we indeed decended from a common ancestor.

 

That’s the thing… There is no evidence of any “New Species†birthing, no matter how many millions of years you hope for. And, sadly, that is what the model of evolution posits.

 

Ring species are the best evidence for speciation occuring.

Greenish Warblers

Ensatina eschscholtzii

Ring species in effect follow a geographical pattern. As the parent species spreads out, it's outermost parts become geographically isolated. With this isolation, the dispersion of genetic material within the entire group becomes limited. The continual spreading causes even greater seperation until the outermost part becomes completely incapable of reproducing with the original parent population.

Here is a formula example:

A<->B<->C<->D<->E<->F X A

 

A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, C can reproduce with D, D can reproduce with E, E can reproduce with F, but F CANNOT reproduce with A.

 

You have shown no evidence, just amoebas and ancestry hypothesis. No fact bearing or windows into evidence vaults.

 

I am really unsure as to what you are trying to express here.

 

The simplest way you could explain evolution is by providing evidence, not propaganda… That’s all I ask for.

This is the foundation of what the ToE is.

 

One species has never given rise to another, be it one generation, not millions of years. No matter the fairy tails you spin, or the scarecrows you build, you haven’t provided a thing… Except proof of design…

 

The division is not clear. It is gradient. A species is never going to give rise to another species within a single generation. Ring species are the best example of how evolution drives speciation.

 

There's my nickel... No change required!

 

At this rate I will be a millionaire ;)

 

As a note, I don't want you to think that our disagreements are taken on a personal level. I do not feel that I am my beliefs (so to speak). I prefer to be open, and go where the evidence takes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument against the man)

It doesn't matter whether Darwin was a scientist, or a drug warlord, the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on Darwin at all. The ToE has made many more discoveries, predictions, and applications than Darwin could have ever imagined. A few examples:

Small Pox Vaccine

Flu Immunization Injections

Anti-Viral Therapies

Anti-Biotic Therapies

High-Yield Crops

Radically Improved Hybridization of Livestock

Stem Cell Therapies (Yes, even baldness can be cured using stem cells)

and the list goes on...

 

Not to mention the genetic data, that is explained scientifically only within the ToE:

Human Chromosome 2

ERV commonalities with our primate cousins

The emergence of Nylon consuming bacteria

and the list goes on...

 

Honestly, I really don't care about Darwin one way or another. Darwin was one of the first people to propose the concept of evolution. The ToE is supported by such a volume of evidence, it need not rely on the character or qualifications of Darwin.

27159[/snapback]

If it does not matter that Darwin was a scientist or not, then why does it matter whether a creationist is one? Because you guys like to sterotype people into groups of educated and uneducated as far as science goes. Then Darwin would be considered as educated as any creationist that you guys deem as ignorant morons. Or does what a person believes bring more weight to the table in reality, and the sterotyping is a cover up for actual bias?

 

Example:

 

Group you guys deem as ignorant:

 

1) Those who only went to school to get theology degrees.

2) Those who believe in God.

3) Those who believe in creation.

4) Those who believe in youg eath.

 

Now before Darwin got on the ship named the Beagle, this is what he believed, right? Having a degree in theology this is what he had to believe. Now, going upon this boat. Did he enter into a floating university called the Beagle for supposed higher learning? Would this floating university be considered schooling like Harvard? Of course not. But before getting on that boat, the sterotyping you guys do would have placed him as the most stupid, ignorant, moronic person in the world. And if you disagree, then you are showing bias in your sterotyping.

 

Now when Darwin got off the boat, did he some how get another degree? Nope. So what made him to be the considered the most intelligent being that ever walked the face of this planet?

 

1) It was not his degree.

2) It was not that he went and got more education.

 

It was because of only one thing. He found a way to deny the creation by God in the Bible (which by the way, he had with him while on the Beagle), and make it sound reasonable. No further education required, right?

 

Need a more recent example of how it's not education, but what you believe?

 

Carl Baugh was an atheist-evolutionist. "No one" had a problem with his education as long as he believed as they did about old earth and evolution. But when Baugh uncovered those foot prints of dinosaur and humans together in the same layer. Suddenly, Baugh became sterotyped as a uneducated, stupid, moronic person. Who by the way,was always educated by the same school while he was an atheist. Then switch to Christian because of what he found.

 

This is a perfect example of allowing the evidence to guide you. But what also happens if you allow it to go against the accepted theory.

 

Question: Did Carl Baugh's education change when he switched what he believed because of what he found? Nope.

 

So how does one person (Darwin), who basically has the same education as Carl Baugh did. Go from being considered an uneducated moron, to the most intelligent being that ever walked this planet. While the other went from being considered educated and intelligent, to uneducated moron?

 

Common denominator? Belief or disbelief in evolution. Education? Not a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(de_skudd @ Mar 31 2009, 05:08 PM)

As a self proclaimed man of medicine, you’ll be able to elaborate on:

 

Explain how flu vaccines were designed.

Explain how the smallpox vaccines were designed.

Explain how anti-biotics are were designed.

Explain how anti-virals are were designed.

 

Because, make no mistake, they didn’t come about randomly…

 

 

I believe I was specific in requesting you explain how they came about. I even stated I already know how they came about, and that requesting me to define them would circumvent my purpose in asking you to define them.

No they certainly didn't come about randomly. The first vaccine was created by a Creationist and founder of modern medicine "Louis Pasteur". Referred to as the "greatest biologist of all time". How they came about and whom?

 

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm

 

Probably no other discovery in the history of science has saved more lives than Pasteur’s germ theory of disease, applied to immunization.  Edward Jenner had applied a similar method to smallpox in 1796 without knowledge of the infectious agent; with Pasteur, vaccination had a theory and a methodology that could be applied to many diseases.  Though a chemist and not a doctor, Pasteur is rightly considered a founder, perhaps the founder, of modern medicine.  In his later years, one particular deadly disease was to give Pasteur the challenge of his life: rabies

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/pasteur.asp

 

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea also, Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes present. With special glassware, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, but prevented microbes in the air from reaching the broth. As Pasteur expected, no microbes appeared in the broth. Pasteur’s findings showed that microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from lifeâ€â€Â‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

 

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since). Consequently, Louis Pasteur was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory.

 

If one is serious about finding out where so much modern medicine stems from, this is your man. And far from becoming an evolutionist via his findings, it appeared instead it confirmed his belief in Creation and all the glory ultimately goes to our Creator:

 

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.â€ÂÂ

 

Perhaps if you are interested in finding out more about men like this? This book maybe a valuable addition to anybody's collection:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStor...d,4328,280.aspx

 

Posted Image

 

Many Christians are not aware that most of the world’s greatest scientists were Christians and creationists who believed the book of Genesis. This fact is rapidly being edited from our history books. All of us, including our children, need to know that famous men like Newton, Faraday, Kepler, and many others believed God’s Word from Genesis to Revelation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ikester7579,

 

I appreciate the reply

 

If it does not matter that Darwin was a scientist or not, then why does it matter whether a creationist is one? Because you guys like to sterotype people into groups of educated and uneducated as far as science goes.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't do any of these things. I don't believe I came into this forum and started blasting "you guys... etc". I look at the individual, not the institution, I expect the same courtesy.

 

Then Darwin would be considered as educated as any creationist

 

Actually, IIRC Darwin didn't even get his degree in Theology... going off of memory on that one.

 

...sterotyping...

... you guys ...

...sterotyping...

 

Forgive the parody, I couldn't resist.

 

It was because of only one thing. He found a way to deny the creation by God in the Bible (which by the way, he had with him while on the Beagle), and make it sound reasonable. No further education required, right?

 

Perhaps that was the original reason the ToE was accepted predominantly... I don't know, and I really don't care, as it has nothing to do with the present ToE which is substantiated quite weightily by the evidence I stated, and you skirted over for some odd reason. You'll notice I didn't respond to the rest of your post. I don't know much about this footprint debacle, care to provide any references so I can look into it? I am very curious. Thanks in advance. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they certainly didn't come about randomly.  The first vaccine was created by a Creationist and founder of modern medicine "Louis Pasteur".  Referred to as the "greatest biologist of all time".  How they came about and whom? 

 

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/pasteur.asp

 

I was taught that Hippocrates was the founder of modern medicine. Given the Hippocratic Oath, and the methodology he applied. If not I would say Avicenna is a good second. Not that I don't agree Pasteur made monumental breakthroughs as well, but his methodology was dependent upon that of Hippocrates.

 

If one is serious about finding out where so much modern medicine stems from, this is your man.  And far from becoming an evolutionist via his findings, it appeared instead it confirmed his belief in Creation and all the glory ultimately goes to our Creator:

 

Sure, we are all agreed there is a creator, but by what means His creation operates seems to be our difference of opinion.

 

Seems I am not getting a direct answer from anyone on how these things were developed.

 

Vaccines', Anti-Virals', and Anti-Biotics' development and continued advancement depend entirely on Evolution. They depend on the model evolution provides in that the target organism changes. The same scientists you reject for accepting evolution are the ones developing these latest vaccines, and therapies to be utilized in the curing of Cancer (HPV comes to mind), HIV, aging, balding, and various other ailments. I think the quote best comes to mind is:

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough on Isaac Newton. IIRC a scientist is an individual who utilizes the scientific method. I wouldn't be so soon to refuse Darwin the title of scientist.

27512[/snapback]

The point is that Isaac Newton was always renown as a scientist. Darwin was not recognized as a man of science until it was convenient to evolution. I suppose, based upon your previous post, everyone can be considered a scientist, as we all use the scientific method in everyday activities. But, whenever an everyday schmuck conducts their observations on everyday life, it will not make it into the secular “peer reviewed” publications due to their lack of certain credentials. Therefore, Darwin’s observations would not make it into these publications due to his lack of said credentials.

 

Anytime I have seen an individual refer to Darwin's own doubts, it is usually a passage from the Origin of Species, as a part of a pretense for Darwin to throw out his own conceptualization of a solution to the doubt. Just my observation.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

Source: Wiki

I believe this fits your argument.

27512[/snapback]

It doesn’t matter what the “commonly used” reference for the Ad hominem argument is, when considering a specific argument. That would be generalizing, and an overall prejudice against the argument I made.

 

As I said before, this wasn’t an Ad hominem argument against the man; it was against the origin of the model we know as evolution based upon the lack of education and credentials.

 

As an aside, I tend to stay away from wiki for obvious reasons.

 

Modern Evolution is no longer contigent upon Darwin's observations. It is substantiated by biology, geology, and archeology.

27512[/snapback]

Whether it’s seen as “contingent upon Darwin's observations” or not, the fact is; the model of evolution is based on Darwin’s flawed observations.

 

I believe I was specific in requesting you explain how they came about. I even stated I already know how they came about, and that requesting me to define them would circumvent my purpose in asking you to define them.

Forgive my error. I should have stated "Evolution being used in predicting that in order for our 46 chromosome". I would appreciate a response to the topic I was refering to, please.

27512[/snapback]

I was specific. They were designed by man, not evolved by random chance! My questions were rhetorical, and fundamental. Your stating of personal knowledge to their origins doesn’t change the fact for their non-evolution.

 

I fail to see how ERVs represent design. What use would ERV commonalities provide other than the illusion of common descent?

27512[/snapback]

Ok;

a- It’s not my fault you fail to see the design.

b- The fact that there is no evidence for evolution in your premise, is not illusory.

 

The fact that we have ERV commonalities (and disassociations) in placement and ERV strain with our Primate cousins demonstrates that we indeed decended from a common ancestor.

Ring species are the best evidence for speciation occuring.

Greenish Warblers

 

Ensatina eschscholtzii

Ring species in effect follow a geographical pattern. As the parent species spreads out, it's outermost parts become geographically isolated. With this isolation, the dispersion of genetic material within the entire group becomes limited. The continual spreading causes even greater seperation until the outermost part becomes completely incapable of reproducing with the original parent population.

Here is a formula example:

ABCDEF X A

A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, C can reproduce with D, D can reproduce with E, E can reproduce with F, but F CANNOT reproduce with A.

27512[/snapback]

Two excellent reference sites Michamus, I’ll keep them for future use. The last I checked, these are all still “Warblers”, and have not evolved into anything else. Just because the songs and plumage patterns differ subtly, doesn’t change the fact that they are “Warblers”. I’m still waiting to see the evolution connection here… It seems this “ring species” red herring for evolution is more akin to cotton candy. Its fluffed up spun sugar that kids enjoy. But in the end, too much still rots your teeth.

 

I am really unsure as to what you are trying to express here.

The division is not clear. It is gradient. A species is never going to give rise to another species within a single generation. Ring species are the best example of how evolution drives speciation.

27512[/snapback]

It was pretty plain and simple. Evolution failed miserably to show transitional creatures (low these hundreds of years), so now they’re attempting to prove macroevolution by microorganism (take it easy, it’s just poetic license).

At this rate I will be a millionaire ;)

27512[/snapback]

Then share the wealth, not the fluff :D

As a note, I don't want you to think that our disagreements are taken on a personal level. I do not feel that I am my beliefs (so to speak). I prefer to be open, and go where the evidence takes me.

27512[/snapback]

I don’t take them on the personal level Michamus; because I haven’t seen you attack anyone… But, we are our beliefs because our personal beliefs shape our personal philosophies…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last I checked, these are all still “Warblersâ€ÂÂ, and have not evolved into anything else. Just because the songs and plumage patterns differ subtly, doesn’t change the fact that they are “Warblersâ€ÂÂ.

 

That is the hang up. The ToE doesn't say that a parent will give birth to a child of obvious difference. These changes accumulate. In absence of a protective measure to prevent accumulation, it is logically inevitable that the offspring 100,000 generations down the lines, will be vastly different than their ancestors 100,000 generations ago. What I am saying is, unless a protective measure is shown to prevent accumulation of change, there is no reason to state one exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the hang up. The ToE doesn't say that a parent will give birth to a child of obvious difference. These changes accumulate. In absence of a protective measure to prevent accumulation, it is logically inevitable that the offspring 100,000 generations down the lines, will be vastly different than their ancestors 100,000 generations ago. What I am saying is, unless a protective measure is shown to prevent accumulation of change, there is no reason to state one exists.

27579[/snapback]

I know, I know, we've heard it all before; Over Miiiiiiiiiiillons of years (aka 100,000 generations). Show the transitional change that has happened! It hasn't been done yet. For all the boastful (and fanciful) rhetoric of evolutionists (i.e. over miiiiiiiiiillions of years, or 100,000 generations) it boils down to this; they pin their hopes on a warbler's song variation or wing camouflage, but the warbler is still a warbler! So, wah-lah, if we imagine massive amounts of time, we can hypothesize all kinds of miracles!

 

That's definitely a hang up!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some things which are not directly observed exist. This does not mean that all things which are not directly observed exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things which are not directly observed exist. This does not mean that all things which are not directly observed exist.

27593[/snapback]

Here's the thing CTD; evolutheists don't mind believing in unobserved things (as long as it isn't an omniscient, omnipresent God), because this helps theorists theorize things they cannot prove. But the relativists in them won't allow them to accept absolutes (truth, facts, proofs and evidences that support absolutes). It's like having the cake, eating it, but not sharing with those who pull the rug of facts, out from underneath the feet of pseudo-scientific evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These changes accumulate. In absence of a protective measure to prevent accumulation, it is logically inevitable that the offspring 100,000 generations down the lines, will be vastly different than their ancestors 100,000 generations ago.

27579[/snapback]

And yet we have observed absolutely no evidence of these occurrences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the hang up. The ToE doesn't say that a parent will give birth to a child of obvious difference.

27579[/snapback]

OK, so TOE can speak? What did he/she/it say then?

 

These changes accumulate.

27579[/snapback]

And yet, after the accumulation of all these changed an ape is still and ape, a man is still a man, a fish is still a fish, and slime has always been slime, Nothing more!

 

 

In absence of a protective measure to prevent accumulation, it is logically inevitable that the offspring 100,000 generations down the lines, will be vastly different than their ancestors 100,000 generations ago. What I am saying is, unless a protective measure is shown to prevent accumulation of change, there is no reason to state one exists.

27579[/snapback]

In the absence of common sense, that illogic might be inevitable. But, in the real world an ape is still and ape, a man is still a man, a fish is still a fish, and slime has always been slime, Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument against the man)

It doesn't matter whether Darwin was a scientist, or a drug warlord, the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on Darwin at all. The ToE has made many more discoveries, predictions, and applications than Darwin could have ever imagined. A few examples:

Small Pox Vaccine

Flu Immunization Injections

Anti-Viral Therapies

Anti-Biotic Therapies

High-Yield Crops

Radically Improved Hybridization of Livestock

Stem Cell Therapies (Yes, even baldness can be cured using stem cells)

and the list goes on...

 

Not to mention the genetic data, that is explained scientifically only within the ToE:

Human Chromosome 2

ERV commonalities with our primate cousins

The emergence of Nylon consuming bacteria

and the list goes on...

 

Honestly, I really don't care about Darwin one way or another. Darwin was one of the first people to propose the concept of evolution. The ToE is supported by such a volume of evidence, it need not rely on the character or qualifications of Darwin.

Provide how ANY of those discoveries have any correlations with macroevolution!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Small Pox Vaccine
Flu Immunization Injections
Anti-Viral Therapies
Anti-Biotic Therapies
High-Yield Crops
Radically Improved Hybridization of Livestock
Stem Cell Therapies (Yes, even baldness can be cured using stem cells)
and the list goes on..."

 

All this is Biotechnology, the field I studied in, and I can assure the readers that it has nothing, I repeat NOTHING. To do with evolution / macro-evolution.

 

 

Vaccines and Immunization are the same thing. They are products of the field of medicine. Nothing in evolution theory predicts anything to do with vaccine mechanisms etc. This is claimed as "evidence of evolution" ad hoc when there is nothing to link it to the theory.

 

Antivirals / Antibiotics, again a product of the field of medicine. This also has no link to evolution. I know that antibiotic resistance is claimed as "evidence of evolution" however the fact of the matter is that resistant bacteria are still the same bacteria they were before, in terms of evolutionary change nothing has happened.. This is a case of evolutionists simply claiming all change is evidence of evolution, despite the fact that the change observed has no relevance to evolutionary change.

 

High yield crops are agricultural biotechnology where either plant breeding or GM crops lead to an increased yield, (there are a few other methodologies for the same effect but that is a tangent). This also has no relevance to evolution since

A- Humans are controlling the change, not "natural selection"

B- The plants remain the same plant (unless you have hybrids but that is another story). Meaning the change observed (increased yield), is not relevant to evolutionary change.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "Radically Improved Hybridization of Livestock"? Are you implying stock breeding programs? Because a cow is still a cow if a breeding program was in place or not... Improvements can be made to the breed of cow, however as I have mentioned such change has no relevance to evolutionary change since it is STILL a cow.

 

Stem Cell Therapies... Once again there is no link between this and evolution. The pluripotent nature of stem cells has nothing to do with the belief we evolved from bacteria... Only a small amount of consideration will confirms this, however if someone wants to correct me please feel free to demonstrate a link between these.

 

 

 

I will further stress that to claim any change is evidence of evolution is to demonstrate ones own misunderstanding / dogmatic view on the subject. Small changes are not evidence of macro changes UNLESS you first assume that the small changes are capable of adding to larger ones, which means you've just added your own presumptions to the mix and thus have left the realm of science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is Biotechnology, the field I studied in, and I can assure the readers that it has nothing, I repeat NOTHING. To do with evolution / macro-evolution.

Ahhh, but that is a common evolutionists tactic; Claim it proves evolution, and "Wah-Lah" it proves evolution. And by evolution, they mean "MACRO" evolution of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whoa, whoa, it's magic you know--gotta believe it's so..." As Pharoa said in the movie, The Ten Commandments, "These things ordered themselves." See, we are all just a part of a :Tuing Test--another version of human deceit, But then, we can always power down the computer that's running the program. Boy intelligence is scary. lo smile.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms