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

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth

Recommended Posts

Autocatalytic molecular processes have been synthesized. 

65790[/snapback]

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?

65790[/snapback]

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.

65790[/snapback]

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.

65790[/snapback]

It is not “inevitableâ€ÂÂ, 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.

65790[/snapback]

Actually, if you read the OP, it is addressed to “Atheistic Evolutionâ€ÂÂ. 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.

65790[/snapback]

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 “Factsâ€ÂÂ, are purely speculation and faith based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labs perform tests that teach us how the world works. 

65790[/snapback]

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.

65790[/snapback]

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.

65790[/snapback]

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.

65790[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

65792[/snapback]

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.

65792[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

65808[/snapback]

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

 

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flat_earth.html

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flat_earth.1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_my...phy_of_Columbus

http://reformation.org/flat-earth-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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flat_earth.html

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flat_earth.1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_my...phy_of_Columbus

http://reformation.org/flat-earth-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).

65809[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

65808[/snapback]

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.

65808[/snapback]

The above is what’s known as a “red herringâ€ÂÂ, 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 manâ€ÂÂ, 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 acclamationâ€ÂÂ). 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 abusiveâ€ÂÂ, 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. 

65808[/snapback]

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.

65808[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 herringâ€ÂÂ, 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 manâ€ÂÂ, 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 acclamationâ€ÂÂ). 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 abusiveâ€ÂÂ, 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

65820[/snapback]

I never made such a claim, I think you misconstrued what I did say. When I use the word “manâ€ÂÂ, 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.

65820[/snapback]

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 soâ€ÂÂ.

 

 

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.

65820[/snapback]

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 usesâ€ÂÂ, 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 thisâ€ÂÂ, then you are simply making a faith statement of presupposition. That is all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The above is what’s known as a “red herringâ€ÂÂ, 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.

65820[/snapback]

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 manâ€ÂÂ, 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 acclamationâ€ÂÂ). 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 abusiveâ€ÂÂ, 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.

65820[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron,

 

In a statement you said - "These small changes have never made me, or any other human, anything other than a human. "

 

This is incorrectly inferring that there is a claim that evolution would make changes in an individual - I was trying to point out, by way of an analog, how this was not so. It would appear you seem to have mistook me as to trying to add some further evidence on either side or sideline the discussion. This is not the case, simply trying to point out a fallacious argument.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a statement you said - "These small changes have never made me, or any other human, anything other than a human. "

65830[/snapback]

Negative. When I further said “or any other human†this made the statement “All Inclusive†of “ALL Mankindâ€ÂÂ. That would include “ALL Mankind†throughout all of history (or mankind in general)!

 

And, as you're sure to notice, my claim from the inception of this OP was inferring to Mankind in general:

 

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- 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.

 

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Mythâ€ÂÂ.

65422[/snapback]

 

 

 

This is incorrectly inferring that there is a claim that evolution would make changes in an individual - I was trying to point out, by way of an analog, how this was not so. It would appear you seem to have mistook me as to trying to add some further evidence on either side or sideline the discussion. This is not the case, simply trying to point out a fallacious argument.

65830[/snapback]

Since there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution in the first place, the point is moot when it comes to the individual or the group. So, we can argue the logic and/or the logistics of evolution on that scale, but, regardless of semantics, macro-evolution has no empirical base.

 

Having said that, when you come to the understanding that I was inferring to “Mankind†in general, you’ll then figure out that the only fallacious argument, is in attempting to maintain macro-evolution as anything other than speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative. When I further said “or any other human†this made the statement “All Inclusive†of “ALL Mankindâ€ÂÂ.  That would include “ALL Mankind†throughout all of history (or mankind in general)!

 

And, as you're sure to notice, my claim from the inception of this OP was inferring to Mankind in general:

Since there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution in the first place, the point is moot when it comes to the individual or the group. So, we can argue the logic and/or the logistics of evolution on that scale, but, regardless of semantics, macro-evolution has no empirical base.

 

Having said that, when you come to the understanding that I was inferring to “Mankind†in general, you’ll then figure out that the only fallacious argument, is in attempting to maintain macro-evolution as anything other than speculation.

65831[/snapback]

I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make - It seems to me that your statement, having included reference to a single individual, was claiming that evolution should be observable in a single individual (this could well be throughout all of history, the important factor is whether it is observable in a single instance of a species). If I have misinterpreted, this excuse me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make

65832[/snapback]

To understand the points, one need simply read the OP, and follow the context.

 

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- 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.

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Mythâ€ÂÂ.

65422[/snapback]

 

- It seems to me that your statement, having included reference to a single individual, was claiming that evolution should be observable in a single individual (this could well be throughout all of history, the important factor is whether it is observable in a single instance of a species). If I have misinterpreted, this excuse me.

65832[/snapback]

Here’s the thing… it doesn’t matter if it’s the individual or the group. The fact that Macro is a presupposition thusly renders that point moot! But, if you feel you must argue it, instead of the points in the OP, that is your prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To understand the points, one need simply read the OP, and follow the context.

Here’s the thing… it doesn’t matter if it’s the individual or the group. The fact that Macro is a presupposition thusly renders that point moot! But, if you feel you must argue it, instead of the points in the OP, that is your prerogative.

65833[/snapback]

Hi Ron,

 

The difficulty I am pointing out is not in the points, but in the single point I highlighted - it seems fairly clear cut, and I have given you my interpretation of it, and I fail to see how any other can be made. You came back with to my mind a fairly ambiguous explanation, then claimed it did not matter. I am trying to understand whether you are saying that because no single individual has been observed to change to another species this shows evolution to be untrue or not, but I am no further to realizing this.

 

Although you seem to regard this is a null point, I would regard it as fairly fundamental, as if you believe that evolution claims this it is a fairly wide divergence between what you and I consider evolution to be, and further discussion would need to take that divergence into account.

 

If you could, I would be grateful if you could clarify whether you believe that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true or not.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron,

 

The difficulty I am pointing out is not in the points, but in the single point I highlighted - it seems fairly clear cut, and I have given you my interpretation of it, and I fail to see how any other can be made. You came back with to my mind a fairly ambiguous explanation, then claimed it did not matter. I am trying to understand whether you are saying that because no single individual has been observed to change to another species this shows evolution to be untrue or not, but I am no further to realizing this.

 

Although you seem to regard this is a null point, I would regard it as fairly fundamental, as if you believe that evolution claims this it is a fairly wide divergence between what you and I consider evolution to be, and further discussion would need to take that divergence into account.

 

    If you could, I would be grateful if you could clarify whether you believe that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true or not.

 

Thanks

65835[/snapback]

The point you are missing, is that it doesn't matter, because macro-evolution is a presupposition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply, been busy with a couple things lately.

 

I see you’re still attempting to restrict the superiority of Man to intelligence. That’s fine, but it is far less than you need to do to rebut the assertion; especially due to the massive amounts of evidence to support that assertion. Therefore I’m going to cut out all your fluff, set aside all the other evidences that prove Man’s superiority, and take it to a concise point, so as to disallow your wiggle room:

 

After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man†would have (supposedly) evolved superior intelligence? Why has there been NO other creature(s) to “evolve†superior intelligence.

 

I have provided numerous facts to support Man’s superiority. And it wasn’t even close to being exhaustive. Therefore you will be allowed NO fluff, NO equivocation, NO quibbling… Just facts!

65744[/snapback]

 

The reason why only man has evolved superior intelligence, is because Evolution isnt a ladder, and each species evolves at their own pace. Its the same as asking why a Cheetah has evolved such superior speed. Other animals can be fast, but none of them exceed the natural running speed of the cheetah. And they dont need to, because they can survive just as well without it. Hyenas dont need to be as fast as the cheetah, because they can survive just fine by simply scavenging for leftover carcasses of other animals.

 

I dont think i restricted mans intelligence, as i agreed that mans intelligence is a great thing. What you missed in my reply, is the evaluation of that attribute. And thats quite important. An easy example, would be a 100 meter race for the olympics. If we look at the evaluation of a race, in the simplest terms, we place value on "Who is the fastest of them all". These athletes can be as dumb as a whistle, but as long as they are fast, the value that we place on them, is high. Yet, at the same time, the evaluation is restricted. We dont allow people to use artificial means, like cars, or steroids, because we are looking for "Natural" speed.

 

Now, running itself has nothing to do with intelligence. Many things, dont, and have not for hundreds of years. Yet we still value them, we still give gold medals out and millions of dollars because of this attribute that some humans have. But, in a science symposium, in a chemistry lab, their value is small. And thats the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, you didn’t make a good case as to why abiogenesis hasn’t happened over and over. I added the caveat of “hypothesized abiogenesis reality†to further pull apart your hypothesis.  You still haven’t gotten past either of them. In fact, you are attempting to use the probability argument that the majority of atheistic evolutionists fight against (tooth and nail). The difference is, you’re attempting to use it in reverse. And its use on your part is illogical.

 

The bottom line on this is “if something happens, it has the ability to continue happening over and overâ€ÂÂ!

 

But in the case of abiogenesis AND the macro evolution of intelligence, this just isn’t the case. And, all you’ve done so far is equivocate and prevaricate on the subject. You haven’t provided one shread of evidence to back up your claim.

 

But i believe I did, and the reason why i say that, is because i never really got a reply from you regarding how specific circumstances are not necessariliy always repeating in a set amount of time. The response you gave, instead, was claiming that the probability for Abiogenesis to occur in the first place, is too low, which isnt really the argument i made in the first place. My argument isnt "The probability that abiogenesis occurred the first time, is high", its "If the circumstances that caused Abiogenesis to occur in the first place, did not repeat, which is very high, because as far as human knowledge and evidence goes, we have no example of proto-earth conditions popping up again, then we would not see abiogenesis occur again". I mean, id be glad to discuss the likelyhood of abiogenesis occuring in the first place, but i believe this to be separate of what my original argument was.

 

Again, i have no objection to that. No scientist is saying that Abiogenesis could never happen again. But just because it can happen, doesnt mean it will. Just like, just because you won the lottery once, doesnt mean you will again. I fail to see where ive equivocated or prevaricated my argument, as ive only tried to push a single argument forward. And as I told you before, im not arguing evidence, im arguing that the basis of your(singular) claim is based on faulty reasoning.

 

 

Abiogenesis isn’t a growing field, its an illogical fairytale that is faith based and nothing more. It is not a theory; it is nothing more than a model of a hypothesis with no basis in reality. The problem is, atheistic evolutionists want it to be true so badly, that they attempt to tag it with the “theory†label (as you are attempting above). 

 

Actually, it is. 50 years ago, we wouldnt have had the slightest idea of how to create synthetic RNA from organic molecules. 100 Years ago, we wouldnt have the slightest idea how to create amino acids from natural processes. These are all necessary steps to Abiogenesis. If you think were still a long ways away, i agree with you there. But clearly progress has been made.

 

 

That is the whole point (that you are also failing to grasp/understand/ reconcile! You cannot produce any evidence for either one; therefore you are stuck with your equivocations and prevarications on the subject, instead of acknowledging the truth of the statement!

 

This brings me back to a very confusing aspect of your argument. I dont know how you can produce evidence that supports the fact that no scientist has ever claimed that Abiogenesis cannot happen again. Infact, quite the opposite, the Lack of evidence that no scientist has ever said that, supports my argument, just like a lack of evidence that a Murder victim was ever in my house, supports an argument that i didnt kill anyone in my house.

 

You “don’t know what the exact circumstances†were? My friend, you don’t know what any of the circumstances were! Therefore, you are correct in stating that you don’t know if they “in fact†happened! Further, you have absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis, let alone when it “might have occurredâ€ÂÂ. Abiogenesis is illogical (irrational and unscientific) for many reasons; therefore “abiogenesis†is nothing more than a faith-based myth at best! So your hypothesis on the primitive atmosphere of proto-earth conditions is moot!

 

Although i listed the circumstances that we do know, i mean, if you have a refutation for that, id be glad to discuss that too, but so far, we do know a few things about the circumstances required to produce life. And, again, quibbling about how there is no evidence for abiogenesis, has nothing to do with my argument that i made against your OP.

And, if you re-read the paragraph that I just rebutted, you see a prime example of an atheistic evolutionists faith statements.

No, actually, you did not… Humans have many abilities that no other creatures have.  Humans have the further ability to improve upon, and make superior, the abilities of all other creatures.

 

 

Name me one ability that Humans have, that no other creature has, which is not predicated upon the ability of Human intelligence.

 

You’ll have to provide the link/post number where you replied to Air-run in this thread.

65759[/snapback]

Sorry, its post #29

 

Although you already replied to it, so i suppose this is sorta moot now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point you are missing, is that it doesn't matter, because macro-evolution is a presupposition!

65840[/snapback]

This is a strange and unexpected response from someone in a creationist/evolution discussion board!

 

You have claimed it is not important, however I explained why I felt it was important for the purposes of the discussion. You seem to have dismissed this out of hand and reverted to claiming it is not important without clarifying your position on it. I'll try one last time, even if you feel it is not important, could you clarify if you consider that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

I meant adaptation in the sense of changes over generations (such as antibiotic resistance emerging in a colony bred from one non-resistant bacterium) rather than choices made during an individual's lifetime.

 

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.

65804[/snapback]

We have half a dozen transitional sequences. There are gaps but we are lucky that fossilization is possible at all. The sequences are determined by anatomical principle.

 

Quite a few posts since yesterday. Thanks to AFJ. Two points:

 

Sure, humans have greatest mastery of their environment. If you define superiority in terms of running or walking on the ceiling then cheetahs and spiders are superior to humans. I don't see how human technological superiority invalidates evolutio. Natural Selection is a bias toward what works in any given scenario and could take a species in any direction.

 

Another reason why abiogenesis may no longer be happening is the possible environmental differences with an early Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- 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.

 

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Mythâ€ÂÂ.

65422[/snapback]

Addressing just Point #2

 

To be perfect honest I would believe less in evolution if there were more than one space faring species (or Hamlet writing or radio or TV building or whatever) inhabiting this planet. Evolution promotes diversity but the attributes required to perform those task are very specific and highly advanced (ie requiring a highly evolved brain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a strange and unexpected response from someone in a creationist/evolution discussion board!

65849[/snapback]

Not unexpected at all, because it logically follows:

 

Life from non-life is illogical, irrational and unscientific.

 

Abiogenesis is life from non-life.

 

BUT: if Abiogenesis “were†possible, it wouldn’t be a one time event. It (abiogenesis) should have happened many-many times over the supposed millions (or billions?) of years it had the chance to do so; AND should be happening still today. There is absolutely NO reason why it wouldn’t.

 

Further: But, since there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis EVER having had happened, any discussion of it is presupposition, is therefore moot, AND not important.

 

 

You have claimed it is not important, however I explained why I felt it was important for the purposes of the discussion. You seem to have dismissed this out of hand and reverted to claiming it is not important without clarifying your position on it. I'll try one last time, even if you feel it is not important, could you clarify if you consider that evolution should be observable in a single individual if it is true?

 

65849[/snapback]

But, it is NOT important, because you haven’t provided one shred of empirical evidence FOR abiogenesis. The ONLY thing you have provided is conjecture.

 

SO, it doesn’t matter if macro-evolution for a single person, or a whole population is promulgated by you (or anyone else); because it is moot when kept in context of THIS OP!

 

Anything else (that is ON TOPIC)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ron,

 

  I have not mentioned abiogenisis, and at no point has it come up during our sub-topic. I have asked you a simple yes or no question to try to clarify your position. I can only assume you are trying to duck giving a clear answer, in which case I would be forced to assume that your purpose is not one of knowledge, but one of spreading doubt and confusion.

 

I don't wish to think this of a fellow man, so I am willing to concede this may be my mistake, and as such I will ask again, can you clarify, do you think that evolution should be observable in an individual? A simple yes or no is all I ask (though feel free to add whatever explanation you feel fit to it).

 

Thanks

65903[/snapback]

I see what you are not getting.

 

It's not important because BOTH, whether you "believe" the changes are occurring in a "population" OR a "single individual", are "irrelevant". Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE for EITHER!

 

The one idea (of evolution occurring in "populations") is promulgated by evolutionists but it still has no evidence to support such a notion. So whether someone says it occurs in an "individual" or "population" doesn't matter since BOTH have never been proven.

 

That is what Ron has been explaining. You have NO evidence that MACRO-evolution occurs in a "population" let alone in an "individual". Therefore, it is not a question as to whether it's "because" Creationists think that evolution doesn't occur in an individual verses a population. It's that NEITHER have occurred. You can "say" it occurs in a "population" all you want, but until you can provide evidence that THAT is what happens verses evolution occurring in an individual, you need "Evidence" to support at least ONE of these notions.

 

But since BOTH have NO evidence to support either, then the point is moot as to whether "we" believe that it's an "individual" verses a "population" that evolves. NEITHER happen

 

I hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you are not getting.

 

It's not important because BOTH, whether you "believe" the changes are occurring in a "population" OR a "single individual", are "irrelevant". Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE for EITHER!

 

The one idea (of evolution occurring in "populations") is promulgated by evolutionists but it still has no evidence to support such a notion. So whether someone says it occurs in an "individual" or "population" doesn't matter since BOTH have never been proven.

 

That is what Ron has been explaining. You have NO evidence that MACRO-evolution occurs in a "population" let alone in an "individual". Therefore, it is not a question as to whether it's "because" Creationists think that evolution doesn't occur in an individual verses a population. It's that NEITHER have occurred. You can "say" it occurs in a "population" all you want, but until you can provide evidence that THAT is what happens verses evolution occurring in an individual, you need "Evidence" to support at least ONE of these notions.

 

But since BOTH have NO evidence to support either, then the point is moot as to whether "we" believe that it's an "individual" verses a "population" that evolves. NEITHER happen

 

I hope that helps.

65906[/snapback]

Hi Seth,

 

No, I am sorry, but that is entirely unhelpful, for the same reasons that I have stated previously. While you and perhaps ron may consider that because you have decided that evolution is not true, the definition of evolution is not important, I do not, and have a very hard time following your logic - both he and yourself are on a discussion board that claims to be about discussing evolution vs creationism, therefore I would assume that the definition of evolution was at the very least an interest to you. If you are claiming that the definition of evolution is irrelevant, then I have a very hard time understanding why you are here at all.

 

It is not a difficult question - does ron (or yourself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?

 

If you can answer this, we can clear this up quickly and move on. If you cannot (or choice not to) then I am left confused about your purpose here, and feel that it is somewhat other than the stated purpose of the forum to have a civil debate and understand each other.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of evolution is NOT in question here.

 

It's NOT "... whether Ron (or myself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?"

 

It's that evolution (Macro) should be Observable PERIOD!

 

How can one who does not even believe in evolution (and sees it as complete and utter nonsense, as I most certainly do) even answer that question?

 

It's like asking. Do you think Santa brought my gifts after 12 midnight or before? Answer: NEITHER. Why? Because...Santa DOES NOT EXIST!

 

So arguing, or questioning, as to what time we think Santa left our gifts is moot since He doesn't even exist. Just like MACRO Evolution doesn't even exist.

 

So for evolution (MACRO) to be believed, it must be "OBSERVED" period! Whether it "supposedly" happens in an "individual" or a "population"... it doesn't matter. SHOW us either case or scenario!

 

Now, not trying to get off topic here, I hope this helps give "some" clarification so that you can get back on topic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms