Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
usafjay1976

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

Recommended Posts

"A misconception many people have about evolution is what it means to be fit. Humans tend to think about what they personally see as more fit or less fit, and then impose their view of fitness onto evolution, and that is not how it works."

 

HUH??? You must have forgotten the name of the website you are on..

Here is a hint.. It ISNT EvolutionScientificFact.com

 

You just dogmatically spout your assertions as if they have ANY basis in fact because you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing that "Evolution" is real and should be just an accepted fact.

 

ANYWAY..

 

Please tell us how it is possible to have a "Misconception" about a Science Fiction Novel or a FairyTale? Its just like saying that it is a "Misconception" that the planes crashing lit the fuses of the bombs that were smuggled and planted into the WTC towers when it was REALLY a remote detonation device... (911.Truthers)

 

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO REMIND YOU..

 

"The only place that "Evolution" exists is in the imagination of Atheists and Brainwashed and Indoctrinated Oval-Earthers...

 

AGAIN..

 

Variation and Adaptation (Plus lots of imagination and extrapolation)

IS NOT EVOLUTION!!

 

Lord of the Rings is fantasy, does that mean I can't be wrong when I say Gandalf is an orc?

 

Fitness is integral to micro evolution too, which you say you accept. As Mike the Wiz pointed out even most creationist institutions accept the reality of fitness. If you are so indoctrinated into your belief system that you can't accept that differential reproduction exists, then I'm afraid there is very little I can do. I have met people before that are so indoctrinated into creationism that they reject things like allele frequencies change over time in any given population. It doesn't matter what you show them; they simply dogmatically reassert their position without engaging in the evidence and sometimes add that they know what they are talking about.

 

I'm just surprised because in the past you've said you accept micro evolution, and your last line about variation and adaptation is an allusion to that, but I suppose you could be completely clueless about what micro evolution is.

 

 

"You don't have legs, and yes that would mean you are less fit, especially if we lived several generations ago when almost everyone survived by doing some sort of physical labor.

 

WRONG.. People survive by eating and breathing and drinking, NOT by "Doing physical labor"

 

 

INCIDENTALLY I had an uncle who lost both of his legs in Vietnam, He had such massive upper body strength that to this day I havent seen anyone that strong.. He could kill a man by just squeezing him to death if he wanted to..UNFIT? you are a fool.. What are you BTW a Lamarckian?

 

Okay.... and how do you get food and water? In the ancient days we had to go out and physically hunt and gather. Later, and for most of our specie's history in civilization, most people had jobs that required physical activity. Today in the civilized world jobs have shifted from physical activity to more desk-type work.

 

There are innumerable factors that go into fitness, and exceptional people do exist, but I'm sure your uncle would have had an easier time if he didn't lose his legs.

 

No, I'm not a lamarckian. It is somewhat of a conflation between utility to the species and individual evolutionary fitness at a technical level, but I am approaching this from the view of what makes the entire species 'fit'. To that end we can talk about individual utility to the species as it relates to the fitness of the species without invoking individual evolutionary fitness at the technical level; see my analogy about ants in my previous post to Mike.

 

"However, while evolutionary pressures haven't gone away, they have changed."

WHAT ARE "EVOLUTIONARY PRESSURES" LOL....are they kind of like the undersea "Pressures" that the Nautilus was subjected to from Jules Verne 20,000 leagues under the sea? LOL..

 

Ever hear of natural selection?

 

If you reject natural selection, pray tell how 'adaptation' works in your world view.

 

"At this point in time you can find a niche in society doing desk work, which you can obviously still do and have apparently done for years and perhaps decades."

 

Im sure it is very comforting for Mike to hear that from you..

 

I don't know how comforting it is, but it is the truth and salient to the discussion Mike brought up on his own accord.

 

"Remember evolution is about populations; so if you can improve the population through teaching (I think that is what you do) then you are beneficial to the species."

 

AHA.. So the Teachers among us have been pre approved for Natural Selection? LOL... I am going go reference this when I write my book on effects caused by the Delusion of Darwinism.. Do I have your permission?

 

 

"The same is true with Stephen Hawking"

 

You mean the Idiot that thinks that the universe came from NOTHING?

And you call THAT kind of "Teaching" beneficial? LOL

 

The point I was making is that people contribute to society and to the species in different ways, and some people do this despite severe physical disabilities.

 

I have no idea what "teachers among us have been pre approved for natural selection" means, but I'm not hopeful it means I anything I was trying to convey or a logical outgrowth of it.

 

"Stop trying to impose your own view of what is and isn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm;"

 

What is the "Evolutionary Paradigm"? LOL

Did Mike commit heresy to the Church of Darwin? Hmm..

 

"saying you don't have legs and therefore according to evolution you should die is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of what evolution is."

 

WHY IS THAT?? What is "Evolution"? Did You suddenly stumble across some previously hidden Evidence to support IT that conforms to the Scientific Method? I DIDN'T THINK SO..

 

"No wonder you don't like evolution; you are so (willfully) ignorant about it you have less than zero knowledge about it."

 

How can ANYONE be "Willfully Ignorant"about something that doesn't Exist? That is EXACTLY like claiming that Mike is also "willfully ignorant" as to how the 911 buildings were blown up by bombs that were planted and not the jets.

Or he is Willfully Ignorant as to how the moon landing was a fake because he doesnt believe either one of them either...LOL

 

"Wake up! You're delusional! The loss of your legs in no way means you should die!"

 

Why not? If The Myth of Evolution were to be true, Suicide is a GREAT option for any reason one deems fit..

 

You may have heard something by the name of the theory of evolution, yes?

 

Harry Potter doesn't exist, does that mean I can't be misinformed when I say Harry Potter is a dragonborn soul trapped in an iron golem on another planet that mines adamantium for the galactic overlord Xenu? Do you not see how ridiculous your objection is to my post, or are you just failing at 'mocking' me?

 

The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't know why that is so hard for creationists to understand.

 

"You are beneficial to the species."

 

Oh how nice of you to let Mike know that..

 

I do what I can.

 

"Your life has positive value whether you choose to recognize it or not."

 

Mike was merely mocking you...as a child of God, Mike is fully aware that his life is priceless.. It is Literally worth more than all the Gold and Silver on the Planet.. An he also knows that his future is brighter than any shining star thanks to God's Truth and Love and guarantee of eternal life through his Son..

 

 

YOU HOWEVER... You are ALREADY DEAD as far as God is concerned.. You are literally a walking talking Corpse.. And thanks to your Arrogance, Condescension and rejection of God's truth, Your future is as bleak as can be..

 

And you are a Willfully Ignorant Participant...

 

What makes you think I wasn't playing along? I suppose I could have gone the other way and folded into Mike's gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and told him he should kill himself, but I prefer my alternative handling of the situation.

 

Ah yes, the allusion to 'you're going to Hell' speech, how original. That's the response I get for telling someone that their life matters: I'm going to Hell, lol.

 

If I'm going to Hell anyway, why shouldn't I go around murdering and stealing and living the 'good life' while I have the chance? You have given me a lot to think about; perhaps I should go out and rob a bank, and if I end up killing a teller or a cop, so what, my fate is unchanged, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blitzking: YOU HOWEVER... You are ALREADY DEAD as far as God is concerned.. You are literally a walking talking Corpse.. And thanks to your Arrogance, Condescension and rejection of God's truth, Your future is as bleak as can be..

 

Bk.....

 

In all honesty I was like, "WOW!"...it just seemed a very angry post. Since you used LOTR, then I will say, "settle down my lad". :D

 

I think Goku was just giving the hypothetical explanation as he sees it, that the evolutionist scientists would give, to be honest. What he would call evolution pressure, we ourselves would probably call, "selection pressure". But this doesn't mean we are arguing for macro.

 

I know why the heat of battle can cause us to get riled up of course.

 

May I just say (since part of my name "Michael" means, "one who makes peaceful waves" according to my keyring ;) that I think God sees Goku and an intelligent, knowledgeable person willing to understand a matter properly and that there is still a chance that Goku may see an overall more teleological theme to life some day, ere long when his brow has aged and he can make smoke rings with his pipe he may well remember our discussions and do we really want him to remember these words; "a fire-breathing, hell, fire and brimstone bunch of Bubbas that would near hang me at the neck if I even attempted a hypothetical explanation". ;)

 

"Can't we all just get along". :D

 

(BK I know that deep down you would agree with me that the Lord is not finished with Goku and knows a way to convince Him that it is still possible for him to come back to the Lord, ere long after his fraternisation with the dark side of the force). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Blitzking: YOU HOWEVER... You are ALREADY DEAD as far as God is concerned.. You are literally a walking talking Corpse.. And thanks to your Arrogance, Condescension and rejection of God's truth, Your future is as bleak as can be..

 

Bk.....

 

In all honesty I was like, "WOW!"...it just seemed a very angry post. Since you used LOTR, then I will say, "settle down my lad". :D

 

I think Goku was just giving the hypothetical explanation as he sees it, that the evolutionist scientists would give, to be honest. What he would call evolution pressure, we ourselves would probably call, "selection pressure". But this doesn't mean we are arguing for macro.

 

I know why the heat of battle can cause us to get riled up of course.

 

May I just say (since part of my name "Michael" means, "one who makes peaceful waves" according to my keyring ;) that I think God sees Goku and an intelligent, knowledgeable person willing to understand a matter properly and that there is still a chance that Goku may see an overall more teleological theme to life some day, ere long when his brow has aged and he can make smoke rings with his pipe he may well remember our discussions and do we really want him to remember these words; "a fire-breathing, hell, fire and brimstone bunch of Bubbas that would near hang me at the neck if I even attempted a hypothetical explanation". ;)

 

"Can't we all just get along". :D

 

(BK I know that deep down you would agree with me that the Lord is not finished with Goku and knows a way to convince Him that it is still possible for him to come back to the Lord, ere long after his fraternisation with the dark side of the force). 

 

"BK I know that deep down you would agree with me that the Lord is not finished with Goku and knows a way to convince Him that it is still possible for him to come back to the Lord, ere long after his fraternisation with the dark side of the force)."

 

Yes I do agree with you 100%... Just trying to snap him out of his trance while he still has breath in his lungs..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blitzking: Yes I do agree with you 100%... Just trying to snap him out of his trance while he still has breath in his lungs..

 

Perhaps with less, shall we say.........ferocity, the next time.  :D Remember proverbs says a gentle word can make someone listen, and calm the storms of contention. 

 

It's none of my business how you conduct your posts, so I don't mean it in the sense of criticism, it's just that sometimes we have to search ourselves and ask ourselves if the Lord would think what we have just said was really necessary.

 

Sometimes Christians can make hell almost sound like a threat, like they get so frustrated with the atheist, that they start to basically threaten them with hell. I think we should check ourselves if we get to that stage, because IMHO, that will put them off Christianity even more, because the impression you get is that you're being very angrily told off by someone with a religious judgemental spirit, (Pharisaical).

 

But I can tell that you are zealous for the Lord, rather than religious. And He sees your efforts to stand for the Lord, and I believe He is pleased, which is why I believe personally, He is happy that I mention this to you, so that you can direct your furious rebukes in an even more effective way.....so to speak. :D

 

(one thing I always try to remind myself, is that we fight " not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces" (paraphrase).

 

Remember, if the enemy reads your post and sees you have ended up fighting with others, he will laugh at you, he would love for us to fall into the trap of contention with others - he wants us to war against flesh rather than being an example of Christ, so that we will do his will rather than Gods.

 

I'll shut up now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"A misconception many people have about evolution is what it means to be fit. Humans tend to think about what they personally see as more fit or less fit, and then impose their view of fitness onto evolution, and that is not how it works."

 

HUH??? You must have forgotten the name of the website you are on..

Here is a hint.. It ISNT EvolutionScientificFact.com

You just dogmatically spout your assertions as if they have ANY basis in fact because you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing that "Evolution" is real and should be just an accepted fact.

ANYWAY..

Please tell us how it is possible to have a "Misconception" about a Science Fiction Novel or a FairyTale? Its just like saying that it is a "Misconception" that the planes crashing lit the fuses of the bombs that were smuggled and planted into the WTC towers when it was REALLY a remote detonation device... (911.Truthers)

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO REMIND YOU..

"The only place that "Evolution" exists is in the imagination of Atheists and Brainwashed and Indoctrinated Oval-Earthers...

AGAIN..

Variation and Adaptation (Plus lots of imagination and extrapolation)

IS NOT EVOLUTION!!

 

Lord of the Rings is fantasy, does that mean I can't be wrong when I say Gandalf is an orc?

 

Fitness is integral to micro evolution too, which you say you accept. As Mike the Wiz pointed out even most creationist institutions accept the reality of fitness. If you are so indoctrinated into your belief system that you can't accept that differential reproduction exists, then I'm afraid there is very little I can do. I have met people before that are so indoctrinated into creationism that they reject things like allele frequencies change over time in any given population. It doesn't matter what you show them; they simply dogmatically reassert their position without engaging in the evidence and sometimes add that they know what they are talking about.

 

I'm just surprised because in the past you've said you accept micro evolution, and your last line about variation and adaptation is an allusion to that, but I suppose you could be completely clueless about what micro evolution is.

 

 

"You don't have legs, and yes that would mean you are less fit, especially if we lived several generations ago when almost everyone survived by doing some sort of physical labor.

WRONG.. People survive by eating and breathing and drinking, NOT by "Doing physical labor"

INCIDENTALLY I had an uncle who lost both of his legs in Vietnam, He had such massive upper body strength that to this day I havent seen anyone that strong.. He could kill a man by just squeezing him to death if he wanted to..UNFIT? you are a fool.. What are you BTW a Lamarckian?

 

Okay.... and how do you get food and water? In the ancient days we had to go out and physically hunt and gather. Later, and for most of our specie's history in civilization, most people had jobs that required physical activity. Today in the civilized world jobs have shifted from physical activity to more desk-type work.

 

There are innumerable factors that go into fitness, and exceptional people do exist, but I'm sure your uncle would have had an easier time if he didn't lose his legs.

 

No, I'm not a lamarckian. It is somewhat of a conflation between utility to the species and individual evolutionary fitness at a technical level, but I am approaching this from the view of what makes the entire species 'fit'. To that end we can talk about individual utility to the species as it relates to the fitness of the species without invoking individual evolutionary fitness at the technical level; see my analogy about ants in my previous post to Mike.

 

"However, while evolutionary pressures haven't gone away, they have changed."

 

WHAT ARE "EVOLUTIONARY PRESSURES" LOL....are they kind of like the undersea "Pressures" that the Nautilus was subjected to from Jules Verne 20,000 leagues under the sea? LOL..

 

Ever hear of natural selection?

 

If you reject natural selection, pray tell how 'adaptation' works in your world view.

 

"At this point in time you can find a niche in society doing desk work, which you can obviously still do and have apparently done for years and perhaps decades."

Im sure it is very comforting for Mike to hear that from you..

 

I don't know how comforting it is, but it is the truth and salient to the discussion Mike brought up on his own accord.

 

"Remember evolution is about populations; so if you can improve the population through teaching (I think that is what you do) then you are beneficial to the species."

AHA.. So the Teachers among us have been pre approved for Natural Selection? LOL... I am going go reference this when I write my book on effects caused by the Delusion of Darwinism.. Do I have your permission?

"The same is true with Stephen Hawking"

You mean the Idiot that thinks that the universe came from NOTHING?

And you call THAT kind of "Teaching" beneficial? LOL

 

The point I was making is that people contribute to society and to the species in different ways, and some people do this despite severe physical disabilities.

 

I have no idea what "teachers among us have been pre approved for natural selection" means, but I'm not hopeful it means I anything I was trying to convey or a logical outgrowth of it.

 

"Stop trying to impose your own view of what is and isn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm;"

What is the "Evolutionary Paradigm"? LOL

Did Mike commit heresy to the Church of Darwin? Hmm..

"saying you don't have legs and therefore according to evolution you should die is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of what evolution is."

WHY IS THAT?? What is "Evolution"? Did You suddenly stumble across some previously hidden Evidence to support IT that conforms to the Scientific Method? I DIDN'T THINK SO..

"No wonder you don't like evolution; you are so (willfully) ignorant about it you have less than zero knowledge about it."

How can ANYONE be "Willfully Ignorant"about something that doesn't Exist? That is EXACTLY like claiming that Mike is also "willfully ignorant" as to how the 911 buildings were blown up by bombs that were planted and not the jets.

Or he is Willfully Ignorant as to how the moon landing was a fake because he doesnt believe either one of them either...LOL

"Wake up! You're delusional! The loss of your legs in no way means you should die!"

Why not? If The Myth of Evolution were to be true, Suicide is a GREAT option for any reason one deems fit..

 

You may have heard something by the name of the theory of evolution, yes?

 

Harry Potter doesn't exist, does that mean I can't be misinformed when I say Harry Potter is a dragonborn soul trapped in an iron golem on another planet that mines adamantium for the galactic overlord Xenu? Do you not see how ridiculous your objection is to my post, or are you just failing at 'mocking' me?

 

The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't know why that is so hard for creationists to understand.

 

"You are beneficial to the species."

Oh how nice of you to let Mike know that..

 

I do what I can.

 

"Your life has positive value whether you choose to recognize it or not."

Mike was merely mocking you...as a child of God, Mike is fully aware that his life is priceless.. It is Literally worth more than all the Gold and Silver on the Planet.. An he also knows that his future is brighter than any shining star thanks to God's Truth and Love and guarantee of eternal life through his Son..

YOU HOWEVER... You are ALREADY DEAD as far as God is concerned.. You are literally a walking talking Corpse.. And thanks to your Arrogance, Condescension and rejection of God's truth, Your future is as bleak as can be..

And you are a Willfully Ignorant Participant...

 

What makes you think I wasn't playing along? I suppose I could have gone the other way and folded into Mike's gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and told him he should kill himself, but I prefer my alternative handling of the situation.

 

Ah yes, the allusion to 'you're going to Hell' speech, how original. That's the response I get for telling someone that their life matters: I'm going to Hell, lol.

 

If I'm going to Hell anyway, why shouldn't I go around murdering and stealing and living the 'good life' while I have the chance? You have given me a lot to think about; perhaps I should go out and rob a bank, and if I end up killing a teller or a cop, so what, my fate is unchanged, right?

"Fitness is integral to micro evolution too, which you say you accept."

 

I accept variation and adaptation, the mechanism by which Fitness is maintained in each and every Kind by weeding out the misfits and infirm and has built-in programming into the DNA of each created kind from the beginning which allows for adjustments in case of environmental changes that may adversely affect the kind..... "Micro Evolution" is a marketing ploy to trick gullible and naive schoolkids into believing that "Evolution" is real... It is called "Bait and Switch" and is illegal in Advertising but apparently legal when it comes to pushing an agenda on unsuspecting kids..

 

 

"You may have heard something by the name of the theory of evolution, yes?"

 

Yes, but it is NOT a theory.. Popper called it a Metaphysical Research Programme.. However, I give it the benefit of the doubt and call it what it is .. A HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS.. I can explain that to you if you like..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Blitzking: Yes I do agree with you 100%... Just trying to snap him out of his trance while he still has breath in his lungs..

 

Perhaps with less, shall we say.........ferocity, the next time.  :D Remember proverbs says a gentle word can make someone listen, and calm the storms of contention. 

 

It's none of my business how you conduct your posts, so I don't mean it in the sense of criticism, it's just that sometimes we have to search ourselves and ask ourselves if the Lord would think what we have just said was really necessary.

 

Sometimes Christians can make hell almost sound like a threat, like they get so frustrated with the atheist, that they start to basically threaten them with hell. I think we should check ourselves if we get to that stage, because IMHO, that will put them off Christianity even more, because the impression you get is that you're being very angrily told off by someone with a religious judgemental spirit, (Pharisaical).

 

But I can tell that you are zealous for the Lord, rather than religious. And He sees your efforts to stand for the Lord, and I believe He is pleased, which is why I believe personally, He is happy that I mention this to you, so that you can direct your furious rebukes in an even more effective way.....so to speak. :D

 

(one thing I always try to remind myself, is that we fight " not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces" (paraphrase).

 

Remember, if the enemy reads your post and sees you have ended up fighting with others, he will laugh at you, he would love for us to fall into the trap of contention with others - he wants us to war against flesh rather than being an example of Christ, so that we will do his will rather than Gods.

 

I'll shut up now.

 

Fair enough.. But I NEVER use the word Hell when speaking to Atheists.. That was Editorialized by Mr. Goku himself..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fitness is integral to micro evolution too, which you say you accept."

I accept variation and adaptation, the mechanism by which Fitness is maintained in each and every Kind by weeding out the misfits and infirm and has built-in programming into the DNA of each created kind from the beginning which allows for adjustments in case of environmental changes that may adversely affect the kind..... "Micro Evolution" is a marketing ploy to trick gullible and naive schoolkids into believing that "Evolution" is real... It is called "Bait and Switch" and is illegal in Advertising but apparently legal when it comes to pushing an agenda on unsuspecting kids..

 

 

"You may have heard something by the name of the theory of evolution, yes?"

 

Yes, but it is NOT a theory.. Popper called it a Metaphysical Research Programme.. However, I give it the benefit of the doubt and call it what it is .. A HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS.. I can explain that to you if you like..

 

 

IOW you accept natural selection but have been conditioned to never use those words.

 

There is no bait and switch fallacy; evolution is both small and large changes, with micro and macro being used to distinguish small and large changes.

 

You do know that Popper changed his mind and said he was wrong to call it a metaphysical research program, and said that evolution is scientific, right? Besides, what he called a metaphysical research program was not evolution itself, but natural selection, which you accept anyway, and which Popper later recanted. In addition you don't even agree with Popper's original claim; Popper was saying natural selection is unfalsifiable, yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable.

 

Fair enough.. But I NEVER use the word Hell when speaking to Atheists.. That was Editorialized by Mr. Goku himself..

 

True you never used the word Hell, but that's obviously what you were getting at. I suppose you changed the tone by not explicitly saying Hell, but the meaning is exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(BK I know that deep down you would agree with me that the Lord is not finished with Goku and knows a way to convince Him that it is still possible for him to come back to the Lord, ere long after his fraternisation with the dark side of the force). 

 

 

The fact that Goku is on this forum is a promising sign ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gilbo: The fact that Goku is on this forum is a promising sign

 

:D That's Gilbological. (If you're a glass-is-half-full guy.) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Fitness is integral to micro evolution too, which you say you accept."

 

I accept variation and adaptation, the mechanism by which Fitness is maintained in each and every Kind by weeding out the misfits and infirm and has built-in programming into the DNA of each created kind from the beginning which allows for adjustments in case of environmental changes that may adversely affect the kind..... "Micro Evolution" is a marketing ploy to trick gullible and naive schoolkids into believing that "Evolution" is real... It is called "Bait and Switch" and is illegal in Advertising but apparently legal when it comes to pushing an agenda on unsuspecting kids..

"You may have heard something by the name of the theory of evolution, yes?"

Yes, but it is NOT a theory.. Popper called it a Metaphysical Research Programme.. However, I give it the benefit of the doubt and call it what it is .. A HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS.. I can explain that to you if you like..

 

IOW you accept natural selection but have been conditioned to never use those words.

 

There is no bait and switch fallacy; evolution is both small and large changes, with micro and macro being used to distinguish small and large changes.

 

You do know that Popper changed his mind and said he was wrong to call it a metaphysical research program, and said that evolution is scientific, right? Besides, what he called a metaphysical research program was not evolution itself, but natural selection, which you accept anyway, and which Popper later recanted. In addition you don't even agree with Popper's original claim; Popper was saying natural selection is unfalsifiable, yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable.

 

Fair enough.. But I NEVER use the word Hell when speaking to Atheists.. That was Editorialized by Mr. Goku himself..

 

True you never used the word Hell, but that's obviously what you were getting at. I suppose you changed the tone by not explicitly saying Hell, but the meaning is exactly the same.

"IOW you accept natural selection but have been conditioned to never use those words."

 

Yes, I accept natural selection, but It doesnt mean what you want it to mean.. "Natural Selection" Is the process by which the weak, the misfits, and the infirm are NATURALLY "Selected" Against, therfore MAINTAINING Strong and Vibrant Creatures..It is a mechanism that was ALREADY BUILT into the DNA Genome of each and every created kind from day one....

 

Just like I dont use Purposely Misleading slick marketing terms like "MicroEvolution" but instead use words like Variation and Adaptation.. I also dont use the term "Natural Selection" as it gives a FALSE presentation of what is actually happening.. I use terms like Natural Maintenance or Natural Optimization.....

 

I hope that is helpful to you..

 

 

"There is no bait and switch fallacy; evolution is both small and large changes, with micro and macro being used to distinguish small and large changes."

 

Of course it is a Bait and Switch fallacy.. "Small Changes" are NOT Evolution..(As explained above) and "Large Changes" are only found in textbooks and the imagination of Atheists and Brainwashed Oval-Earthers.. NOT in the fossil record or anywhere else..

 

 

"You do know that Popper changed his mind and said he was wrong to call it a metaphysical research program, and said that evolution is scientific, right? Besides, what he called a metaphysical research program was not evolution itself, but natural selection, which you accept anyway, and which Popper later recanted. In addition you don't even agree with Popper's original claim; Popper was saying natural selection is unfalsifiable, yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable."

 

So I am to believe that one of the all time Greatest Philosophers of Science didnt really know much about the TOE when he made his claim of "Metaphysical Research Programme" when he made it? What Happened? Did someone suddenly come along and "Explain it to him"?? LOL cough.. Prestige..cough.. Grants.. Cough.. Threats.. cough.. Peer pressure.. Cough.. Funding cutting.. Cough.. Legacy.... Ahahahababa

 

Give me a break.. EVEN YOU DONT BELIEVE THAT...

 

 

"yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable."

 

NO.. I call "Evolution" a HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS Which happens to NOT BE FALSIFIABLE... I will be happy to explain that to you if you like..

 

 

"True you never used the word Hell, but that's obviously what you were getting at. I suppose you changed the tone by not explicitly saying Hell, but the meaning is exactly the same."

 

NOPE..

 

I was merely comparing YOUR future as an Atheist, with Mike's future as a Child of God.. I mentioned that his is very bright indeed, but yours is bleak.. Nothing to do with Hell..which I Never even mentioned or implied.. If you want to include the word Hell, You have a free will to do so, just Dont blame me.. Just like God gave you a free will to reject him.. Dont blame him either.. Deep down, you know he is there.. Everyone does..

 

If you want to pretend that an existence that believes that the BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU DIE is to revert to the complete oblivion of non existence of Pre Birth, while you are just hopelessly waiting for the ax to fall any day now...is not bleak.. I guess I just dont inderstand the meaning of the word..

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

 

R Dawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to pretend that an existence that believes that the BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU DIE is to revert to the complete oblivion of non existence of Pre Birth, while you are just hopelessly waiting for the ax to fall any day now...is not bleak.. I guess I just dont inderstand the meaning of the word..

If I think about it I find it kind of annoying that when I die I will return to the oblivion of non existence that I had before I was conceived but I have no feeling of bleakness about that. I and everyone else on the planet are incredibly lucky to have won the lottery ticket of life in the first place if you think in terms of the chances of your parents meeting (and their parents etc etc), then that particular sperm joining that particular egg. Better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all as Alfred Lord Tennyson didn’t quite say.

 

The annoyance is the knowledge that I won’t find out about the scientific discoveries that await in the centuries ahead and what becomes of the human race and civilization; whether we travel to the stars or discover alien life. It’s like getting part way through a fantastic movie but the experience being cut short before the storylines are revealed.

 

That outlook may be bleak to you but that is why unevidenced religious belief has such a hold on some people. You can’t cope with the thought of this life being all there is so rationalize to yourself that there must be something more. That’s just an emotional stance to make you feel better but does nothing to make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want to pretend that an existence that believes that the BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU DIE is to revert to the complete oblivion of non existence of Pre Birth, while you are just hopelessly waiting for the ax to fall any day now...is not bleak.. I guess I just dont inderstand the meaning of the word..

 

If I think about it I find it kind of annoying that when I die I will return to the oblivion of non existence that I had before I was conceived but I have no feeling of bleakness about that. I and everyone else on the planet are incredibly lucky to have won the lottery ticket of life in the first place if you think in terms of the chances of your parents meeting (and their parents etc etc), then that particular sperm joining that particular egg. Better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all as Alfred Lord Tennyson didn’t quite say.

 

The annoyance is the knowledge that I won’t find out about the scientific discoveries that await in the centuries ahead and what becomes of the human race and civilization; whether we travel to the stars or discover alien life. It’s like getting part way through a fantastic movie but the experience being cut short before the storylines are revealed.

 

That outlook may be bleak to you but that is why unevidenced religious belief has such a hold on some people. You can’t cope with the thought of this life being all there is so rationalize to yourself that there must be something more. That’s just an emotional stance to make you feel better but does nothing to make it true.

"If I think about it I find it kind of annoying that when I die I will return to the oblivion of non existence that I had before I was conceived but I have no feeling of bleakness about that."

 

OK..I guess that I didnt realize that bleak is the wrong word.. I stand corrected..

 

"That outlook may be bleak to you but that is why unevidenced religious belief has such a hold on some people."

 

You mean like the hold that your unevidenced religious belief of Abiodarwinism has on people like Yourself? The belief that FORCES you into believing that Dinosaur Red Blood Cells can last Hundreds of Millions of years if they need to? The Old Pagan Religion of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism all dressed up like "Science" when it has ZERO to do with Science?...

 

"I and everyone else on the planet are incredibly lucky to have won the lottery ticket of life in the first place"

 

Wow, there have probabaly existed upwards of 100 Billion people on Planet Earth since creation.. That's a LOT of "Lucky People" LOL

 

"That’s just an emotional stance to make you feel better but does nothing to make it true."

 

I guess it might seem that way to you as someone who hasnt experienced God's spiritual presence in your life.. Every Born Again Christian know exactly what I am talking about.. We have humbled outself and placed our Faith in our Creator...You still have a chance to though..

As long as your heart is still beating and your conscience is not seared behond hope that is....Like Gilbo said.. There is still a reason You are still on this forum.. You could be on an Atheists Forum with like minded ones instead.. But you are here on Evolution Fairy Tale...

 

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like the hold that your unevidenced religious belief of Abiodarwinism has on people like Yourself? The belief that FORCES you into believing that Dinosaur Red Blood Cells can last Hundreds of Millions of years if they need to? The Old Pagan Religion of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism all dressed up like "Science" when it has ZERO to do with Science?...

Always the red blood cells...

 

That's nothing compared to the huge swathe of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that you have to pretend don't exist so that you can cling on to a 6000 yr old created universe.

 

"I and everyone else on the planet are incredibly lucky to have won the lottery ticket of life in the first place"

 

Wow, there have probabaly existed upwards of 100 Billion people on Planet Earth since creation.. That's a LOT of "Lucky People" LOL

Are you unable to grasp the point ? Each individual person is a result of the specific low probability events I mentioned.

 

 

As long as your heart is still beating and your conscience is not seared behond hope that is....Like Gilbo said.. There is still a reason You are still on this forum.. You could be on an Atheists Forum with like minded ones instead.. But you are here on Evolution Fairy Tale...

It would hardly be a debate forum if it was only populated by like minded individuals. It's a concept that Calypsis could never seem to grasp.

 

Anyway, it seems that in your mind I have to not only believe in God but have to adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis to be "saved". While I am not 100% certain he does not exist I am 100% certain (with the caveat that God surely would not plant evidence everywhere to trick us) that YEC is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: That outlook may be bleak to you but that is why unevidenced religious belief has such a hold on some people. You can’t cope with the thought of this life being all there is so rationalize to yourself that there must be something more. That’s just an emotional stance to make you feel better but does nothing to make it true.

 

This is actually a false argument many atheists fall into the trap of making. That we are, "rationalizing" an afterlife, as though we ourselves invented the gospel of Jesus Christ and fabricated the message of the hope of God's kingdom. 

 

We weren't even born when that happened. Also, "unevidenced" religious belief is a total falsehood, in the sense that the evidence for a miraculously intelligently designed creation is all around us. If we look at life as evidence for design, it has all of the features of intelligent design. You are the one that has to use special pleading on behalf of your theory, to get around such 100% fact. The creative creation is evidence of the miraculous, by definition. God's hand in our personal lives, also counts as personal evidence, and atheists can't offer explanations for that evidence that would make any naturalistic, materialistic sense.

 

These common arguments atheists use, such as, "it's all invented to give comfort from death" aren't particularly smart arguments. To suppose all people, all religious people of every type, all of them together want to lie to themselves isn't really something that is consistent. It's like saying, "all atheists are 6 foot tall or over", it doesn't make sense. It's a fallacy called Hasty generalisation fallacy. You see that a few theists believe in what you refer to broadly as, "after-life", for superficial reasons so you conclude we all believe in it for those reasons.

 

I thought atheists were the smart ones? 

 

 

 

Wibble: You can’t cope with the thought of this life being all there is so rationalize to yourself that there must be something more.

 

Not really no, people are honest, if God isn't real and the kingdom of God codswallop then I would rather know so as to just accept it and get on with it. It's cynical to believe all religious people lie to themselves, as though a certain human characteristic is only prevailent in the religious. That is absurdly prejudiced and pretentious. I believe in the kingdom of God because the scriptures exist, the bible itself wouldn't exist if God didn't, and I don't believe all of the evidences from archaeology and the manuscript authority, would be so verified if it was fake. That it has a theme from start to finish and is filled with wisdom, especially all of the wisdom of Christ, is testimony to it's authenticity, for many people. I have also experienced God in my own life, in unequivocal ways.

 

So basically atheists commonly tend to use the formula you have just used; generalisation + assumptions + ignorance = wrong conclusion.

 

If you want to change your argument to, "some people" create beliefs to satisfy and comfort themselves in some way, certainly there are types of beliefs which fit that conclusion much better, such as an Indian in the past seeing someone die, then seeing an eagle fly up from some rocks and concluding that the man that died became the eagle. But how a belief like that can be compared to Christianity I'll never know. Talk about apples and oranges. And this is the problem when you use, "religion" as a specific term, and forget that, "religion" also includes the worshipping of holy cows and pagan acts of crystal healing by pagans that don't believe in God.

 

"Religion" is a broad term. Broad enough to even include beliefs about proto-eukaryotic communities that once existed. Sure, you can laugh if we believe God parted the red sea, there's no fact to support it - and we haven't found spaghetti monsters in the fossils, but then we have never found proto-eukarotic progenitors either, or primordial prokaryotes, or pre-bats, or pre-trees. In a very real sense, this is your atheistic version of religion, one that uses scientific-varnish to appear, "better" than other religious beliefs, but to believe 40 sets of eyes independently evolved because you can't find an ancestor that would have them diverge and it would break the phylogenetic branches and contradict them, is a fantasy Wibble. Give me one rational reason to believe evolutionary magic created the eye 40 times. LOL. ....... It simply didn't happen, and the design in those eyeballs can actually be scientifically proven by study of anatomy. (read Paley's works like I am, the description of the joints alone reveal a level of teleology which is off the charts, the rational conclusion for superior design in nature is supported by the existence of biomimetics, whereby we steal those superior designs because they are, cleverer.).

 

Where does cleverness come from? Evolution? It has no mind. Yet there is PROVEN cleverness in life. Did you know trilobite eyes obeyed fermat's principle, Abbes sines law and the laws of bifringement crystals? That the trajectory calculated for the Archer fish's softwared, it's parabolic water jet, obeys and understands complex physics? I'm sorry but it is simply irrational to believe such things were not designed, unless you are saying that a car, with less design could be believed to come about by chance. So then you reason that life, which is far more sophisticated, evolved.

 

That's backwards logic. It traces backwards by demonstration.

 

Example;

 

A small boy can hardly add 2 and 2. A mathematician has a phd. And you are telling us to believe the boy or less than a boy could be trusted to solve a complex maths riddle but not someone with the knowledge to solve a complex maths riddle?

 

Oh sure - the atheists are the realists.

 

(clue; the underlined, "term" and "the law of non-contradiction" are relevant. Perhaps you should study what these things actually mean for once, then you will realise that it is ABSURD to believe the most sophisticated design on the planet stands a better chance of being designed by a process with no brains rather than by someone with the level of wisdom and intelligence that is found in those lifeforms.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: Always the red blood cells...

 

That's nothing compared to the huge swathe of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that you have to pretend don't exist so that you can cling on to a 6000 yr old created universe.

 

Like you've been taught before, quantity doesn't decide it. On a sunken ship which has thousands of pieces of evidence of age (before the 1980s), you only need one piece of evidence to believe it was sunk recently; one coin in the captain's chest inscribed; "1998".

 

There is also quite an impressive induction of evidence of youth, really we are dealing with inductive-tally versus inductive-tally, and if your only argument is, "mine's bigger than yours" then it's not much of an argument given that mainstream science has devoted 150 years to collecting evidence for age, and 150 years ignoring any evidence of youth.

 

Why do you think Armitage predicts that soft tissue is the norm? He only predicts that because he knows there aren't any evolutionary scientists looking for soft tissue. (observer bias)

 

By analogy, if you were to look for evidence that creationists are dumb, you would look hard and find plenty, but would you also look for the evidence that goes against your theory? So then imagine if science had for 150 years only looked for evidence of youth?

 

So you are arguing that a man with 500 washing machines has produced more clean clothes than five men hand-washing could produce.

 

I'm............"laughing at the superior evo-intellect" Wibble. 

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You mean like the hold that your unevidenced religious belief of Abiodarwinism has on people like Yourself? The belief that FORCES you into believing that Dinosaur Red Blood Cells can last Hundreds of Millions of years if they need to? The Old Pagan Religion of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism all dressed up like "Science" when it has ZERO to do with Science?...

 

Always the red blood cells...

That's nothing compared to the huge swathe of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that you have to pretend don't exist so that you can cling on to a 6000 yr old created universe.

 

"I and everyone else on the planet are incredibly lucky to have won the lottery ticket of life in the first place"

Wow, there have probabaly existed upwards of 100 Billion people on Planet Earth since creation.. That's a LOT of "Lucky People" LOL

 

Are you unable to grasp the point ? Each individual person is a result of the specific low probability events I mentioned.

 

As long as your heart is still beating and your conscience is not seared behond hope that is....Like Gilbo said.. There is still a reason You are still on this forum.. You could be on an Atheists Forum with like minded ones instead.. But you are here on Evolution Fairy Tale...

 

It would hardly be a debate forum if it was only populated by like minded individuals. It's a concept that Calypsis could never seem to grasp.

Anyway, it seems that in your mind I have to not only believe in God but have to adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis to be "saved". While I am not 100% certain he does not exist I am 100% certain (with the caveat that God surely would not plant evidence everywhere to trick us) that YEC is false.

"Always the red blood cells"..

 

Yes.. Because they are HARD DATA..

 

As for people "Pretending something doesn't exiat"

 

But let us not forget about these off the top of my head.

 

Cambrian Explosion followed by Stasis

 

Irreducible Complexity

 

The REQUIREMENT For Abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation)

 

Symbiotic Relationships

 

Pacific Plover

 

Man's 10 Interdependent VITAL Organ "Order of Evolution"

 

Caterpillar / Butterfly

 

Measurable Carbon 14 Content in EVERY DINOSAUR REMNANT

 

European Green Woodpecker

 

The fact that we DO have Fossils all over the World..

 

Hummingbird

 

No transitionals (According to several Evolutionary Paleontologists)

 

VERY FEW examples of beneficial random mutations (Should be TRILLIONS)

 

Bombardier Beetle

 

Darwinists Refusals to debate Creationists

 

ZERO Scientific Evidence to support the MINDLESS MYO Mud to Man Myth

 

Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc....

 

You trying to find Evidence against "Evolution" is like an escaped criminal trying to find a cop.. LOL

 

 

"with the caveat that God surely would not plant evidence everywhere to trick us"

 

How can you "Trick" people who will bend their theory to fit ANYTHING.?

 

Are Dinosaur Red Blood Cells one of those "Tricks"?..

How about 300 MYO "Living Fossils" (THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF THEM)

All during the time man was evolving from a fish.. You expect us to believe that these creatures "evolved" ZERO?

 

No.. You mold what you find to shape the theory no matter what..

You Atheists are merely Tricking Yourselves.. Dont Blame God for your folly..

 

 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

 

Jim Thinnsen

 

 

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

 

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

 

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So "evolution" happens....

 

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

 

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

 

Richard Dawkins

 

 

 

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blitzking: 1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So "evolution" happens....

 

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

 

I always enjoy this one, really brings home the unfalsifiable nature of the evo story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: That outlook may be bleak to you but that is why unevidenced religious belief has such a hold on some people. You can’t cope with the thought of this life being all there is so rationalize to yourself that there must be something more. That’s just an emotional stance to make you feel better but does nothing to make it true.

 

These common arguments atheists use, such as, "it's all invented to give comfort from death" aren't particularly smart arguments. To suppose all people, all religious people of every type, all of them together want to lie to themselves isn't really something that is consistent.

 

 

Did I say all religious people ? No, I said some people and what I stated was in direct response to the suggestion from BK that life must be bleak and hopeless without their being an afterlife. Dredge has also recently expressed similar sentiments.

 

 

 

 

 

Wibble: Always the red blood cells...

 

That's nothing compared to the huge swathe of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that you have to pretend don't exist so that you can cling on to a 6000 yr old created universe.

 

Like you've been taught before, quantity doesn't decide it. On a sunken ship which has thousands of pieces of evidence of age (before the 1980s), you only need one piece of evidence to believe it was sunk recently; one coin in the captain's chest inscribed; "1998".

 

There is also quite an impressive induction of evidence of youth 

;)

 

 

You have nothing equivalent to that 1998 coin though do you ? Why does the evidence of red blood cells trump multiple independent radiometric dating methods for example when we know the rate of organic decay is hugely variable depending on conditions and we know radioisotope decay rates are incredibly stable ?

 

Your supposed evidences of youth that you glean from the pages of CMI are wafer thin. You haven't looked at them critically to see if they stand up to scrutiny, you just accept them. If you thought properly about things like chalk deposition and angular unconformities as I have tried to explain in the topics I started then you would have to accept that young age and global flood just does not fit at all, blatantly obviously so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IOW you accept natural selection but have been conditioned to never use those words."

Yes, I accept natural selection, but It doesnt mean what you want it to mean.. "Natural Selection" Is the process by which the weak, the misfits, and the infirm are NATURALLY "Selected" Against, therfore MAINTAINING Strong and Vibrant Creatures..It is a mechanism that was ALREADY BUILT into the DNA Genome of each and every created kind from day one....

 

Just like I dont use Purposely Misleading slick marketing terms like "MicroEvolution" but instead use words like Variation and Adaptation.. I also dont use the term "Natural Selection" as it gives a FALSE presentation of what is actually happening.. I use terms like Natural Maintenance or Natural Optimization.....

 

I hope that is helpful to you..

 

"Already built into the DNA"? That doesn't make any sense; natural selection is not built into the DNA. It's the direct effect of certain heritable traits being more advantageous or less advantageous than other heritable traits in a given environment. That is in no way built into the DNA. That's like saying the speed limit on the highway is built into the cars themselves. Can you tell me the speed limit of Main Street by looking inside your car's engine?

 

How is natural selection misleading? And "natural optimization" is not? I am thoroughly confused on your terminology. So talking about how nature optimizes systems is not misleading, but talking about how nature metaphorically selects which traits are most beneficial from a pool of choices (offered by random mutation) is misleading as it is a slick marketing trick to get people into thinking natural selection is more powerful than it actually is? Do you see the disconnect that I'm seeing?

 

"There is no bait and switch fallacy; evolution is both small and large changes, with micro and macro being used to distinguish small and large changes."

 

Of course it is a Bait and Switch fallacy.. "Small Changes" are NOT Evolution..(As explained above) and "Large Changes" are only found in textbooks and the imagination of Atheists and Brainwashed Oval-Earthers.. NOT in the fossil record or anywhere else..

 

Small changes are by definition evolution; just not macro evolution. You're basically saying me running to my car 50 meters away in the parking lot during a thunderstorm is not running because I didn't run all the way around the world, and it is a bait and switch fallacy to say I ran 50 meters because I am somehow saying I ran all the way around the world despite that I never said I ran all the way around the world. Your objection makes absolutely no sense.

 

"You do know that Popper changed his mind and said he was wrong to call it a metaphysical research program, and said that evolution is scientific, right? Besides, what he called a metaphysical research program was not evolution itself, but natural selection, which you accept anyway, and which Popper later recanted. In addition you don't even agree with Popper's original claim; Popper was saying natural selection is unfalsifiable, yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable."

 

So I am to believe that one of the all time Greatest Philosophers of Science didnt really know much about the TOE when he made his claim of "Metaphysical Research Programme" when he made it? What Happened? Did someone suddenly come along and "Explain it to him"?? LOL cough.. Prestige..cough.. Grants.. Cough.. Threats.. cough.. Peer pressure.. Cough.. Funding cutting.. Cough.. Legacy.... Ahahahababa

 

Give me a break.. EVEN YOU DONT BELIEVE THAT...

 

So you're saying that experts can't possibly change their mind after they think about it some more? Give me a break; even you don't believe that.

 

In the words of Popper himself:

 

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]   https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution   

 

 

 

"yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable."

 

NO.. I call "Evolution" a HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS Which happens to NOT BE FALSIFIABLE... I will be happy to explain that to you if you like..

 

If it isn't falsifiable, then how is it a hypothesis? It's a contradiction. You can put the modifier "hypothetical" on there if you want; doesn't really change the falsifiability status.

 

"True you never used the word Hell, but that's obviously what you were getting at. I suppose you changed the tone by not explicitly saying Hell, but the meaning is exactly the same."

 

NOPE..

 

I was merely comparing YOUR future as an Atheist, with Mike's future as a Child of God.. I mentioned that his is very bright indeed, but yours is bleak.. Nothing to do with Hell..which I Never even mentioned or implied.. If you want to include the word Hell, You have a free will to do so, just Dont blame me.. Just like God gave you a free will to reject him.. Dont blame him either.. Deep down, you know he is there.. Everyone does..

 

If you want to pretend that an existence that believes that the BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU DIE is to revert to the complete oblivion of non existence of Pre Birth, while you are just hopelessly waiting for the ax to fall any day now...is not bleak.. I guess I just dont inderstand the meaning of the word..

 

So.... what is my future as an atheist?

 

You did a compare and contrast between my future and Mike's. You said because Mike is a child of God his future is bright; what is so bright about Mike's future? You then said because I am dead to God my future is bleak; what is so bleak about my future?

 

I think your meaning is quite clear. If I am in error please explain.

 

I don't think non-existence is the best thing that can happen; maybe because I am young and don't see why someone would want to die, but there have been several literary works with the motif that eternal life is Hell, and maybe I don't see it that way because I'm young. The common conception of Heaven sounds pretty awesome if you ask me. However, this isn't about what we think is the most awesome from of existence, but what is actually going to happen when we die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

Depends what you mean by that but nobody believes a bird hatched from a reptile egg

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

So what ? Why should evolution be one paced in space and time. It depends on the environmental pressures acting upon populations. The actual picture is probably a mixture of the two.

 

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

Why should a successful phenotype have to disappear in time ? Maybe there's no scope for a jellyfish to evolve a radically different body plan because it is optimally 'designed' for its environment and there is no viable evolutionary pathway to something else.

 

By cherry picking 'living fossils' you simply ignore the vast majority of species that are different (more so the deeper you go in time)

 

I always enjoy this one, really brings home the unfalsifiable nature of the evo story.

Keep looking for that fossil bird in the Carboniferous (or modern fish in the Cambrian etc., etc, etc.) because that would falsify it. They are never found though are they and you have no valid reason for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: You have nothing equivalent to that 1998 coin though do you ? Why does the evidence of red blood cells trump multiple independent radiometric dating methods for example when we know the rate of organic decay is hugely variable depending on conditions and we know radioisotope decay rates are incredibly stable ?

 

Your supposed evidences of youth that you glean from the pages of CMI are wafer thin. You haven't looked at them critically to see if they stand up to scrutiny, you just accept them.

 

Well, to answer your question, like I said to Norman, because argon imbibed by phenocrysts during heating was proven to have inflated the argon in rocks, proving that the inflated date meant more argon had contaminated the rock than the isotope decay rate would predict. 

 

If you remember, Norman said that noise meant the test for the Mt St Helens rock wasn't valid because Norman thought spectroscopy was used but I looked at it critically and it turned out that the method used was flame photometry, meaning the evolutionist hadn't got the science right. 

 

I didn't get that information from CMI.

 

So logically what can we infer?

 

We can infer that the assumptions of uniformity are tenuous because you have to grant those assumptions are correct, and assume the decay has been happening for the amount of fairytale evolutionary years they say it has. 

 

 

 

Wibble: Keep looking for that fossil bird in the Carboniferous (or modern fish in the Cambrian etc., etc, etc.) because that would falsify it. They are never found though are they and you have no valid reason for that.

 

I do, and i've explained it easily several times. When are you going to get some fresh arguments, if your arguments were underwear they'd be rather ripe by now I imagine.  :rotfl3:

 

And why would it therefore follow that if X came before P that it meant P evolved from it? This shows you aren't aware of all of the species that pre-date the progenitors.

 

Evolutionists complain that "X comes before P as evolution of P came from X" but then if you show them that P came before X they backtrack and say, "well, that just means X wasn't found before P but still could have lived at the same time and earlier."

 

So they make the same argument we make as creationists, that you can't argue from silence. So I'll make a deal with you - I won't argue from silence if you won't.  :P

 

Did you know the Wollemi pine was silent for a long time, they certainly didn't think they would ever find one 300 million years old but they did. They thought grass and mammals came after the dinos but they now show up as contemporaneous with them. So these are the things you requested,,,.....what, did you think it was smart to only mention the ones that still remain silent? :rolleyes:

 

Wibble; "mike if you love fruit show me your lunch box."

(mike shows an apple and an orange)

Wibble; "Hah! See! No bananas or grapes, I told you that you hate fruit!"

(so mike turns up the next day with apples, oranges, grapes and bananas)

Wibble; "hah! you haven't shown me any kiwi fruit, you never can, can you? Told you that you hate fruit, show me some fruit why don't you!"

 

:acigar:

 

I made this following chart myself but didn't ever submit it as it is corrupted as you can see, the font looks smudgy but I hope you can still see that some previously, "silent" organisms have been pushed way, way back; (the red font is where they are now found, the black were they used to be, the ones in bubbles are ones pushed back from even younger eras.)

 

 

 

 

 

Now imagine if we had concluded that all of these did not exist! Imagine if we had never found those earlier examples. Which proves how weak the fallacy is of arguing-from-silence. Why don't you try proving something for once Wibble instead of just asserting the old-school evo arguments that went out of fashion in the 70s. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: That outlook may be bleak to you but that is why unevidenced religious belief has such a hold on some people. You can’t cope with the thought of this life being all there is so rationalize to yourself that there must be something more. That’s just an emotional stance to make you feel better but does nothing to make it true.

 

These common arguments atheists use, such as, "it's all invented to give comfort from death" aren't particularly smart arguments. To suppose all people, all religious people of every type, all of them together want to lie to themselves isn't really something that is consistent.

Did I say all religious people ? No, I said some people and what I stated was in direct response to the suggestion from BK that life must be bleak and hopeless without their being an afterlife. Dredge has also recently expressed similar sentiments.

 

 

 

 

 

Wibble: Always the red blood cells...That's nothing compared to the huge swathe of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that you have to pretend don't exist so that you can cling on to a 6000 yr old created universe.

Like you've been taught before, quantity doesn't decide it. On a sunken ship which has thousands of pieces of evidence of age (before the 1980s), you only need one piece of evidence to believe it was sunk recently; one coin in the captain's chest inscribed; "1998".

 

There is also quite an impressive induction of evidence of youth

;)

You have nothing equivalent to that 1998 coin though do you ? Why does the evidence of red blood cells trump multiple independent radiometric dating methods for example when we know the rate of organic decay is hugely variable depending on conditions and we know radioisotope decay rates are incredibly stable ?

 

Your supposed evidences of youth that you glean from the pages of CMI are wafer thin. You haven't looked at them critically to see if they stand up to scrutiny, you just accept them. If you thought properly about things like chalk deposition and angular unconformities as I have tried to explain in the topics I started then you would have to accept that young age and global flood just does not fit at all, blatantly obviously so.

..

 

"Why does the evidence of red blood cells trump multiple independent radiometric dating methods"...

 

You mean radiometic dating methods, that show, EVERY SINGLE TIME, Measurable Carbon 14 content in EACH AND EVERY Dinosaur remains that happens to also CORROBORATE.and support the HARD DATA of RBCs and Soft Tissue THEREFORE PROVING that they are ALL less than 50,000 years old..Here it is again..

 

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

 

Lets hear more about "Radiometric Dating" shall we? LOL..

 

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.†Louis Bounoure. The Advocate,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"IOW you accept natural selection but have been conditioned to never use those words."

 

Yes, I accept natural selection, but It doesnt mean what you want it to mean.. "Natural Selection" Is the process by which the weak, the misfits, and the infirm are NATURALLY "Selected" Against, therfore MAINTAINING Strong and Vibrant Creatures..It is a mechanism that was ALREADY BUILT into the DNA Genome of each and every created kind from day one....

Just like I dont use Purposely Misleading slick marketing terms like "MicroEvolution" but instead use words like Variation and Adaptation.. I also dont use the term "Natural Selection" as it gives a FALSE presentation of what is actually happening.. I use terms like Natural Maintenance or Natural Optimization.....

I hope that is helpful to you..

 

"Already built into the DNA"? That doesn't make any sense; natural selection is not built into the DNA. It's the direct effect of certain heritable traits being more advantageous or less advantageous than other heritable traits in a given environment. That is in no way built into the DNA. That's like saying the speed limit on the highway is built into the cars themselves. Can you tell me the speed limit of Main Street by looking inside your car's engine?

 

How is natural selection misleading? And "natural optimization" is not? I am thoroughly confused on your terminology. So talking about how nature optimizes systems is not misleading, but talking about how nature metaphorically selects which traits are most beneficial from a pool of choices (offered by random mutation) is misleading as it is a slick marketing trick to get people into thinking natural selection is more powerful than it actually is? Do you see the disconnect that I'm seeing?

 

"There is no bait and switch fallacy; evolution is both small and large changes, with micro and macro being used to distinguish small and large changes."

Of course it is a Bait and Switch fallacy.. "Small Changes" are NOT Evolution..(As explained above) and "Large Changes" are only found in textbooks and the imagination of Atheists and Brainwashed Oval-Earthers.. NOT in the fossil record or anywhere else..

 

Small changes are by definition evolution; just not macro evolution. You're basically saying me running to my car 50 meters away in the parking lot during a thunderstorm is not running because I didn't run all the way around the world, and it is a bait and switch fallacy to say I ran 50 meters because I am somehow saying I ran all the way around the world despite that I never said I ran all the way around the world. Your objection makes absolutely no sense.

 

"You do know that Popper changed his mind and said he was wrong to call it a metaphysical research program, and said that evolution is scientific, right? Besides, what he called a metaphysical research program was not evolution itself, but natural selection, which you accept anyway, and which Popper later recanted. In addition you don't even agree with Popper's original claim; Popper was saying natural selection is unfalsifiable, yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable."

So I am to believe that one of the all time Greatest Philosophers of Science didnt really know much about the TOE when he made his claim of "Metaphysical Research Programme" when he made it? What Happened? Did someone suddenly come along and "Explain it to him"?? LOL cough.. Prestige..cough.. Grants.. Cough.. Threats.. cough.. Peer pressure.. Cough.. Funding cutting.. Cough.. Legacy.... Ahahahababa

Give me a break.. EVEN YOU DONT BELIEVE THAT...

 

So you're saying that experts can't possibly change their mind after they think about it some more? Give me a break; even you don't believe that.

 

In the words of Popper himself:

 

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346] https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution

 

 

 

"yet you call evolution a hypothesis which means you think evolution is falsifiable."

NO.. I call "Evolution" a HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS Which happens to NOT BE FALSIFIABLE... I will be happy to explain that to you if you like..

 

If it isn't falsifiable, then how is it a hypothesis? It's a contradiction. You can put the modifier "hypothetical" on there if you want; doesn't really change the falsifiability status.

 

"True you never used the word Hell, but that's obviously what you were getting at. I suppose you changed the tone by not explicitly saying Hell, but the meaning is exactly the same."

NOPE..

I was merely comparing YOUR future as an Atheist, with Mike's future as a Child of God.. I mentioned that his is very bright indeed, but yours is bleak.. Nothing to do with Hell..which I Never even mentioned or implied.. If you want to include the word Hell, You have a free will to do so, just Dont blame me.. Just like God gave you a free will to reject him.. Dont blame him either.. Deep down, you know he is there.. Everyone does..

If you want to pretend that an existence that believes that the BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU DIE is to revert to the complete oblivion of non existence of Pre Birth, while you are just hopelessly waiting for the ax to fall any day now...is not bleak.. I guess I just dont inderstand the meaning of the word..

 

So.... what is my future as an atheist?

 

You did a compare and contrast between my future and Mike's. You said because Mike is a child of God his future is bright; what is so bright about Mike's future? You then said because I am dead to God my future is bleak; what is so bleak about my future?

 

I think your meaning is quite clear. If I am in error please explain.

 

I don't think non-existence is the best thing that can happen; maybe because I am young and don't see why someone would want to die, but there have been several literary works with the motif that eternal life is Hell, and maybe I don't see it that way because I'm young. The common conception of Heaven sounds pretty awesome if you ask me. However, this isn't about what we think is the most awesome from of existence, but what is actually going to happen when we die.

 

"Already built into the DNA"? That doesn't make any sense; natural selection is not built into the DNA"

 

It makes TOTAL sense.. There is no NEW information added the the DNA genome of ANY creatures.. NEVER.. Natural Selection merely weeds out the infirm, misfits, and the unfit.. Anything else is just your Imagination... But NOT Science..

 

 

"Small changes are by definition evolution"

 

Who's definition? YOURS? lol.. So if a finche's beak gets thicker and longer during a drought and then changes back to pre drought sizes.. There would have to have been CONSTANT SMALL CHANGES.. but what "Evolved"? NOTHING..

 

THEREFORE

 

Your assertion of "Small changes are by definition evolution" is obviously a complete joke.. As anyone can clearly see by my simple example..

 

"If it isn't falsifiable, then how is it a hypothesis? It's a contradiction. You can put the modifier "hypothetical" on there if you want; doesn't really change the falsifiability status."

 

Abiogenesis is impossible BY DEFINITION.. Remember the odds against 20 amino acids with chiralty?.. JUST FOR STARTERS..

 

So how is it possible to falsify that which is IMPOSSIBLE????

 

The analogy about you running 50 meters to your car is a FALSE one..

It would be more accurate to say that since we can observe you running 50 meters to your car, then that proves that you flapped your arms and flew to jupiter a billion years ago... Your example is silly in the extreme.

 

Running is Observable, testable, repeatable, experimental, and falsifiable.. And Running is subject to the Empirical Scientific Method.. A worm turning into a human is Not.. I hope that helps your conflation and confusion

 

 

"So.... what is my future as an atheist?"

 

I am not an Atheist, and I have been corrected by someone not to use thd word "Bleak" to describe your future, So I would say the old proverb "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" might be applicable.. Dont be silly and think you need to worry about morality, Do whatever you like, Just try to avoid getting caught doing anything "Illegal" (According to the subjective laws that are on the books at this particular time) And Hold Fast to defending your faith in "Evolution" , because it imperitive for your "Intellectual fulfillment" (Dawkins) Hopefully you wont be held accountable for your willful rejection of our Creator.. At the end of the day, it is not my call..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

Depends what you mean by that but nobody believes a bird hatched from a reptile egg

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

So what ? Why should evolution be one paced in space and time. It depends on the environmental pressures acting upon populations. The actual picture is probably a mixture of the two.

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

Why should a successful phenotype have to disappear in time ? Maybe there's no scope for a jellyfish to evolve a radically different body plan because it is optimally 'designed' for its environment and there is no viable evolutionary pathway to something else.

By cherry picking 'living fossils' you simply ignore the vast majority of species that are different (more so the deeper you go in time)

 

I always enjoy this one, really brings home the unfalsifiable nature of the evo story.

 

Keep looking for that fossil bird in the Carboniferous (or modern fish in the Cambrian etc., etc, etc.) because that would falsify it. They are never found though are they and you have no valid reason for that.

 

"there's no scope for a jellyfish to evolve a radically different body plan because it is optimally 'designed' for its environment"

 

So a Fish is not optimally 'designed' for its environment"????

 

So we are to believe that over the range of "500 Million Years", as the jellyfish was remaining unchanged, A Fish, living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT, was evolving into a Man?

 

And you cant see why people dont take your myth seriously? LOL

 

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."

 

(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blitzking: So we are to believe that over the range of "500 Million Years", as the jellyfish was remaining unchanged, A Fish, living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT, was evolving into a Man?

 

Exactly, there's no reason to accept the double standard except; "believe it because we believe evolution happened", revealing that macro evolution for that scenario is nothing more than an argument from credulity; "I believe it did happen that way against any facts by faith, therefore it did."

 

(read my signature, it will tell you.) :D

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