Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

Amazing Summary That Demolishes Evolution

Recommended Posts

http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use

 

These, "arguments evolutionists should not use" don't just destroy evolution, but they actually boost my faith, I think every believer should read this article any time they have a day when they are tempted to doubt a creation, I can't believe anyone could actually read this and not be convinced by the exceptional reasoning and arguments put forward by Dr Don Batten. What an astounding summary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly seems like a lot of bunk that either deliberately misinterprets the scientific perspective, or misunderstands it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly seems like a lot of bunk that either deliberately misinterprets the scientific perspective, or misunderstands it.

 

Since you understand "Science" so well...

 

Can you Define the "Scientific" theory of evolution.....?

 

Then Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS that validated/CONFIRMED it as an "Actual" Scientific Theory.....?

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Representing evolution as the, "scientific perspective" is a weak bit of rhetoric.

 

You are using that terminology so that you can move, "evolution" into the category, "scientific perspective" so that you can validate evolution by bringing in the subject of, "science" so you can use the term "scientific" as a question-begging-epithet.

 

We don't have a problem with the true examples of science, like gravity and exotic air or germ theory, because those aren' t the same things as evolution just because they also come under, "science", those theories are totally different, and we can show they have validity using operational science. Not so with evolution-theory, which has it's own terminal problems.

 

So please no more rhetorical attempts to move the discussion from the problems with evolution as a theory to the "scientific perspective" category. The "scientific perspective" is a general/vague issue, but evolution is a specific issue that has nothing to do with provable science such as gravity or oxygen or provable physics. There is clarity with those sciences because they are genuinely defined. 

 

So I think you are muddying the water here, NNJ.

 

Example of fallacy:

 

Jane: "I think people should be paid the minimum wage, and it should be a fair amount, refute me."

Bob: " What about those living in the third world, they wouldn't complain if they were paid less than minimum wage".

 

To muddy the waters is to try and foggify a clear issue by bringing up facts that are irrelevant or more generalized.

 

Example of bringing in a generalization:

 

Jane: "The Lord God of Christianity has always been a help to me".

Bob: "all religious people claim help from all religions".

 

You see these examples are of people trying to make specific subjects more CLOUDED, NNJ. But this subject is only about the weak nature of evolution theory's arguments by it's proponents, it is not about the outstanding arguments for gravity.

 

(is this writing font large enough mike, I think the others are a bit too large)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use

 

These, "arguments evolutionists should not use" don't just destroy evolution, but they actually boost my faith, I think every believer should read this article any time they have a day when they are tempted to doubt a creation, I can't believe anyone could actually read this and not be convinced by the exceptional reasoning and arguments put forward by Dr Don Batten. What an astounding summary.

But that's virtually all the "arguments" they use....?!

 

 

...

So I think you are muddying the water here, NNJ.

 

Example of fallacy:

 

Jane: "I think people should be paid the minimum wage, and it should be a fair amount, refute me."

Bob: " What about those living in the third world, they wouldn't complain if they were paid less than minimum wage".

 

To muddy the waters is to try and foggify a clear issue by bringing up facts that are irrelevant or more generalized.

 

 

They state/mean the argument in that debate a bit different. And what Bob says may not be be so irrelevant as it seems to some. But would it be still muddying the waters, if bob used the term "unemployed" or "people entering the job market"?  (I come back later why this argument/fallacy may matter to the Evolution/Creation debate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, the point is muddying-the-water is an attempt to bring in something that clouds the issue, where there was clarity. Talk about the scientific perspective, turns a specific issue "evolution theory" into the wider issue of how science operates. It is a way out of the debate by making the debate about the vague issue of "science". You must surely have noticed evolutionists love to defend evolution by telling us how "science" works/operates? It is an appeal to authority and a diversionary tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the "We are the Scientists"-argument, also "we have a scientific perspective - yours is religious". And then claiming that Evolution would have been long ago by Scientists, if it could be proven wrong by Scientists. Obviously they never have heard about scientific paradigms and hegemony in academia. Or why even stupid ideas do persist over a long time. And then we are not even talking about a priori assumptions. 

 

My issue is however where do we draw the line between what is relevant and what is not. Isn't that kind of arbitrary? You may note that this also relates a bit to assumptions being made (a priori).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is directly relevant is the case for evolution itself, and not the rhetoric they use Mark, they use the epithetical power of the word, "science" to cast a spell on the public, because they know that everyone believes in the power of science and since evolution is, "science" (or so they claim) then it must also be powerfully true and valid and unrefuted. Logically, it is refuted, in actual fact, by the conscpicuous absence of evidence of the majority of transitionals via the modus tollens rule. (method of destruction)

 

Essentially it is the fallacy of diversion.

 

Group X is brilliant.

Mike is part of group X

therefore Mike is brilliant. 

 

The form of this syllogism is valid but the premise "group X is brilliant" hides a compositional error of treating the WHOLE as brilliant when the WHOLE may well not be brilliant by entirety.

 

Something about the WHOLE doesn't necessarily make the individuals of the group have the same something.

 

Example:

 

People are bipeds with arms and legs. (generally true of the whole, true of our species and defines what we are)

Pete is a person therefore has arms and legs.(Non-sequitur, in fact he might have been born without arms)

 

Evolution is not true or valid because it is included in, "science" and there are many differences between evolution and theories supported by operational science such as gravity or germ theory.

 

So when people say we, "don't understand science" they usually only say that when they find out that we DO UNDERSTAND the faults of evolution, and they SWITCH it into the different issue of, "understanding how science operates" which has NOTHING to do with the merits of the evolution theory or lack thereof.

 

...Well, I've had my say, I'll shut up. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Can you Define the "Scientific" theory of evolution.....?"


 


Evolution of the process by which organisms adapt and often diverge over time, largely through the action of natural selection. 


 


 


"Then Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS that validated/CONFIRMED it as an "Actual" Scientific Theory.....?"


 


But a scientific theory is essentially what is considered the best available interpretation for a wide array of supporting information.


 


Ok, i hypothesise that if evolution were true, fossils more like living species will essentially be found in more recently formed layers of rocks, while less similar fossils of their same lineage will be found in older layers.


 


 


"Thanks in advance."


Uhuh.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

NNJ: Ok, i hypothesise that if evolution were true, fossils more like living species will essentially be found in more recently formed layers of rocks, while less similar fossils of their same lineage will be found in older layers.

 

Like Jellyfish? What about snails, millipedes, indeed any insects, we find them to look identical no matter how old the layers supposedly are. There are many living fossils such as the coelecanth and pelican spider, the pine tree. They now find grass with dinosaurs which is definitely too early.

 

"if evolution were true, we would find more living species in recently formed layers, while less similar in older. " (modus ponen) (quite fair, and honest!)

 

But then can you accept the modus tollens, falsification as honestly?

 

"If we do not find them in more recent layers and not less similar in the past, then evolution is not true" (modus tollens)

 

Generally, I think if you are intellectually honest, you would have to admit that as far back as we go, species are basically the same.  The first bats are fully bat, the first turtles are fully turtle, etc.....

 

Also there is the problem of extinct species. 

 

For example trilobites, if they had remained extant, perhaps still would have been alive today. That is a problem because how can you know whether they would be unchanged or not? Many species that existed in the cambrian clearly have went extinct but we can see that of the species that are still alive today, they are identical, such as jellyfish, chambered nautili, snails, sponges, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enoch 2021: "Can you Define the "Scientific" theory of evolution.....?"

 

Evolution of the process by which organisms adapt and often diverge over time, largely through the action of natural selection. 

 

 

1. Begging The Question Fallacy:  Where'd you get Organisms?  Start here...

 

A. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
 
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room... 
 
B. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
 
2. "Natural Selection" is the Mechanism??  Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical. 
 

It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

 

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

 

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection†language, and the “actions†of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."

Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

 

and, you missed this...

 

Denis Noble: Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics; Oxford...

 

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been DISPROVED. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology."

Noble, D., Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology; Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243

 

"Neo-Darwinism" ='s Natural Selection and Mutations. They,"have been DISPROVED".

 

 

And this...

 

"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."{Emphasis Mine}
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woodstock-of-evolutio/

 

 

Enoch 2021: "Then Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS that validated/CONFIRMED it as an "Actual" Scientific Theory.....?"

 

But a scientific theory is essentially what is considered the best available interpretation for a wide array of supporting information.

 

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

 

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} 

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

 

Scientific Theories "Explain"...."The How" (MECHANISMS). Which are Validated by Hypothesis TESTING.... ( "SCIENCE" ).

 

Ok, i hypothesise that if evolution were true, fossils more like living species will essentially be found in more recently formed layers of rocks, while less similar fossils of their same lineage will be found in older layers.

 

 

This is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy)--- http://www.logicalfa...the-consequent/
 
If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

 

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 
Or
 
If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.
We Observe Similarities.
Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.
 
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?  I can with equal Scientific Vigor say....Common Designer!
 
 
You also have 3 Begging The Question Fallacies:
 
1. more recently formed layers of rocks.    Please Validate/CONFIRM the "AGE" via the Scientific Method....?
 
2. similar fossils of their same lineage.  Please Validate/CONFIRM "Lineage" via The Scientific Method....?
 
3. will be found in older layers.   Please Validate/CONFIRM the "AGE" via the Scientific Method....?

 

 

regards

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Jellyfish? What about snails, millipedes, indeed any insects, we find them to look identical no matter how old the layers supposedly are. There are many living fossils such as the coelecanth and pelican spider, the pine tree. They now find grass with dinosaurs which is definitely too early.

It doesn't matter if we find similar looking fossils of certain representatives of these groups. Where within evolutionary theory does it state that every organism of each body type has a limited shelf life ? Show us any modern mammal in Jurassic rock or perhaps a bird in the Carboniferous, then you would have an argument worth making.

 

Why is grass with dinosaurs (late Cretaceous I believe), "definitely too early" ? On what basis do you make that statement ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where within evolutionary theory does it state that every organism of each....

 

Nowhere!!  Because there is NO "SCIENTIFIC" theory of evolution !!   :gotcha:   That's Probably why, eh?

 

To Refute, Please Post It and CITE Source.....?

 

You'd figure with the Most Validated Scientific Theory (With MOUNTAINS of Evidence :gigglesmile: ) in the History of the World forever and ever and ever, somebody could simply post it.  3 Sentences TOPS !!!!

 

I've been asking People from Joe Coffee to Intellectuals from the Hallowed Halls of Academia for about 5 years now and Nobody has ever Posted IT!!   :laugh_point:

 

99.8% don't even know what an "Actual" Scientific Theory is, FOR GOODNESS SAKES !!!!

 

Where we @.... shroom-filled Shangri-La !!!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the record Enoch, it's boring.
 

'Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.'

 

- The Science Council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble it is also boring to have to constantly educate you on these issues.

 

The fact is that I already know that evolution, "allows" for an organism remaining fixed, in it's hypothetics, but NNJameson actually provided a realistic, logical prediction.

 

The problem is, if evolution can cover all of the facts then it is unfalsifiable, so I think NNJ's attempt was at least FAIR, as long as he doesn't commit the error Enoch pointed out. (Affirmation of the consequent).

 

The whole, "show us a modern mammal" in Jurassic rock is just a regurgitated version of "show us a bunny in the cambrian". The term, "modern" is a question-begging-epithet because it presumes that if we find a mammal that went extinct, that it was, "ancient", but like I pointed out earlier, you could say that a jellyfish is "ancient" because it is found in the cambrian.

 

When will you learn that a lot of these popular arguments and excuses for evolution, are just SOPHISTRY. The fact is NNJ gave us an example of how we can refute evolution, and it is clear that the general evidence favours stasis.

 

Since we don't know if the mammals found in dino's bellies are either, "ancient" or, "modern" it is quite reasonable for me to state that we would expect that mammal to be a fully developed mammal, if it is NOT evolution, and what I can tell you is we do find "modern" mammals in the dino-layers because logically they are fully developed, 100% designed, mammals, that are not transitional, they are just extinct.

 

So you are using rhetoric, IMHO. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

2. "Natural Selection" is the Mechanism?? Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical.

 

It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

...

.

I can't find anywhere--either in this thread or the OP link--the claim that "'Natural Selection' is the [m]echanism". From the link in the OP:

 

"Natural selection can only sort existing genetic information, so demonstrations of it are not demonstrations of evolution."

 

Oh, well, copy/paste without proofreading? Let's ignore that possibility and look at the content.

.

"Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical.

.

The human creates a concept to explain phenomena observed. For this subject, there are objects (material) observed. If someone's language is erroneous, then that error should be addressed. (I did find it amusing that God is considered [p]hysical: "the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical".)

 

 

...

B. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

...

.

Software has an anthropogenic cause; as do Ink/Paper/Glue.

 

To which kind of software do you refer? There is compiled and interprative. Would you abandon your analogy to software if you decided that one kind does not apply in this context? And if you decided one of the two applied, I would draw your attention to "genes that are no longer functioning, that are just vestigial, that are not doing anything." This quote can be found in the Dawkins clip in this post. The analogy to software breaks down for this fact.

 

Are you reading this Mike S.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find anywhere--either in this thread or the OP link--the claim that "'Natural Selection' is the [m]echanism". 

 

 

 

How about in the answer to WHO I WAS REPLYING....

 

 

 

Evolution of the process by which organisms adapt and often diverge over time, largely through the action of natural selection

 

 

 

Find It Yet ??   :smashfreak:

 

Maybe if you "PROOFREAD" or just "READ", eh?  Oh well.

 

 

The human creates a concept to explain phenomena observed. For this subject, there are objects (material) observed.

 

 

Post the Chemical Structure, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location of "Natural Selection".....?

 

 

(I did find it amusing that God is considered [p]hysical: "the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical".)

 

 

1.  Well "GOD" is not a "CONCEPT".

 

2. HE can manifest into the Physical; SEE Jesus Christ ( "The CREATOR" )

 

 

1.  Software has an anthropogenic cause;     2.  as do Ink/Paper/Glue.

 

 

1.  It would be better said as: "Software/INFORMATION" is CAUSED by Intelligent Agency.

 

2.  Factually Incorrect.  Matter (the stuff that makes up Ink/Paper/Glue) is not CAUSED (i.e., it's Existence) by Humans (or Nature). SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science".  The final state (Ink/Paper/Glue) is Aggregated or Synthesized from Pre-Existing Matter by humans.  

 

 

 

To which kind of software do you refer?

 

 

The Prescriptive INFORMATION type.

 

 

 Would you abandon your analogy to software....

 

 

It's NOT an analogy.  I didn't say "COMPUTER SOFTWARE".   :gotcha:

 

However, Call/email the Grand Poobah, Geneticists of Geneticists..... and tell him to drop it....

 

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE. 
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) 
 
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine} 

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics) 

http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html

 

 

Can you post the CONTENT of your discussion with him in it's entirety for the members here to review?  Thanks!

 

 

 

I would draw your attention to "genes that are no longer functioning, that are just vestigial, that are not doing anything.

 

 

1. Begging The Question (Fallacy): Where'd you get Genes?  Start Here...

 

A. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
 
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room... 
 
B. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

 

 

2. Junk DNA, eh? "Vestigial Genes" :laugh_point:   Can I draw your attention here...

 

"In 2012, it revealed not only that the protein-coding elements of DNA can overlap, but that the 98 per cent of the genome that used to be labelled inactive "junk" is nothing of the sort."
Parrington, J:
Claire Ainsworth; DNA is life's blueprint? No, master controller of the cell, New Scientist, 13 June 2015

 

 

"Publishing its initial findings in a set of 30 papers in Nature, Genome Biology, and Genome Research, ENCODE indicated that the biologically active portion of human DNA was “considerably higher†than any previous estimates. In an overview paper, ENCODE reported that its members could assign biochemical functions to over 80% of the genome."

Dimond, Patricia F., "What Junk DNA? It’s an Operating System", Noncoding gene sequences control gene expression and influence disease processes; Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, 8 August 2013.

http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/what-junk-dna-it-s-an-operating-system/77899872/

 

“The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.†

John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,†Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49–50.

 

"people arrogantly called parts of the human genome that don't code for protein 'junk DNA'....today junk DNA is where all the discoveries are happening and we know that junk DNA is crucial for gene regulation."

Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)

 

 

3.  Just because My Recipe (Prescriptive INFORMATION) for Peking Duck is in the back of the Recipe Book and I don't use it anymore... DOESN'T render NULL the FACT that it's still " PRESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ";  Now does it?

 

Your Argument (or Richard Dawkins' lol) is an Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy...@ BEST.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the record Enoch, it's boring.

 

 

Why??  Your request is Tantamount to...

 

The Defense exclaiming to the Jury that: the Prosecutor has nothing new; he just keeps repeating the same: Finger Prints on the Murder Weapon, Video Surveillance, His Skin Cells under the finger nails of the victim et al....then claims his client is Innocent because the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything new.  :get_a_clue:

 

 

 

'Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.'

 

- The Science Council

 

 

More precisely...

 

Real "SCIENCE"...is a PROCESS, a Methodology: The Scientific Method....
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
 
Real "actual" Scientists Observe PHENOMENON then construct HYPOTHESES to TEST "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent Variables (Those things the "SCIENTIST CONTROLS", INDISPENSABLE in Scientific Hypotheses)...The CAUSE, and it's EFFECT....Dependent Variables, so as to make PREDICTIONS.  It's an "IF" - "THEN" motif.  
* Science is about TESTING Variables. *
 
Example:  OBSERVE a Phenomenon: Individuals with Scurvy.  This appears prevalent in sailors..who have diets with poor fruit/vegetable intake.  Hmmm, construct Hypothesis:
 
"IF" VIT C intake is crucial to collagen integrity (in humans), "THEN" eliminating VIT C intake (in humans) will cause Scurvy.  This is a VALID HYPOTHESIS and a TESTABLE statement.
 
Another; Pick out the Independent and Dependent Variables:
 
OBSERVE a Phenomenon: Leaf Color Change.  Seems to be prevalent right before Winter.  Hmmm...
 
"IF" leaf color change is related to temperature, "THEN" exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
 
Are we following?  If so, can you please TELL/SHOW How on Earth these have anything WHATSOEVER to do with SCIENCE ??? ....
 
evolution, big bangs, multiverses, dark matter/energy, billions of years, ad nauseam ???
 
What's the OBSERVATION that leads to/then... what is The Scientific HYPOTHESIS, that is: What's the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE used to Form/Construct/TEST the HYPOTHESIS for any of these, Pray Tell?? rotflol
 
If Science is it's METHOD (it is), and the Scientific METHOD contains HYPOTHESES (it does) and Scientific Hypotheses MUST contain INDEPENDENT VARIABLES (Yep) then....WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT !!!!!!!!
 
Sure isn't "Science", I'll tell Ya That!  You can't get past Step 1 of the Scientific Method (Observe a Phenomenon) let alone get within the Universal Zip Code of Step 3 (Hypothesis) for goodness sakes.
All you have is Pseudo-Science Priests feeding you abject Nonsense that you turn around and PARROT without any scrutiny whatsoever and with the Facade and mere "term"----"Science" on the Fence Post.  sheesh, you could call it "ducculslopolgerts" and it would have the same relevance and veracity.
 
It's Tantamount to calling a Tumble Weed.... Texas Toast !!!
 
* Science is a "PROCESS", it's METHOD......NOT the Result. *
 
Now after this discussion, if you still think these are "actual" Science... then turn your tricycle in @ the next depot and report to the "Who and Where am I Institution", IMMEDIATELY!!!

 

hope it helps

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several things Christians claim are non-physical. Information Is but one of them. All the information in the world will not build a sky scraper. For that we need to an agent. That agent is the verb or action cause--the "I" of identity. An agent uses information to create a goal (a desired effect). An agent uses information to make theories and bring things into existence--no random necessary and mutations necessary.

Together information and agency are called life.

Personification is a figure of speech used in poetry and "entertains" intelligent agents. Some of us like to personify the non living. As Enoch so aptly explains the causative agent of hypotheis, theories, ideas and concepts is intelligent agents. Note; the "thought pattern" of Jesus's statement, "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath". God gave man dominion over information, the environment, thought, concepts, ideas, beliefs and matter not "it" dominion over us. We can not observe anything without using intelligence. That makes agency and intelligence the bottom line and reign supreme over concepts or ideas.

Although I claim no information is stored in a book most folks think there is lots of information stored in a book. Books stay where they are put. What book has ever baked a cake?

Similarly information is of little use without an intelligent agent.

"It's not the hearer of the law but the doer that shall be justified".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

I can't find anywhere--either in this thread or the OP link--the claim that "'Natural Selection' is the [m]echanism". From the link in the OP:

 

"Natural selection can only sort existing genetic information, so demonstrations of it are not demonstrations of evolution."

 

Oh, well, copy/paste without proofreading? Let's ignore that possibility and look at the content.

.

.

The human creates a concept to explain phenomena observed. For this subject, there are objects (material) observed. If someone's language is erroneous, then that error should be addressed. (I did find it amusing that God is considered [p]hysical: "the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical".)

 

 

.

Software has an anthropogenic cause; as do Ink/Paper/Glue.

 

To which kind of software do you refer? There is compiled and interprative. Would you abandon your analogy to software if you decided that one kind does not apply in this context? And if you decided one of the two applied, I would draw your attention to "genes that are no longer functioning, that are just vestigial, that are not doing anything." This quote can be found in the Dawkins clip in this post. The analogy to software breaks down for this fact.

 

Are you reading this Mike S.?

Another unclear antecedent. Car to explain your reference at the end of your post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about in the answer to WHO I WAS REPLYING....

...

.

Things don't turn out so well when you can't copy & paste: In the answer to whom you were replying would be your answer. The charge stands: there's no reference to Nat.Sel. as the mechanism in this thread before your post.

 

What's precious and very informative is that you didn't address the other content in post #16.

.

Another unclear antecedent. Car to explain your reference at the end of your post?

.

If you aren't a person who uses the "software" analogy, then I appologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble it is also boring to have to constantly educate you on these issues.

 

The fact is that I already know that evolution, "allows" for an organism remaining fixed, in it's hypothetics, but NNJameson actually provided a realistic, logical prediction.

 

The problem is, if evolution can cover all of the facts then it is unfalsifiable, so I think NNJ's attempt was at least FAIR, as long as he doesn't commit the error Enoch pointed out. (Affirmation of the consequent).

 

The whole, "show us a modern mammal" in Jurassic rock is just a regurgitated version of "show us a bunny in the cambrian". The term, "modern" is a question-begging-epithet because it presumes that if we find a mammal that went extinct, that it was, "ancient", but like I pointed out earlier, you could say that a jellyfish is "ancient" because it is found in the cambrian.

 

When will you learn that a lot of these popular arguments and excuses for evolution, are just SOPHISTRY. The fact is NNJ gave us an example of how we can refute evolution, and it is clear that the general evidence favours stasis.

 

Since we don't know if the mammals found in dino's bellies are either, "ancient" or, "modern" it is quite reasonable for me to state that we would expect that mammal to be a fully developed mammal, if it is NOT evolution, and what I can tell you is we do find "modern" mammals in the dino-layers because logically they are fully developed, 100% designed, mammals, that are not transitional, they are just extinct.

 

So you are using rhetoric, IMHO. :)

 

What's the creationist explanation for the pattern in the mammalian fossil record then ? Those mammals in dino bellies aren't of any species found today and there are no representatives of modern mammal families until after the dinosaurs are gone, later in the Cenozoic. Doesn't it strike you as odd that of all the 5416 extant mammal species none are found with the dinosaurs but dozens of extinct mammal genera are ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Praise the lord Jesus! You are the man 'Enoch 2021', you gave them a boozooka!! I read all your comments and noticed the ones who defend evolution only pick one or two lines to respond to and then hide away lol.

I think evolution works the way; pop and hide, pop and hide.

 

Hey Enoch, can you respond to my thread on Old Earth, and gap theory please: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6491-old-earth-gap-theory/

I am having some problem understanding the Old Earth and Gap theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reponding to above Kairos2014
 
"Posted 03 November 2015 - 01:21 PM
Wow! Praise the lord Jesus! You are the man 'Enoch 2021', you gave them a boozooka!! I read all your comments and noticed the ones who defend evolution only pick one or two lines to respond to and then hide away lol.
I think evolution works the way; pop and hide, pop and hide."
 

Personally speaking, i got rather despondent with this whole forum, and rather bored. But now i step in to read, and i see this. I'd like to think it applies to some of my comments above. Leaving for example this nonsense in response to my saying fossils more like living creatures in upper layers of rock strata etc

 

So then,

Like Jellyfish? What about snails, millipedes, indeed any insects, we find them to look identical no matter how old the layers supposedly are. There are many living fossils such as the coelecanth and pelican spider, the pine tree. They now find grass with dinosaurs which is definitely too early.

 

 

What a beautiful cherry picked bunch of baloney. First two groups (jellyfish and snails) where their rather simple general morphology is indeed very conserved versus some of the earliest forms, and yes you can have little external evolutionary change over time in some lineages (for their gross general anatomy), but so what? I assure you that 'apparent stasis' is not in conflict with the proposed and well-supported evolutionary mechanisms.

And Millipedes? Great call. A lineage where there are plenty of early fossils of diverse arthropods which could actually fit on their stem-lineage, but i'll be the first to admit that more evidence is absolutely desirable to confidently assign any to that stem-branch. And insects what the heck, how many fossils do you need which do clearly show transitions of diverse major groups over time - I'll simply point you to the massive book by Grimaldi and Engle (2005) called "Evolution of the insects" at a whopping 775 pages, which works though each and every single one of the major lineages showing how external morphology changes are recorded in the fossil record ...

 

And why is finding grass with dinosaurs "too early" ??!? Sure, maybe earlier and more abundant than perhaps previously recognised, but its called following what the data is telling us. That's the wonder of science. 

 


 

Generally, I think if you are intellectually honest, you would have to admit that as far back as we go, species are basically the same.  The first bats are fully bat, the first turtles are fully turtle, etc.....

 

And i think if you were intellectually honest, you would certainly NOT say that the vast majority of organisms have older fossils which are "basically the same" as their recent taxa. What a load of nonsense to suggest that. Again with the cherry picking, you've chose about the only 2 groups of vertebrates with major lack of early fossils. Yes indeed the few (very recent) bat fossils we've got are rather similar to living taxa, same for turles. That's because the few fossils we've got of those lineages are recent. Now give me a larger list of major vertebrate groups where it's a similar case of few early 'transitional fossils'. Because almost all other vertebrates EXCEPT your two beautifully cherry picked examples have rather extensive and diverse fossil records showing early forms substantially different from later ones. Gah.  

 

 

 

 

Also there is the problem of extinct species. 

 

For example trilobites, if they had remained extant, perhaps still would have been alive today. That is a problem because how can you know whether they would be unchanged or not? Many species that existed in the cambrian clearly have went extinct but we can see that of the species that are still alive today, they are identical, such as jellyfish, chambered nautili, snails, sponges, etc...

 

 

 

 

How can we know whether they would remain unchanged or not? Well we can't, they went extinct. But, when trilobites were alive, they showed rather remarkable adaptation and diversification, as i'm sure you well know. If they'd have continued, we could expect a similar pattern, some may have continued to diversify and speciate, but others may well have remained relatively unchanged over vast amounts of time, much like horse-shoe crabs have remained largely unchanged, and those other cherry picked examples here above. You'll notice these examples all have relatively simple external body plans. Makes it hard to detect any subtle external changes in their bodies over time for those if they did occur doesn't it? Any why does the evolutionary change have to happen in their external gross anatomy anyway? It doesn't of course, and in plenty of those cherry picked examples it seems it largely hasn't. But what about internal soft anatomy, what about physiology, what about behavioural ecology? You really think all of the adaptation and diversification that snail for example experienced over their evolutionary history will be recorded in just their preserved shells? That's like asking how apes interacted with all other life on earth just from the shapes of our skulls - there can be a few small clues but really not much to go on. Sadly, we'll often largely never know how such other dynamic aspects of these long lost animals were from just those scattered old fossils of 'gross external morphology'. But, i'd strongly expect that a lot of really quite interesting adaptive evolution went on in each and all of those lineages which you're apparently citing as 'remained unchanged' for millions of years etc., but we've got little to nothing to go on from the limited record of only their gross external anatomy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... But, i'd strongly expect that a lot of really quite interesting adaptive evolution went on in each and all of those lineages which you're apparently citing as 'remained unchanged' for millions of years etc., ...

.

I thought his time reference is <= 6K? Did I miss something?

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