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

Missing Transitional Intermediates

Recommended Posts

What if said:

i find it odd science has been unable to rationalize either life OR the universe, how either of them came to be here.

More self induced baloney. We can think anything we wish. Our reasoninng process (science) is not a being like us! You are making "science" as another one of your many gods. For someone who doubts the existence of God you sure make a lot of them! Science can't have an opinion. That's the realm of intelligent beings!

What's the purpose of spreading falsehoods? Stop mixing poetry with prose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More self induced baloney. We can think anything we wish. Our reasoninng process (science) is not a being like us!

You are making "science" as another one of your many gods.

wrong, science is not a god, nor should it EVER be considered as such.

human reasoning is indeed what you are and your personal worldveiew influences it quite a bit.

For someone who doubts the existence of God you sure make a lot of them!

i'm unsure about a god, yes, although i do find some truth in the matter.

Science can't have an opinion. That's the realm of intelligent beings!

hey, wasn't it you that missed my post earlier?

What's the purpose of spreading falsehoods? Stop mixing poetry with prose!

believe me, it isn't my intention of spreading falsehoods.

 

the biblical god makes no sense to me.

a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one.

 

i have no answers one way or another, i'm like the rest of these dweebs, not knowing what to think.

i cannot assign life, consciousness, nor intelligence to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More self induced baloney. We can think anything we wish. Our reasoninng process (science) is not a being like us!You are making "science" as another one of your many gods.

wrong, science is not a god, nor should it EVER be considered as such.human reasoning is indeed what you are and your personal worldveiew influences it quite a bit.

For someone who doubts the existence of God you sure make a lot of them!

i'm unsure about a god, yes, although i do find some truth in the matter.

Science can't have an opinion. That's the realm of intelligent beings!

hey, wasn't it you that missed my post earlier?

What's the purpose of spreading falsehoods? Stop mixing poetry with prose!

believe me, it isn't my intention of spreading falsehoods.the biblical god makes no sense to me.a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one.i have no answers one way or another, i'm like the rest of these dweebs, not knowing what to think.i cannot assign life, consciousness, nor intelligence to matter.
You do make several errors AKA "falsehoods" and Mike is just pointing that out.. You continue to deify "Science" by pretending that "Science" is some Oracle of Turth (Like your friend Koonin who nobody knows but you) I also pointed out your deceptive bait and switch anology where you ask a "Scientist" (Mechanic) Easily answerable questions about a car motor) and then ask a "Creationist" questions about Origins and said.. See? Scientists can easily answer questions, yet Creationists have no clue... I exposed your vile propaganda straight from hell / Or talkorigins (Same thing) for all to see and instead of admiting it and apologizing, you doubled down.. That was EXTREMELY Dishonest and a Falsehood is very polite to describe what you tried to pull there..

 

You have been exposed..

 

"a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one"

 

Why? You think that God prefers Rites over Relationships? Sounds like you are missing the point of man's existence..

 

"Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me. To the one who is victorious, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne," Rev 3

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if said:
Posted 14 October 2017 - 03:10 PM
Mike Summers, on 14 Oct 2017 - 2:51 PM, said:

More self induced baloney. We can think anything we wish. Our reasoninng process (science) is not a being like us!
You are making "science" as another one of your many gods.


what if: wrong, science is not a god, nor should it EVER be considered as such.
human reasoning is indeed what you are and your personal worldveiew influences it quite a bit.
I agree.
But, can "science" have an opinion? The role of science (our reasoning process) is to help us figure out cause and effect relationships. Personyfying science (our reasonming process) helps to perpetuate the myth that certain subject can't be thought about effectively (we can't know something). Why set limits?

For someone who doubts the existence of God you sure make a lot of them!


i'm unsure about a god, yes, although i do find some truth in the matter.

Mike S: How ironic you have the very characteristics of the being you infer might not exist! Do you doubt your own existance? I am not agnotic about you! LOL

But don 't you realize you created that idea?!
Science can't have an opinion. That's the realm of intelligent beings!

What if said: hey, wasn't it you that missed my post earlier?

What's the purpose of spreading falsehoods? Stop mixing poetry with prose!

What if: believe me, it isn't my intention of spreading falsehoods.

Mike S: Then stop perpetuating the myth that our thinking is limited to certain subjects and inferring that sciene (our reassoning process) is a concious entity!

 

 

the biblical god makes no sense to me.
{/quote]
Because you are a finite source of information and have construcked a belief you can't know. You can't learn?

There you go using a belef you created out of thi air and you seem blissfulluy anaware that is what you are doing! You could benefit from learning to think about your thinking. Doing that imparts a certain amount of objectivity to our reasoning process (practicing science)

What if: i cannot assign life, consciousness, nor intelligence to matter.

Mike S: I agree! There is a prfound diffference between things alive and intelligent and mute and unreasoning matter!






a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Goku said:

Of course as a matter of philosophical knowledge no one can say with absolute certainty that some fantasy-type creature doesn't exist like Superman (to use Mike's go-to example),

Then why do it?

Moroeover thinking is valid!

but as a matter of practical reality we forgo such academic exercises and tedious nuanced expressions and simply state "Superman does not exist".

Such is the tedium of practicing science. The devil is in the details. I am not in favor of sloppy cognition--especially when doing science (critical percision reasoning).

So what's wrong with stating it thusly: "There is a degree of questioning whether Superman exists."

I get your reasoning.
There is no God because you through yo.r sloppy reasoning say there can't be one! Thus sayeth Goku LOL

For all your years of talking about intelligence and how we can, through intelligence, decipher the meaning of a phrase even when there are errors or missing pieces of information, it amazes me how wooden you treat peoples' posts.


It would be missig code--not information. Code is for the physical world and informatrion is of our mental state.

I don't tunderstan the wooden inference.
Pleaswe clarify (in other words).

You are obviously equivocating the word "magic" there. Sure, if we go with the definition of 'natural events which appear non-natural to the audience' (like a magician performing a magic trick on stage, or a ventriloquist), then we can say magic exists and the universe was created via magic even if it popped into existence from a purely natural quantum fluctuation from a purely natural ground of all being without one iota of input from any supernatural thing. The downside is that such definitions in this conversation is a non-starter and counter-productive. It renders the naturalist's position moot, and diminishes the theist's position to a cheap parlor trick.


Sorry you bias has caused you to miss the obvious in that a magician is an inteelligent being. He performs tricks". So linearly you argument does not make sense. I am not claiming tricks peformed themselves which what you imply.

Again you are equivocating the word "creationism". Implying that humans creating cell phones is creationism, therefore creationism (the idea that a magical, invisible, immortal, anthropomorphic entity used an incantation spell to create the universe) is true, is one doozy of a non-sequitur.

Do you really think I believe the cell phone created itself? I am simply stating that if intelligence is capable of creating a cell phone which never evolved then cretivity is valid method to bring thing that didn't exdist into existence!

If you say so great one. I would say you are equivicating natural causes. Moreover magicians do exist. Does any of us think a trick performs itself?

In your statemnt above you are making claims you can't possibly back up (as you are not an all knowing god being). Nor were you there when the universe came into existence.

Why if intelligence is good enough for you to use to create all the things you create isn't it good enough to be used by God.You exist! Why can't God?




existence!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the biblical god makes no sense to me.

a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one.

 

Surprised no one pointed this out, but isn't the God of the Bible a sacrificial God? That is one of the things that separates him from a lot of the other religions; God came down to Earth as a human to be sacrificed on our behalf. I have my doubts about the historical accuracy of that (I don't think the historical Jesus planned to be crucified, yet I do think the historical Jesus was crucified, and of course I have my doubts as to the existence of God to begin with), but that is a core part of Christian theology. It is God's sacrifice, not anything we have done or ever could do, that will save us from the anguish of Hell and permit us into Heaven.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the biblical god makes no sense to me.

a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one.

 

Surprised no one pointed this out, but isn't the God of the Bible a sacrificial God? That is one of the things that separates him from a lot of the other religions; God came down to Earth as a human to be sacrificed on our behalf. I have my doubts about the historical accuracy of that (I don't think the historical Jesus planned to be crucified, yet I do think the historical Jesus was crucified, and of course I have my doubts as to the existence of God to begin with), but that is a core part of Christian theology. It is God's sacrifice, not anything we have done or ever could do, that will save us from the anguish of Hell and permit us into Heaven.

 

jesus was the son of god, not god itself.

god sacrifices his son, not himself.

 

you have to remember, i'm trying to make sense of the irrational.

our materialistic view of the universe must be true because we were able to predict several elements from it.

the entire discipline of chemistry is built on it.

 

then we have enigmas like the living cell, and conciousness

i'm sorry goku, but the completely absurd complexity of the cell is just insane.

a system that basically tells you where and when to activate a gene or an entire sequence of them.

a restart scenario is just plain impossible in my opinion.

this in itself implies a sandbox of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku said:

I have my doubts about the historical accuracy of that (I don't think the historical Jesus planned to be crucified,

The bible says quite different than you! "The lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku said:

 

I have my doubts about the historical accuracy of that (I don't think the historical Jesus planned to be crucified,

 

The bible says quite different than you! "The lamb of God

slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:18

 

He really puts us in a tough position doesnt he? We can either believe God OR Goku.. But not both.. Now that is a real dilemma...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the biblical god makes no sense to me.a sacrificial god makes more rational sense to me than a biblical one.

 Surprised no one pointed this out, but isn't the God of the Bible a sacrificial God? That is one of the things that separates him from a lot of the other religions; God came down to Earth as a human to be sacrificed on our behalf. I have my doubts about the historical accuracy of that (I don't think the historical Jesus planned to be crucified, yet I do think the historical Jesus was crucified, and of course I have my doubts as to the existence of God to begin with), but that is a core part of Christian theology. It is God's sacrifice, not anything we have done or ever could do, that will save us from the anguish of Hell and permit us into Heaven.
jesus was the son of god, not god itself.god sacrifices his son, not himself.you have to remember, i'm trying to make sense of the irrational.our materialistic view of the universe must be true because we were able to predict several elements from it.the entire discipline of chemistry is built on it.then we have enigmas like the living cell, and conciousnessi'm sorry goku, but the completely absurd complexity of the cell is just insane.a system that basically tells you where and when to activate a gene or an entire sequence of them.a restart scenario is just plain impossible in my opinion.this in itself implies a sandbox of sorts.

"jesus was the son of god, not god itself."

 

Now we can believe You, or we can believe Jesus...

Why must you and Goku make it so difficult for us

to decide who we should believe?

 

 

Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.†John : 2

 

 

"Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?†“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!†John 8

 

 

"Jesus said 'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God' " (John 10:30-33).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus was the son of god, not god itself.

god sacrifices his son, not himself.

 

you have to remember, i'm trying to make sense of the irrational.

our materialistic view of the universe must be true because we were able to predict several elements from it.

the entire discipline of chemistry is built on it.

 

then we have enigmas like the living cell, and conciousness

i'm sorry goku, but the completely absurd complexity of the cell is just insane.

a system that basically tells you where and when to activate a gene or an entire sequence of them.

a restart scenario is just plain impossible in my opinion.

this in itself implies a sandbox of sorts.

 

In Christian theology Jesus was God; the trinity business. I have my own idea of how the trinity could work, but I'm not sure if it satisfies all doctrinal parts of the trinity. Anyways I don't think the historical Jesus ever claimed to be the one true God, but that is what his disciples put in his mouth starting with the Gospel of John (the last Gospel to be written fyi, about 70 years after Jesus' death). Blitz has kindly showed us a few excerpts from that Gospel.

 

There are always unknowns and mysteries in science. Fundamentally, science is a method of discovering and understanding the unknown. I would go so far as to say it is the method, not the body of knowledge, that is most central to science.

 

All those systems in the cell is just chemistry, albeit extremely complex chemistry, but still chemistry (and physics if you want).

 

I don't know what you mean by restart scenario. I don't know what you mean by a sandbox concept in the context of evolutionary biology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: All those systems in the cell is just chemistry, albeit extremely complex chemistry, but still chemistry (and physics if you want)

 

But logically that isn't a true statement. The construction for example, of a kinesin motor or a synthase rotary motor, isn't, "chemistry". That is to say, you only find bio-chemistry, in life. (A tautology I suppose, but and important one.)

 

Even a homochiral polymer contains specified complexity, you don't find homochirality outside of bio-chemistry. 

 

The term, "complexity" is misleading, because it isn't complexity, it is specified complexity.

 

Here is an example of the difference;

 

1. yydttyrtyshjiytuftyftufyufyu

2. Goku Guru, mogul warrior. 

 

I'm not lying, I have no desire to mislead you. Specified complexity is basically the purposeful arrangement of parts to achieve a specific goal. The reason only left-handed amino acids are chosen for proteins is the only way to get a protein to fold is if they are all left handed. In the same way, the machines in the cell which propel themselves, are made up of parts arranged so they can propel themselves. 

 

So it's a mistake when evolutionists claim that it's all a matter of chemistry. It's all a matter of bio-chemistry, which is rife with specified complexity not found out side of, "bio". In other words without the design in life you would just have chemistry, and to get that you just take a frog that has just died, and put it in a blender.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Christian theology Jesus was God; the trinity business.

from my understanding, the trinity was the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

according to what i understand, jesus said on the cross "father, why have you forsaken me"?

everything i know leads me to believe that jesus was the son of god.

I have my own idea of how the trinity could work, but I'm not sure if it satisfies all doctrinal parts of the trinity.

isn't it odd how both of us are trying to rationalize the absurd?

something is there goku, something we can't quite put our finger on, but it's there.

i can't explain it, and thousands, millions, have given it their best shot.

There are always unknowns and mysteries in science.

i believe so, yes.

 

Fundamentally, science is a method of discovering and understanding the unknown. I would go so far as to say it is the method, not the body of knowledge, that is most central to science.

sure it is, that method helped us discover things we can't even see with the most powerful microscopes.

 

All those systems in the cell is just chemistry, albeit extremely complex chemistry, but still chemistry (and physics if you want).

well duh, that's kind of obvious goku.

i mean we don't find any nails or kitchen sinks or drywall in the cell.

but a code? not 1 but 2, and quite possibly 3?

we have been working on this problem in earnest for over 60 years.

we even have the functioning model to work from, and we still have no plausible scenario for how it happened.

I don't know what you mean by restart scenario. I don't know what you mean by a sandbox concept in the context of evolutionary biology.

i was thinking of evolution along the lines of epigenetics and transposons, and the sandbox concept and restart scenario emerged from that process.

the restart scenario later proves correct.

in my opinion, the sandbox concept has to be correct too because the restart scenario would depend on it.

the restart is a cell division.

 

in my opinion, a restart scenario makes a natural explanation impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What If: sure it is, that method helped us discover things we can't even see with the most powerful microscopes.

 

Nah - the truth is there is no all-powerful method, a lot of the time the greats of science like Newton or Einstein or those that discover things, were not even following any method. Einstein used thinking experiments. This, "method" is just a way of saying, "these are what scientists presently agree are the rules of science".

 

To my mind Darwinists invent things that aren't really there, in the sense they tend to commit reification.

 

There isn't any group of people who sit down and say, "right this is what the scientific method is and it always has been, and has been set in stone since". The truth of the matter is a lot of the rules they tell themselves are the method, were just added as they went along.

 

The truth of the matter is, if you give 500 idiots the scientific method and 500 geniuses nothing, the geniuses will come up with the theories and discoveries.

 

Think about Davinci, he came up with all sorts when there was no science. A polymath. (naturally expertly brilliant, in many things.)

 

To my mind worshipping the method is just another bullzhit way of saying "you can't touch evolution, it's sacrosanct."

 

Horse manure! For the reality is, it is nothing more that a polished turd.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind worshipping the method is just another bullzhit way of saying "you can't touch evolution, it's sacrosanct."

even if god created it?

evolution is a reality, no question.

just like the cell, it's a reality.

the question here is, how it all came about.

it's just plain absurd to picture this stuff bootstrapping itself out of a broth of chemicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku said:
 

There are always unknowns and mysteries in science. Fundamentally, science is a method of discovering and understanding the unknown. I would go so far as to say it is the method, not the body of knowledge, that is most central to science.

You are gettting better! Congrats! In other words science is but another name for our reasoning process. However the more knowledge (information) we have the more effective our reasoning can be.

All those systems in the cell is just chemistry, albeit extremely complex chemistry, but still chemistry (and physics if you want).

I imagine you think the chemistry in the cell causes life. But I propose another hypothesis--life animates matter. In the Bible Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life." The Bible nowhere says that life was created. Life was not created as God is an imortal being. He has always existed and is the claimed source of life (according to the Bible)!


scenario. I don't know what you mean by a sandbox concept in the context of evolutionary biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if said:

 


Evolution is a reality, no question.

Are you speaking from the chair? It's peobab;y not a good idea to believe your own PR!

 

just like the cell, it's a reality.
the question here is, how it all came about.
it's just plain absurd to picture this stuff bootstrapping itself out of a broth of chemicals.

It's like this: How did the 26 letters of the alphatbet get arranged in the orer I find them on my screen? Your intelligence did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku said:

 

I have my doubts about the historical accuracy of that (I don't think the historical Jesus planned to be crucified,

 

The bible says quite different than you! "The lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:18

 

It kind of makes you wonder where Goku is getting his Bible information from .. TalkOrigins maybe???

 

He told them, “- The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise.â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To my mind worshipping the method is just another bullzhit way of saying "you can't touch evolution, it's sacrosanct."

even if god created it?evolution is a reality, no question.just like the cell, it's a reality.the question here is, how it all came about.it's just plain absurd to picture this stuff bootstrapping itself out of a broth of chemicals.

 

"evolution is a reality, no question."

 

You are one stubborn, brainwashed, fellow..

 

Finch beaks, moth colors, Fish going blind, weak bacteria lacking enzymes targeted by antibiotics, Dogs Ears, and Bear Coats are a reality...

 

BUT, As has been conclusively demonstrated to you over 20 times...

 

What YOU call "Evolution" is NOT EVOLUTION...!-!-

 

It is merely Speciation, Adaptation, or Variation..

 

But your fellow God dismissers have placed the ambivalent, duplicitous and purposely deceitful term "Micro" in front of the word "Evolution" in order to pull a bait and switch marketing job on every single 15 year old public school biology student in the Country so they can indoctrinate them just like you were into into believing the religion of secular humanism..

 

And You, after I expose the truth to you over and over and over, just keep on Asserting "Evolution is a reality" as if you think I am going to let you get away with it on this thread..

 

BE ADVISED,

 

As long as I am on this thread, I will NOT let you get away with it..

 

So if you want to go around claiming that "Evolution is Real, True, or a Fact WITHOUT being challenged EVERY TIME, It might be a good idea to do it on a different site then one called "EVOLUTION FAIRY TALE"..

 

FAIR ENOUGH?

 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

 

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jesus was the son of god, not god itself.

god sacrifices his son, not himself.

you have to remember, i'm trying to make sense of the irrational.

our materialistic view of the universe must be true because we were able to predict several elements from it.

the entire discipline of chemistry is built on it.

then we have enigmas like the living cell, and conciousness

i'm sorry goku, but the completely absurd complexity of the cell is just insane.

a system that basically tells you where and when to activate a gene or an entire sequence of them.

a restart scenario is just plain impossible in my opinion.

this in itself implies a sandbox of sorts.

 

 

In Christian theology Jesus was God; the trinity business. I have my own idea of how the trinity could work, but I'm not sure if it satisfies all doctrinal parts of the trinity. Anyways I don't think the historical Jesus ever claimed to be the one true God, but that is what his disciples put in his mouth starting with the Gospel of John (the last Gospel to be written fyi, about 70 years after Jesus' death). Blitz has kindly showed us a few excerpts from that Gospel.

 

There are always unknowns and mysteries in science. Fundamentally, science is a method of discovering and understanding the unknown. I would go so far as to say it is the method, not the body of knowledge, that is most central to science.

 

All those systems in the cell is just chemistry, albeit extremely complex chemistry, but still chemistry (and physics if you want).

 

I don't know what you mean by restart scenario. I don't know what you mean by a sandbox concept in the context of evolutionary biology.

 

"Anyways I don't think the historical Jesus ever claimed to be the one true God, but that is what his disciples put in his mouth starting with the Gospel of John"

 

Well, they obviously didnt only put the words in Jesus mouth, but also put words in every mouth of the entire Jewish Hierarchy of the time as well...

 

 

"Jesus said 'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God' " (John 10:30-33).

 

 

Also, I am truly surprised to see an Atheist claiming that the Bible is false and words were put in Jesus' mouth that he of course clearly "never said".. LOL

 

 

Just kidding... BTW.. Of COURSE you are going to assert that.. You play for the same team that this guy does... Maybe it is time to think about switching teams?

 

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden '?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"… 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if said:

 

 

 

Evolution is a reality, no question.

 

Are you speaking from the chair? It's peobab;y not a good idea to believe your own PR!

well, yes, i believe i have the cajones to say evolution is a reality.

i can equally say it isn't darwinian.

if it has anything to do with the modern synthesis, then it's obsolete.

 

 

just like the cell, it's a reality.

the question here is, how it all came about.

it's just plain absurd to picture this stuff bootstrapping itself out of a broth of chemicals.

 

It's like this: How did the 26 letters of the alphatbet get arranged in the orer I find them on my screen? Your intelligence did it!

yes, the genetic code.

i have a couple questions.

first, how does phyla arrive here radially from a homogenized group of cells?

second, how did transposons acquire tags?

 

and that's only half the code, because epigenetics is also a code.

 

intelligence?

you are going to have a very rough time of explaining a pervading intelligence in a rational way.

it may be the self assembly in specific quantities gives rise to an intelligence.

i don't know, i'm just grabbing straws here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are gettting better! Congrats! In other words science is but another name for our reasoning process. However the more knowledge (information) we have the more effective our reasoning can be.

 

Science is a specific method of gaining understanding. It is NOT synonymous with any and all reasoning process we can do.

 

I imagine you think the chemistry in the cell causes life. But I propose another hypothesis--life animates matter. In the Bible Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life." The Bible nowhere says that life was created. Life was not created as God is an imortal being. He has always existed and is the claimed source of life (according to the Bible)!

 

So some magical 'life force' animates matter and not ATP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku said:

Mike Summers, on 15 Oct 2017 - 5:58 PM, said:

 
You are gettting better! Congrats! In other words science is but another name for our reasoning process. However the more knowledge (information) we have the more effective our reasoning can be.
 
Science is a specific method of gaining understanding. It is NOT synonymous with any and all reasoning process we can do.

Care to give an example? 

Mike S: I imagine you think the chemistry in the cell causes life. But I propose another hypothesis--life animates matter. In the Bible Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life." The Bible nowhere says that life was created. Life was not created as God is an imortal being. He has always existed and is the claimed source of life (according to the Bible)!
 

 

So some magical 'life force' animates matter and not ATP

I'd say ATP is your magical power! LOL
Creativity by definition is the ability to bring something into existence that didn't exist before the creative act. That does sound magical! Oh well! A rose by any other name will smell the same. I guess I don't think "magic" is a "bad" word! LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now I shall rest from debate. :D

 

I've heard that before ;)

Mike the statement that the fossil record is strongly supportive of evolution still stands. I gave the explanation as to why there is only a relatively small number of transitional forms as a riposte to your idea that the fossil record should be dominated by them if evolution were true. It’s good that you have been humble enough to accept what I have said is well reasoned but you have done that before but then carry on as if the explanation never existed.

 

There could be zero transitional fossils and the fossil record would still support evolution and falsify a single creation event. To avoid evolution you would have to opt for a progressive creation model with God coming up with successive creation events over conventional geological time (of course the sheer weight of all the different types of evidence combined secures evolution as the only game in town).

 

If creation was true of course there would be nothing you could regard as intermediate because there would no sensible pattern of progressive change through the strata. Your geographical province idea that you sometimes put forward to explain why we see a clear and never violated separation of organism types (humans and dinosaurs for example) fails completely because fossils aren’t separated laterally in this way, they can be found in close proximity, the separation is in the vertical direction through the geological strata. I’ve said that before and it always gets ignored for some reason.

 

The relatively low percentage of transitionals I have explained, the fact that we have them at all (and that they are so placed in the rocks that make chronological sense) is obviously supportive of evolution, despite your attempt to spin this as favouring creation.

 

It is accepted that there is widespread (but not exclusively !) stasis in the geological record, followed by sudden appearance of new forms - this is what led Gould and Eldredge to bring forward Punctuated Equilbria - but this is in regard to what we observe at species level. Remember that Gould said that transitionals are abundant between larger groups.

 

You didn’t respond to the last section of my previous post where I made a couple of statements about what we should expect to see if creation was true, do you have anything plausible to counter them ?

"There could be zero transitional fossils and the fossil record would still support evolution and falsify a single creation event."

 

This is a perfect example of the mindset of the evolutionist.. Facts and Evidence, Logic, Reason, and Critical thinking be damned (Pardon the pun) "My Godless worldview REQUIRES Evolution to be true SOMEHOW No matter WHAT! Remember? "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins

 

 

"Mike the statement that the fossil record is strongly supportive of evolution still stands"

 

On its head maybe...

 

 

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

 

(Dr. David Berlinsky)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble I've lost track as this thread is very active, seems your post BK quoted is lost somewhere back there I didn't notice. 

 

 

 

.Wibble:  It’s good that you have been humble enough to accept what I have said is well reasoned but you have done that before but then carry on as if the explanation never existed

 

This is because of my knowledge of what is, and is not consequential when it comes to critical thinking and logic. The reason I score highly in those areas is because all of these things I explain to you are true and mean something, whereas you think they are, "powder puff explanations." Those of us who understand those two subjects know that sound deductive reasoning isn't powder-puff explanation.

 

When I appreciated your explanation, I can appreciate it as a fairly well thought out conjecture, an extra-hypothesis which exists to explain why the predicted evidence of evolution did not occur.

 

Extra hypotheses are logically weak because they start from a position of explaining why the evidence doesn't fit. According to the law of the excluded middle, either evidence P is evidence for X, or it is not. To then switch it so that expected evidence P is now not the expected evidence, only in hindsight because the evidence was not found, in deductive reasoning, is tenuous.

 

 

 

Wibble: There could be zero transitional fossils and the fossil record would still support evolution and falsify a single creation event

 

Basically that's a contradiction and a bare assertion. If "no transitionals" are not expected evidence of creation, then that means you are saying transitionals are expected evidence of creation. Because, "not a lack of transitionals" expected for creation = "transitionals expected for creation".

 

Think about it, if you say, "a lack of transitionals, even all of them, are NOT evidence of a lack of evolution, and not evidence of created kinds", then if that is "not P" then ipso facto it must then be, "P".

 

I don't think you understand what I mean. To have a patent on the fossil record and say "it can never evidence creation" is absurd, intellectually. That's to basically ban the freedom to hypothesize. If you ban the antecedent, you have made a statement which is religious. Because you then say, "the fossil record cannot be caused by P" even though you don't have the knowledge that affords you such a non-sequitur.

 

I asked you a question - if "not transitionals" is not expected evidence of creation but you would also think it absurd to say "transitionals are evidence of creation", then what would qualify as evidence of creation? To put it more conversationally, I will frame it this way; "If creation is true, in this circumstance would we expect there to generally be transitionals or not be transitionals." (I do hope, though it seems somewhat optimistic at this stage, that you at least would understand there can't be a third option?) To make it easier - would we expect if creation is true, for us to find extremely odd intermediates between quadruped and bat, or between quadruped and pterosaur, or between land and sea? To make it easier - would we expect to find evolution if creation and created kinds are true? I believe you are looking for the word, "yes" or the word, "no", and there is no way out.

 

If creation happened and created kinds are true, it follows logically that we wouldn't expect transitionals to exist. That's the rules of logic. If you ignore the rules of logic, what does that say about you? That lack of evidence is logically the evidence. It's called a "conspicuous absence of evidence", in logic.

 

To say that isn't expected evidence of creation rather than evolution, I am sorry to say, is exceedingly silly and shows ignorance of logical rules in science, Wibble. And I emphasise the word, "exceedingly", for it would be no different to saying that if spaghetti monsters never existed, we wouldn't expect to not find them in the fossils, meaning you are arguing that if they are not true, we should find them in the fossils, since that is the only remaining option.

 

If something doesn't exist, it follows that there will be a lack of proper evidence for it. If I say there is a million pounds in my house and it isn't found in the house, that is evidence consistent with the counter-claim that there isn't a million in my house.

 

Are you telling me your thinking is on a level where there is no point in talking to you because you will basically say, "all evidence is evidence of evolution, and everything I already know doesn't exist, is evidence of creation."

 

To be honest I didn't think you went that far in your willingness to commit intellectual suicide. I thought you would at least qualify that which counts as evidence for created kinds, and not evolution.

 

Honest people can admit to the following;

 

1. If evolution is false we would expect to not generally find macro-evolutionary transitionals.

2. If creation is true we would expect to find the same kinds of forms and generally no transitionals of evolution.

 

But if you are on the level where basically you won't even acknowledge basic logical rules, then I no longer feel any need to converse with you. Because basically you are shouting this message to me; "Mike I don't care what the facts are, I am going to argue that evolution is true."

 

That's fine, but I can't respect someone very much if they won't even let me qualify the basic rules of logic, where we can at least say in a specific situation, which evidence would occur.

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