 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| FFT wrote: | You asked how many generations would be necessary to observe macro-evolutionary changes.
I don't know.
So? |
Soooooo... if we don't observe macro-evolutionary changes today, and we observe stasis within populations over 2600 generations without ANY increases in genetic functionality... what on earth would lead you to believe that it can happen... if the available evidence demonstrates that it doesn't?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | This is exactly why ToE does not work when critically analyzed! And this is not being taught in our schools! |
Crow all you like, but just because I don't have an answer does not make evolution wrong. |
I fully realize that you are not the approval authority for does not make evolution right or wrong... but what I do realize is that the 'mountains' of evidence that supposedly does make evolution 'right', in fact, when critically analyzed, are non-existent. If evolution is a 'fact', as often times described in these threads here, all I want is a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory. Are we not supposed to follow where the evidence leads, regardless of our preconceived beliefs'?
| Quote: | | You're not critically analyzing evolution, you're running around with disconfirmation bias trying to convince anyone that you're right. |
I'm not huh? OK... exactly how am I 'suppose' to critically analyze this? Not ask for examples and accept subjective opinions of the comparative anatomy on fossils... that can be formed into pretty much anything we want them to be?
Also... are you inferring here that these esteemed scientists don't hold a bias towards their work? Is that what you are saying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Soooooo... if we don't observe macro-evolutionary changes today, and we observe stasis within populations over 2600 generations without ANY increases in genetic functionality... what on earth would lead you to believe that it can happen... if the available evidence demonstrates that it doesn't? |
Because we've got this neat record that appears to show that just this has happened.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I fully realize that you are not the approval authority for does not make evolution right or wrong... but what I do realize is that the 'mountains' of evidence that supposedly does make evolution 'right', in fact, when critically analyzed, are non-existent. |
The mountains of evidence are not based on whether we can observe so-called macro-evolution today.
You've probably seen this before.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | If evolution is a 'fact', as often times described in these threads here, all I want is a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory. Are we not supposed to follow where the evidence leads, regardless of our preconceived beliefs'? |
Pick one.
Here's one.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | OK... exactly how am I 'suppose' to critically analyze this? |
Examine what the theory of evolution predicts.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Also... are you inferring here that these esteemed scientists don't hold a bias towards their work? Is that what you are saying? |
Of course not. Everyone's got a bias. Nifty thing about science is that it's self-correcting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I fully realize that you are not the approval authority for does not make evolution right or wrong... but what I do realize is that the 'mountains' of evidence that supposedly does make evolution 'right', in fact, when critically analyzed, are non-existent. |
The mountains of evidence are not based on whether we can observe so-called macro-evolution today.
You've probably seen this before. |
 Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I am assuming you probably have seen THIS before also. And, as a matter of fact, I have seen THIS too... which is nothing more than a but but but um um um... he is jus wrong type response.
So... what does this have to do with the 'mountains'... than when critically analyzed turn out to be nothing but tired old dogma?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | If evolution is a 'fact', as often times described in these threads here, all I want is a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory. Are we not supposed to follow where the evidence leads, regardless of our preconceived beliefs'? |
Pick one.
Here's one. |
Huh??? This is LOSS FFT… not the necessary increase in genetic functionality. I have no problem with saying there are parts of an organisms anatomy that apparently does not provide a useful function for their adapted environment… but that is not proof of evolution at all. It is the loss of functionality.
Using this philosophy I could just as well make the argument that is I only lost a little bit of money every year in my business, that someday, I’ll be rich. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | OK... exactly how am I 'suppose' to critically analyze this? |
Examine what the theory of evolution predicts. |
Which is what??? That we should keep seeing these losses of genetic functionality (information) and that proves that we came from a bacteria? Sorry… the math just doesn’t work that way.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Also... are you inferring here that these esteemed scientists don't hold a bias towards their work? Is that what you are saying? |
Of course not. Everyone's got a bias. Nifty thing about science is that it's self-correcting. |
And I would agree to an extent. The system itself ‘should’ be self correcting, and for the most part… it is. I have no problem at all admitting that. I do, however, believe that the ‘human factor’ plays a much bigger role than what we are lead to believe.
Let me ask you this, if you are science student, and this is the mechanism you are allowed to use when developing you philosophical approaches to science, the only accepted method of researching, publishing, getting grants, etc… doncha ya think that you would either (A) quit in frustration when going through the ‘indoctrination’ pogrom and not do anything about, or (B) subject yourself to a lifetime of struggling and fighting at every turn to get published… funded… authorized to conduct research, suffer from all sorts of criticism from your peers, and be labeled as some sort of zealot despite what you have found to be a critical flaw in the ‘accepted’ philosophy?
Which one sounds like a more plausible explanation of why I think that the scientific method suffers from the human factor more than what we are lead to believe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I am assuming you probably have seen THIS before also. And, as a matter of fact, I have seen THIS too... which is nothing more than a but but but um um um... he is jus wrong type response. |
So because he was pointing out the irrationality of the refutations, that was a "but he was just wrong" response?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | So... what does this have to do with the 'mountains'... than when critically analyzed turn out to be nothing but tired old dogma? |
Loaded question.
Critical analyzation does not show that the evidence is tired old dogma unless one holds a preconception that the theory is false for religious reasons.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | If evolution is a 'fact', as often times described in these threads here, all I want is a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory. Are we not supposed to follow where the evidence leads, regardless of our preconceived beliefs'? |
Pick one.
Here's one. |
Huh??? This is LOSS FFT… not the necessary increase in genetic functionality. I have no problem with saying there are parts of an organisms anatomy that apparently does not provide a useful function for their adapted environment… but that is not proof of evolution at all. It is the loss of functionality. |
You asked for a demonstration of a requisite pillar of the theory. Please stop shifting the goalposts.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | OK... exactly how am I 'suppose' to critically analyze this? |
Examine what the theory of evolution predicts. |
Which is what??? That we should keep seeing these losses of genetic functionality (information) and that proves that we came from a bacteria? Sorry… the math just doesn’t work that way. |
What math is this?
| Trinity1 wrote: | Let me ask you this, if you are science student, and this is the mechanism you are allowed to use when developing you philosophical approaches to science, the only accepted method of researching, publishing, getting grants, etc… doncha ya think that you would either (A) quit in frustration when going through the ‘indoctrination’ pogrom and not do anything about, or (B) subject yourself to a lifetime of struggling and fighting at every turn to get published… funded… authorized to conduct research, suffer from all sorts of criticism from your peers, and be labeled as some sort of zealot despite what you have found to be a critical flaw in the ‘accepted’ philosophy?
Which one sounds like a more plausible explanation of why I think that the scientific method suffers from the human factor more than what we are lead to believe? |
Galileo managed. 
A implies that there is an "indoctrination pogrom" (the use of "pogrom" is in itself loaded language, by the way), which is malarkey. It's like saying that English classes are indoctrination into the English Language Pogrom.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Which one sounds like a more plausible explanation of why I think that the scientific method suffers from the human factor more than what we are lead to believe? |
Find me a "critical flaw" in evolution promoted by someone who is not religious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | So... what does this have to do with the 'mountains'... than when critically analyzed turn out to be nothing but tired old dogma? |
Loaded question.
Critical analyzation does not show that the evidence is tired old dogma unless one holds a preconception that the theory is false for religious reasons. |
Or true for the basis for one's atheistic beliefs too... 
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | If evolution is a 'fact', as often times described in these threads here, all I want is a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory. Are we not supposed to follow where the evidence leads, regardless of our preconceived beliefs'? |
Pick one.
Here's one. |
Huh??? This is LOSS FFT… not the necessary increase in genetic functionality. I have no problem with saying there are parts of an organisms anatomy that apparently does not provide a useful function for their adapted environment… but that is not proof of evolution at all. It is the loss of functionality. |
You asked for a demonstration of a requisite pillar of the theory. Please stop shifting the goalposts. |
I'm not shifting anything... I have continually affirmed the fact of 'loss'. I have no problem with that. We continaully see it! And your citation was a good example of it. But we have been (or at least I thought we have been) discussing the required increases in functionality... I can go back and see if you want and count how many times I have mentioned that in this thread if you want... let me know.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | OK... exactly how am I 'suppose' to critically analyze this? |
Examine what the theory of evolution predicts. |
Which is what??? That we should keep seeing these losses of genetic functionality (information) and that proves that we came from a bacteria? Sorry… the math just doesn’t work that way. |
What math is this? |
10-1=9 / 9-1=8 / 8-1=7 / 7-1=6 / 6-1=5 / 5-1=4 / 4-1=3 / 3-1=2 / 2-1=1 / 1-1+millions of years=16,000,023,985.302
It makes abssolutely not sense.
| Quote: | | A implies that there is an "indoctrination pogrom" |
And there is...
| Quote: | | (the use of "pogrom" is in itself loaded language, by the way), |
No more than 'ToE is a fact'... but alright.
| Quote: | | which is malarkey. |
In your opinion.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Which one sounds like a more plausible explanation of why I think that the scientific method suffers from the human factor more than what we are lead to believe? |
Find me a "critical flaw" in evolution promoted by someone who is not religious. |
Here are a few quotes... some... admitedly... are Christians... but their conclusions are predicated on observational evidence... not the Bible or dogma... FACTS.
(1) | Quote: | | "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum) |
(2) | Quote: | | "I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen) |
(3) | Quote: | | "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More) |
(4) | Quote: | | "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.") |
(5) | Quote: | | "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species") |
(6) | Quote: | | "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle) |
(7) | Quote: | | "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology) |
Which is a major part of ToE as you stated earlier.
(8) | Quote: | | "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner) |
(9) | Quote: | | "Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University) |
It ain't just lil-ole-Trinity saying this stuff FFT. It is folks seemingly in your own camp. Of course, you can call this 'quote mining' if you like... but the intent of the statements listed above pretty much demonstrates my point... for non-religous reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Or true for the basis for one's atheistic beliefs too... |
Then why are there theistic evolutionists?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I'm not shifting anything... I have continually affirmed the fact of 'loss'. I have no problem with that. We continaully see it! And your citation was a good example of it. But we have been (or at least I thought we have been) discussing the required increases in functionality... I can go back and see if you want and count how many times I have mentioned that in this thread if you want... let me know. |
You asked for "a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory." Vestigial organs are a demonstration of a pillar of the theory of evolution.
| Trinity1 wrote: | 10-1=9 / 9-1=8 / 8-1=7 / 7-1=6 / 6-1=5 / 5-1=4 / 4-1=3 / 3-1=2 / 2-1=1 / 1-1+millions of years=16,000,023,985.302
It makes abssolutely not sense. |
... You're right. Is it supposed to be odds? Who came up with the calculation?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | (the use of "pogrom" is in itself loaded language, by the way), |
No more than 'ToE is a fact'... but alright. |
Do you even know what "pogrom" means?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Here are a few quotes... some... admitedly... are Christians... but their conclusions are predicated on observational evidence... not the Bible or dogma... FACTS. |
Facts? Okay.
| Quote: | | Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense |
Well-poisoning.
| Quote: | | not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. |
False. Without observations and facts the theory would have died.
| Quote: | | This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. |
Proof?
| Quote: | | In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species. |
Why would there be?
| Quote: | | "I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen) |
Fleischmann was a creationist. In 1907 he was the only biologist of "recognized position" who was known to have rejected evolution.
Further, he's calling evolution fairy tales? 
| Quote: | | "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More) |
This quote is from 1925. L.T. More was a physicist. More on this quote
| Quote: | | "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.") |
Here you go.
| Quote: | | "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species") |
Here
| Quote: | | "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle) |
Ah yes, the originator of the Boeing 747 in a junkyard idea.
Too bad chemistry isn't random, eh?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology) |
Which is a major part of ToE as you stated earlier. |
 It's an endorsement of punctuated equilibrium. He was simply saying that evolution did not happen gradually over time, but in brief bursts. Here's what he actually said: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly."
| Quote: | | "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner) |
Hooray! Good thing no one's claiming this!
| Quote: | | "Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University) |
There's a bit more to what he was saying. Just a bit.
He was pointing out that creationism contradicted observations, not that evolution is accepted dogmatically.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | It ain't just lil-ole-Trinity saying this stuff FFT. It is folks seemingly in your own camp. |
The statements from "my camp" only seem to be bashing evolution when their statements are taken out of context. And you've got all of two quotes from "my camp."
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Of course, you can call this 'quote mining' if you like... |
A lot of it is.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | but the intent of the statements listed above pretty much demonstrates my point... for non-religous reasons. |
All it demonstrates is that you're grasping for straws. All of your examples are either invalid because of quote mining or invalid because of religious bias, or invalid because they contradict observational evidence. Or some combination of the three. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I'm not shifting anything... I have continually affirmed the fact of 'loss'. I have no problem with that. We continaully see it! And your citation was a good example of it. But we have been (or at least I thought we have been) discussing the required increases in functionality... I can go back and see if you want and count how many times I have mentioned that in this thread if you want... let me know. |
You asked for "a demonstration of a requisite pillar of this theory." Vestigial organs are a demonstration of a pillar of the theory of evolution. |
 I thought that when I wrote 'requisite pillar' we understood that the issue was increases of functionality. I didn't realize we needed to define our terms in every post...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | 10-1=9 / 9-1=8 / 8-1=7 / 7-1=6 / 6-1=5 / 5-1=4 / 4-1=3 / 3-1=2 / 2-1=1 / 1-1+millions of years=16,000,023,985.302
It makes abssolutely no sense. |
... You're right. Is it supposed to be odds? Who came up with the calculation? |
Its more or less an illustration of how the math is calculated here. If DNA has 10 different functional sequences (just an example mind you), and one of those sequences mutates where it loses it functionality, now you only have 9 functional sequences. Now, if those one of those sequences mutates and losses its functionality... how many do ou have... 13 gazillion... no... and that is the point. Once that information is lost with an allae... it is... well... lost. It will not ever be restored unless another allae preserves the gene and then interbreeds back into the first allae.
Anyway... the point is, there had to be, at one time, exponential increases in functionality... and that math has yet to be demonstrated either... through statisitical calculations and/or observational science.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | (the use of "pogrom" is in itself loaded language, by the way), |
No more than 'ToE is a fact'... but alright. |
Do you even know what "pogrom" means? |
Um... well... I thought I did. You think you could go to dictionary.com for me and let me know?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense |
Well-poisoning. |
By the tone of your response I take it you don't like this fella's opinion. Look at the bright side, according to him, 10% actually makes sense. 
| Quote: | | Quote: | | not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. |
False. Without observations and facts the theory would have died. |
This is a curious comment based on some of your other comments further down here... I'll expound in a sec.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species. |
Why would there be? |
Um... because that is what is being used as evidence?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More) |
This quote is from 1925. L.T. More was a physicist. More on this quote |
Darwin was a preacher... so therefore evolution is wrong... yea... good argument FFT. Real good.
Also... my point... it is from 1925. Are you saying that evolution wasn't supported by facts in 1925? If it wasn't... it would have died... remember. So the question then becomes... if there were facts that supported evolution in 1925... what is the big deal with his comment. If evolution wasn't supported by facts in 1925... then.. according to you... it would have died.. but didn't.
So... which is it?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.") |
]Here you go. |
Like I said… either it has been supported by evidence in 1925 or it would have died (according to you). Real nice. I am really looking forward to how you respond to this one.
More on the way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Quote: | | "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle) |
Ah yes, the originator of the Boeing 747 in a junkyard idea. |
YES … that guy. I suppose he is a simpleton too.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology) |
Which is a major part of ToE as you stated earlier. |
It's an endorsement of punctuated equilibrium. He was simply saying that evolution did not happen gradually over time, but in brief bursts. Here's what he actually said: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly." |
And Punk-eek has garnered so much support today too... nopper. He realized what the problem is… these changes, as postulated by Darwin were not being found in the fossil record. So, like science is suppose to do… it adjusts it theories based on the observational evidence. But the problem of the Cambrian explosion is not solved with Punk-eek… at all. It demonstrates that creatures are found… fully formed… fully functional… without transitions… as demanded by ToE… so again… your own proponents are making the problem worse by proposing… erm… unsupported fairy tales.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | "Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University) |
There's a bit more to what he was saying. Just a bit. |
Interesting bit from that link you cited…
| Quote: | | First of all, the quoted article was published over seven decades ago. |
Is he saying also that there was not enough evidnece tokeep the theory from dying because it was 70 years ago? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | If DNA has 10 different functional sequences (just an example mind you), and one of those sequences mutates where it loses it functionality, now you only have 9 functional sequences. |
Wow, good thing that's not what the theory of evolution proposes.
Are you trying to prove your "no new information" argument through example?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Once that information is lost with an allae... it is... well... lost. |
Anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. If a DNA string (GATC for ease) has errors in copying (GATA now), it can have the same errors again resulting in the original string (GATC again). Is this a loss of information both ways?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Quote: | | In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species. |
Why would there be? |
Um... because that is what is being used as evidence? |
In a museum?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Darwin was a preacher... so therefore evolution is wrong... yea... good argument FFT. Real good. |
I don't see that argument anywhere.
| Trinity1 wrote: | Also... my point... it is from 1925. Are you saying that evolution wasn't supported by facts in 1925? If it wasn't... it would have died... remember. So the question then becomes... if there were facts that supported evolution in 1925... what is the big deal with his comment. If evolution wasn't supported by facts in 1925... then.. according to you... it would have died.. but didn't.
So... which is it? |
Evolution was supported by facts in 1925, but Larmackian evolution was on the way out. More was a Lamarckian: | Quote: | | Owing to the reverence for Darwin and the blind submission to his views which prevailed for so many years, it was a difficult task to live down Darwin's contempt. Only after facts had multiplied, showing the inadequacy of natural selection, did biologists begin timidly to take Lamarck's doctrine seriously. If one can read the signs aright, we may expect to have an increasing attempt to explain the cause of evolution by the inheritance of aquired traits. The reluctance of the biologists to accept this doctrine does not rest so much on the lack of experimental verification as it does on the fact that Lamarck's cause of variation is fundamentally vitalistic in so far as it acknowledges the influence of the will or desire. To admit such a cause is contrary to scientific and mechanistic monism. |
Did you even read the link?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Like I said… either it has been supported by evidence in 1925 or it would have died (according to you). |
This one was written in 1976 And here is what he wrote later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | But the problem of the Cambrian explosion is not solved with Punk-eek… at all. |
It wasn't intended to, to my knowledge. The Cambrian explosion was simply a period of time where animals started fossilizing more regularly is the explanation I've heard.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | It demonstrates that creatures are found… fully formed… fully functional… without transitions… as demanded by ToE… |
No. It is intended to explain the scarcity of transitions, not deny that they exist in the first place.
| Trinity1 wrote: | Interesting bit from that link you cited… | Quote: | | First of all, the quoted article was published over seven decades ago. |
Is he saying also that there was not enough evidnece tokeep the theory from dying because it was 70 years ago? |
And followed this statement with "That such old quotes must so continually brought up speaks volumes to the quality of creationist arguments. If a decades old source was cited to attack views on physics or chemistry it would be considered laughable. Why should biology be considered any different?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | But the problem of the Cambrian explosion is not solved with Punk-eek… at all. |
It wasn't intended to, to my knowledge. The Cambrian explosion was simply a period of time where animals started fossilizing more regularly is the explanation I've heard. |
And what on earth caused that? Why did it only pertain to that period of time and not others?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | It demonstrates that creatures are found… fully formed… fully functional… without transitions… as demanded by ToE… |
No. It is intended to explain the scarcity of transitions, not deny that they exist in the first place. |
Explain... no... make an excuse for... yep.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | Interesting bit from that link you cited… | Quote: | | First of all, the quoted article was published over seven decades ago. |
Is he saying also that there was not enough evidence to keep the theory from dying because it was 70 years ago? |
And followed this statement with "That such old quotes must so continually brought up speaks volumes to the quality of creationist arguments. If a decades old source was cited to attack views on physics or chemistry it would be considered laughable. Why should biology be considered any different?" |
Because your argument here was that ToE would have gone away had the evidence not been present. I am only pointing out the fact that... it wasn't, yet it didn't go away as you said it should of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 716
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
There never was a cambrial explosion. The pre-cambrian strata proves that there wasn't any biological activity prior to the mis-named cambrian explosion strata.
The cambrian explosion is a misnomer because the whole notion of there having been long era's of deposition is falsified by common sense logic.
The truth is that there was a flood that rapidly buried the creatures of the earth (as common sense logic demands) in flood water sediments that are lying on top of bare (and barren) continental basement rock.
The cambrian strata has the only evidence that evo can reference concerning the origin of every kind of creature. And the evidence shows that all the cambrian fossils are records of complex, fully formed and funtional biological entities. And, the fossils are without any evolutionistic witness as to their possible origins.
The pre-cambrian strata proves that there never was a time during which creatures evolved from goo to you. And, the cambrian strata and all the other flood strata overlaying it is evidence of a deluge that trapped a fully developed biological world of creatures in the crush of heavy sedimentation.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: |
The cambrian explosion is a misnomer because the whole notion of there having been long era's of deposition is falsified by common sense logic.
The truth is that there was a flood that rapidly buried the creatures of the earth (as common sense logic demands) in flood water sediments that are lying on top of bare (and barren) continental basement rock.Joman. |
Joman, I hope that you realize that contrary to your claims above, your flood theory is devoid of BOTH common sense AND logic.
The rebuttal is trivial: if there was a great world-wide flood, then where did all the water go? There isn't NEARLY enough water in ALL of the ice caps on Earth to flood the entire planet up to the hight of the highest mountain. So where's all the extra water? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Joman, I hope that you realize that contrary to your claims above, your flood theory is devoid of BOTH common sense AND logic.
The rebuttal is trivial: if there was a great world-wide flood, then where did all the water go? There isn't NEARLY enough water in ALL of the ice caps on Earth to flood the entire planet up to the hight of the highest mountain. So where's all the extra water? |
P... if all of the continents were flattened... there would be enough water to cover the earth 2 miles deep... the water for the flood is here and there is enough.
If you go to the Psalms, it talks about the mountains rising up... and valley's going up... and the waters running off of them. If the mountains rose up (Mt Everest) and the valley's fell down (the oceans) this isn't a big deal at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Big Lion
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 960
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
The rebuttal is trivial: if there was a great world-wide flood, then where did all the water go? There isn't NEARLY enough water in ALL of the ice caps on Earth to flood the entire planet up to the hight of the highest mountain. So where's all the extra water? |
More than 70% percent of the Earth's surface is water.
"Where is all the extra water", you ask? Take a guess.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
