|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:51:47 [Permalink]
|
My points are made to attack the accepted "logic" of evolutionists. Logic that is easily refutable because of the many assumptions and other explanations that are possible for the same result. If, however, an evolutionist can clearly an logically show how assumptions are not part of his thinking. I do not deny such assumptions on my part. Assumptions are necessary when postulating explanations for certain occurances. That being said, you cannot discuss your side of the issue without admitting many assumptions and correlations made trying to link certain "scientific" or empiracle evidences to the theory of evolution. A + B does not equal C. Just because you have in your mind a way to understand how such evidence "could" be related to Darwin's theories, does not make it so, or make it conclusive evidence, when I am able, unlearned as I am, by simple logic to refute such links by posing another possibility.
The argument is really whose logic is really logical. It is not an argument of "my science is better than yours". Science changes, theories come and theories go, some proven, some disproven to a degree.
Many accept Darwin's theories because he used much empiracle data in his books. His logic, however, was based on his assumptions and not the empiracle data. The data when used to support a certain assumption seems to make the assumption factual. It really just makes it plausible. Some empiracle data can show evidence to the contrary of some of Darwin's theories.
When scientists pronounce findings to support a theory, one should be skeptical of such conclusions and study the supposed link in a logical manner.
I am trying to do this in this thread, going only by the original statement at the start of the thread. I do not see the same conclusion as the author. There is another explanation that chimps and humans are related not by evolution, but by their maker who used similar building blocks in making all species. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 16:24:22 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by R.Wreck
But one could say that the house and the furniture had a common ancestor: THE TREE! Now do you get it?
No. I dont' get it. It is a misuse of the term "ancestor". I have carbon and the piece of coal has carbon, so we are relatives? No. In substance only are we related. We are not derived one from the other...I did not come from "coal". I can't call coal my cousin. Neither can I call the chimp my cousin. He is a living creature as I am, but we are not brothers or cousins or distant relatives by any stretch of the imagination. Are all living things related? I guess with your definition of being a relative, they are. Are humans ancestors of chimps? No. Are chimps ancestors of humans, no. Do both have similar "building blocks", similar organs, breathing, use of oxygen and food, reprodutive systems and so on? Yes! Does it logically and necessarily follow that I evolved from some other creature over millions of years? No. Can you prove to me that it does? No. Are you trying to? Yes. Are you suceeding? No. Why? Your argument, though plausible is by no means the only explanation or even the best. Your (all involved) arguments are weak and lacking in logical progressive thought. Too many assumptions built on other assumptions.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 16:28:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
My points are made to attack the accepted "logic" of evolutionists. Logic that is easily refutable because of the many assumptions and other explanations that are possible for the same result. If, however, an evolutionist can clearly an logically show how assumptions are not part of his thinking. I do not deny such assumptions on my part. Assumptions are necessary when postulating explanations for certain occurances. That being said, you cannot discuss your side of the issue without admitting many assumptions and correlations made trying to link certain "scientific" or empiracle evidences to the theory of evolution. A + B does not equal C. Just because you have in your mind a way to understand how such evidence "could" be related to Darwin's theories, does not make it so, or make it conclusive evidence, when I am able, unlearned as I am, by simple logic to refute such links by posing another possibility.
You haven't refuted any evidence. I could guess that humans were dropped off on Earth by aliens from space as a research project, and chimpanzees are a mutation of humans caused by eating a now extinct vegetable that contained high concentrations of radioactive material. I have exactly the same amount of evidence to support that idea as you have to support your belief that a supernatural being poofed humans and chimpanzees into existence by the power of magic.
You are neglecting a very important process which must be applied before a guess becomes a theory, the scientific process. The theory of evolution holds up well, time and time again, within a wide variety of scientific disciplines, when run through the scientific process. Your guess about magical powers and supernatural beings doesn't. (If you aren't familiar with it, here is a fairly simplified explanation of the scientific process). Using the scientific process, work your guess into a theory, and let us know how far you get.
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 16:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
Are all living things related?
Yes.
quote:
Does it logically and necessarily follow that I evolved from some other creature over millions of years?
Yes. Otherwise explain why there is no evidence of a creature exactly like you existing millions of years ago. And plenty of evidence of creatures not exactly like you. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:07:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Yes. Otherwise explain why there is no evidence of a creature exactly like you existing millions of years ago. And plenty of evidence of creatures not exactly like you.
lol |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:09:32 [Permalink]
|
"You haven't refuted any evidence. " GeeMack
No need to refute evidence, only the illogic that uses it for the wrong explanation. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:12:19 [Permalink]
|
You haven't refuted the logic of evolution, either, Doomar. Only a caricature of it. In other words, you've built a straw man, defeated it, and then declared victory over the real thing.
Try again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:14:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Yes. Otherwise explain why there is no evidence of a creature exactly like you existing millions of years ago. And plenty of evidence of creatures not exactly like you.
lol
Do you have a better explanation? Let's hear it. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:22:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
It is not an argument of "my science is better than yours".
Sorry, but that's exactly what the argument is. The natural sciences as they stand today offer the best explanation of the world and how it got to be how it is. And that science has changed over the years. That is a strength of science. As we discover new things, we improve our understanding of the world. You, on the other hand, have no actual science. You have an unsupported assertion that some being from outside time and space created everything. And its the same unsupported assertion some primitive sheep herders made a few thousand years ago. It has not progressed since, and it is woefully inadequate to explain anything about the world we live in. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:27:45 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, you've provided nothing but an unsupported guess about humans and chimpanzees both appearing because of an act of magic performed by a bogeyman who exists only in your mind. You seem to consider your logic sound, yet you base it on a delusion.
I'll repeat: The theory of evolution holds up well, time and time again, within a wide variety of scientific disciplines, when run through the scientific process. Your guess about magical powers and supernatural beings doesn't. Using the scientific process, work your guess into a theory, and let us know how far you get.
How did I put that in my original reply?... "No wonder we have such a problem with this issue. The people that don't get it don't even try to be intelligent about it." I predict you've got nothing to go on and you won't even try.
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:29:14 [Permalink]
|
"The theory of evolution holds up well, time and time again, within a wide variety of scientific disciplines, when run through the scientific process." geemack
so did all theories before they fell by the way side. We just haven't got to the way side yet. It's coming. Further data will only destroy macro evolutionary theory. I dare say you are not well versed in the different theories, some already discredited that were part of Darwin's total evolutionary theory. The parts that remain concerning micro evolution are not in dispute by most of us. Darwin did not even have the abilities in his day to study such things. But people attribute micro evolution to Darwin. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even so, most of Darwin's assertions were not true. We did not evolve from lower life forms. There is a common thread in all life forms, as there is a common creator.
Simply by denying the spiritual rhelm and embracing naturalism, you cannot disprove its existance. If you cannot disprove it, but only dismiss, is that scientific? If your "scientific" avenues of research are, as yet, unable to grasp the spiritual part of living things, does that make it untrue or just your knowledge limited and immature? Most scientists agree that there is much we do not know or understand as yet. That very belief drives scientists to learn more, yet the evolutionist has already limited himself to only the naturalistic (what we can see and touch) type of explanations. That being said, much of modern science works to prove things we are not able to see or touch...go figure (time -- relativity). If you would admit that there is a possibility of a spiritual side of life and not reject that idea, at least I would think you were open to different explanations. THerefore, it is clear to me that a researcher who is open to the spiritual possibility is not as limited in his thinking as the naturalist. To close that possibility before even researching it is surely not the "scientific" way. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:31:21 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, Dave, I have refuted its logic time and again. And no one addresses it. Is there another explanation besides evolutionary theory in regards to the orgins of species? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:37:05 [Permalink]
|
" It has not progressed since, and it is woefully inadequate to explain anything about the world we live in."
Hmm. and the theory that I evolved from a chimp explains what? How is mankind helped with this explaination, not derived from science, but assumption and assertions that because there are monkeys and they do resemble men and have some genes and such like men, that we are therefore related and evolved from the same. Throw out that whole mess of an idea and just stick with the fact that some genes of monkeys are like genes in men...use that as you will to help somebody... but don't tell me that because of that similarity, I'm a cousin to the chimp. What kind of stupid religious idea is that? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:43:18 [Permalink]
|
| Give me an example of evidence that is totally contrary to an explanation that a creator made each species independently from the others and I'll give it a look. I'm talking proof...no other possible explanation! None, zip, nada. Even one of you came up with the alien theory which makes as much sense as, maybe more, than Darwin.LOL We do have billions of people in the world that believe in a creator, while only thousands that believe in aliens, so.... |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:52:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
Hmm. and the theory that I evolved from a chimp explains what? How is mankind helped with this explaination, not derived from science, but assumption and assertions that because there are monkeys and they do resemble men and have some genes and such like men, that we are therefore related and evolved from the same. Throw out that whole mess of an idea and just stick with the fact that some genes of monkeys are like genes in men...use that as you will to help somebody... but don't tell me that because of that similarity, I'm a cousin to the chimp. What kind of stupid religious idea is that?
One more time: The ToE does NOT say that you evolved from a chimp! Pay attention: You and the chimp evolved from a common ancestor.
It really doesn't matter if mankind is helped by the evolutionary explanation. It just happens to be the best explanation we have.
But as it turns out, this explanation will help mankind. Understanding the chimp genome will tell us much about our own biology. And the more we know, the more likely we are to find successful strategies for combatting many diseases.
And like it or not, you, me, and everybody reading this are cousins to the chimp. It's not a religious idea. It requires no faith, and no reliance on anything supernatural.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
