|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:59:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
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....
We can't rule out the possibility of magic, because we can't say what the evidence for magic would look like. It might look just like the evidence for a natualistic explanation, because its, well, magic. Allowing the magical as a tenable explanation makes a farce of science. Suffice to say that since there is no evidence to support magical intervention, it is unreasonable to assume that magic was involved.
The number of people who believe in a creator, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no bearing on the validity of the idea. |
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 : 19:06:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
Hmm. and the theory that I evolved from a chimp explains what?
The fact that you're still babbling about humans evolving from chimpanzees is strong evidence that you have very poorly developed communication skills and/or that you're simply not intelligent enough to understand. There's probably a remedial reading course available at your community college. You could do yourself a world of good if you'd sign up for it.
I was pretty sure you didn't have any more to add than your delusional ramblings. I was right. You can't supply a shred of scientifically valid evidence for the existence of your bogeyman, much less for its causing the existence of humans. You've succeeded well in proving you don't understand the scientific process, that you're unwilling to apply any intellect to the issue being discussed, and that you lack even the most rudimentary ability to comprehend what you read. Unless you can provide scientific evidence for your claim, you're pretty much just another mouthy troll.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 19:20:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Actually, Dave, I have refuted its logic time and again.
No, Doomar, you're not listening: you have not refuted the logic upon which the theory of evolution rests. What you've refuted is not evolutionary theory.quote:
And no one addresses it.
Yes, we have, by telling you that your ideas about evolution are wrong, because they're not about evolution.quote:
Is there another explanation besides evolutionary theory in regards to the orgins of species?
There is no other sciectific explanation of the origin of species at this moment.
What you appear to be proposing - common "design" - will only be scientific when you can tell us about the designer in ways that we can test. Nobody has been able to do so yet, and the fact that there is only one species known for its ability to consciously design things - humans - means that it's impossible for us to make a general case for how design occurs in absence of knowledge of the designer.
From another post:quote:
so did all theories before they fell by the way side. We just haven't got to the way side yet. It's coming.
For every theory you can name which went by the wayside, I can name one which is in current use and apparently okay. In other words, the fact that other theories have been supplanted by newer ones is not predictive that any particular theory will be supplanted, also. You've made a hasty generalization.quote:
Further data will only destroy macro evolutionary theory.
Like the London Subway mosquito?quote:
I dare say you are not well versed in the different theories, some already discredited that were part of Darwin's total evolutionary theory.
Please, why don't you explain them all to us.quote:
The parts that remain concerning micro evolution are not in dispute by most of us.
But where does micro-evolution end, Doomar? What is its upper limit?quote:
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.
And I believe that I'm waiting for you to be correct even once in this thread. Please try to be more correct than Darwin, if he was so poor at science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 20:06:30 [Permalink]
|
"The number of people who believe in a creator, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no bearing on the validity of the idea."
It does to those people. Especially when each has a reason and personal experience for why they believe. |
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 : 20:07:43 [Permalink]
|
| ok then, so we rule out magic, being that magic is just smoke and mirrors. |
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 : 20:16:21 [Permalink]
|
Is it so hard, geemack, to admit that you think you came from a monkey? Just face it. Don't try to deny it or bypass it. I don't hold it against you.
You've missed my point entirely. Because a scientist finds a correlation between a chimp and a human it does not follow automatically that the correlation promotes evolution. Is this so hard to figure out? I am not proving creation theory here, just noticing how so called "evidence" is mere supposition of drawing conclusions related to a single theory. It is not "proof" of that theory by any means, as the writer in the original thread says. That is my simple point. If you don't agree, fine, but neither has anyone shown logical proof as to why it must be true. I have refuted the logic that says, "because chimps and humans have similar "genes" or whatever that they are related by evolution." Nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to believe that this "evidence" supports evolutionary theories of Darwin, go ahead, but can you convince me by logic that it is a totally rational conclusion, not based on previous assumptions? I think not. |
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 |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 20:17:46 [Permalink]
|
Numbers mean nothing in this context.
Let us travel back in time to the days of Gallileo, shall we?
I would dare say that if you lined Gallileo up against the people who didn't agree with him he would've been powerfull out-numbered.
Who is the last man standing in that little dust up?
All it shows is how often ignorance and superstition outweigh the facts.
"Facts are simple and facts are straight.
Facts are lazy and facts can't wait.
Facts don't come with a point of view.
Facts don't do what you want them to."
Cross-eyed and painless
Talking heads
Remain in light
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
| Edited by - Dry_vby on 09/04/2005 20:18:39 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 20:24:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave said, "No, Doomar, you're not listening: you have not refuted the logic upon which the theory of evolution rests. What you've refuted is not evolutionary theory."
Dave, can you fill me in on your interpretation of the evolutionary theory of Darwin refered to in this quote on the first thread?
Whenever I ask this question, I never get a straight answer from anyone...maybe you will be the exception. (to refresh your mind: But more than that, the scientists said, the landmark finding promises important advances in human disease research and supports many of the insights on evolution proposed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago. ) Which insights are they referring to? Am I mistaken in believing that Darwin taught the evolution of one species into another, that is, from ape to man? Did I miss something in my reading? Please fill me in. |
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 : 20:34:05 [Permalink]
|
"I would dare say that if you lined Gallileo up against the people who didn't agree with him he would've been powerfully out-numbered."
agreed. Gallileo did not reject the belief of creationism, however, he rejected the belief of the sun revolving around the earth. We now know without a doubt that this is so and few, if any, still believe the sun revolves around the earth.
Now you are comparing Gallileo's theory with evolutionary theory. Today, in a day of great increases in scientific knowledge we still have scientists and ordinary people who believe in God and a Creator, numbering in the billions. If Darwin's theory was as strong as Gallileo's and as easily provable, we wouldn't still have such numbers now would we? The fact that so many still find fault in the Darwinian theories lends itself to the weakness of his arguments, not the stupidity of people. People are, in fact, much more educated and versed on Darwin than ever before, yet still his theories lack credibility and logic to many of us. |
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 : 20:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave said, "And I believe that I'm waiting for you to be correct even once in this thread. Please try to be more correct than Darwin, if he was so poor at science."
Okay, here it goes: 1+1=2....that's one....2x2=4...that's two....so now your expectations have been exceeded. |
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 |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 20:42:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
"I would dare say that if you lined Gallileo up against the people who didn't agree with him he would've been powerfully out-numbered."
agreed. Gallileo did not reject the belief of creationism, however, he rejected the belief of the sun revolving around the earth. We now know without a doubt that this is so and few, if any, still believe the sun revolves around the earth.
Now you are comparing Gallileo's theory with evolutionary theory. Today, in a day of great increases in scientific knowledge we still have scientists and ordinary people who believe in God and a Creator, numbering in the billions. If Darwin's theory was as strong as Gallileo's and as easily provable, we wouldn't still have such numbers now would we? The fact that so many still find fault in the Darwinian theories lends itself to the weakness of his arguments, not the stupidity of people. People are, in fact, much more educated and versed on Darwin than ever before, yet still his theories lack credibility and logic to many of us.
Boy, you sure are good at missing the point, aintcha?
Gallileo wasn't right about everything, but he was right about the main things.
We are not as far removed from Darwins theories as Gallileos, and so we find ourselves still in that transitional phase when the information is being corellated so that it can be more easily digested by people like you who have a vested interest in not wanting to accept it.
In the end, it doesn't matter one jot what you beleive, it is what it is. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 20:56:58 [Permalink]
|
"Boy, you sure are good at missing the point, aintcha?" Dry_vby
My specialty!
Actually, I got your point about the numbers thing. Numbers of those who believe something don't make something right or wrong for sure. Sometimes, however, numbers do mean something. Consider that when 5 Supreme Court justices make a ruling, it stands as law. When a majority in Congress vote on something, it becomes law. When a majority of scientists support evolutionary theory, it becomes accepted by most people and is taught in schools. That being said, in none of these above mentioned cases does the majority vote equal truth or doing the right thing. What is true and right may evade the majority. In this, we fully agree.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:04:22 [Permalink]
|
Ohhh.... Doomar returns... apparently even more whacked than when we last saw him.
quote:
Is it so hard, geemack, to admit that you think you came from a monkey? Just face it. Don't try to deny it or bypass it. I don't hold it against you.
I'll have to second what Geemack said. Go get yourself some remedial reading training man.
Your insistence that the ToE claims we "came from monkeys" doesn't make you right.
Pick up a book about evolution not written by some religious freak, maybe you'll learn something... You'll prob have to stop drinking from verlch's contaminated pond first however.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:09:38 [Permalink]
|
The majority of people didn't vote for the current government in those there United States and yet they are in office.
It's not a matter of numbers one way or the other.
What gets accepted as beleif these days has more to do with sound and fury than any loyalty to common sense or the facts.
Who's willing to push their barrow the fastest and hardest. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Is it so hard, geemack, to admit that you think you came from a monkey? Just face it. Don't try to deny it or bypass it. I don't hold it against you.
I'll say it: "The species Homo sapiens sapiens evolved from another hominid species, which itself evolved from a long line of homonid species, which evolved from a primate species, which evolved from a long line of primate species... and so on back to the first living cells." Of course, I came from my parents.
In fact, every animal we're currently aware of came from one or more parents. There is no scientific theory which posits that some animal had no parents at all, and if any did, that would entail many more assumptions than evolutionary theory does.quote:
You've missed my point entirely. Because a scientist finds a correlation between a chimp and a human it does not follow automatically that the correlation promotes evolution. Is this so hard to figure out?
Apparently, you don't understand what it means. That humans and chimps are genetically close is a prediction made by evolutionary theory. In other words, if evolutionary theory is correct, then we should find that humans and chimps are more closely related than humans and any other species, according to how much DNA they share. This prediction of evolutionary theory has been validated.
No other "theory" can make that prediction. "Common design" doesn't imply using the same parts over and over again (look at the wide range of design of famous architects, or how about this and this, which share a designer). And, of course, since God can do whatever He wants, creationism certainly doesn't predict that we should find similar DNA between morphologically similar species. Only for evolutionary theory does the similarity of DNA between species logically follow.
Thus, that it's been found to be true bolsters the idea that the theory is correct. There is no other scientific explanation for which DNA similarity is a logical necessity.quote:
I am not proving creation theory here, just noticing how so called "evidence" is mere supposition of drawing conclusions related to a single theory.
But you're wrong about the "mere supposition" bit. You don't understand evolutionary theory, and you're unwilling to even ask about its assumptions (you think you know what they are, but you're wrong). You cannot refute evolutionary logic through such means.quote:
It is not "proof" of that theory by any means, as the writer in the original thread says.
The word "proof" does not appear in the original post in this thread. Besides which, science doesn't "prove" theories. Theories are, by definition, the best explanation we have. So even if evolutionary theory were to be full of holes (which it isn't), it'd still be a theory because it has no scientific competition.quote:
That is my simple point. If you don't agree, fine, but neither has anyone shown logical proof as to why it must be true.
See above. Theories aren't about "proof." They're about explaining the observations we make of our world.quote:
I have refuted the logic that says, "because chimps and humans have similar "genes" or whatever that they are related by evolution." Nothing more, nothing less.
And that's precisely my point: no evolutionary biologist uses that logic. It is precisely backwards from what evolutionary theory says. You have not refuted evolutionary logic. You have refuted a decades-old creationist straw man. You are tilting at windmills. Nothing more, nothing less.quote:
If you wish to believe that this "evidence" supports evolutionary theories of Darwin, go ahead, but can you convince me by logic that it is a totally rational conclusion, not based on previous assumptions? I think not.
Why is science not allowed to make assumptions? The most important assumption science makes is that there is an objective reality which we can measure and agree upon, and nobody has special access to the "truth" (anybody can measure the same things and get the same results). I'm absolutely positive that you use that same assumption every single day of your life. Why is science not allowed to use it?
Today's science (Darwin's theory is over 140 years old - it's been updated) examines the observations in the fossil record, geology, genetics, living species, observed speciation events and other evidence, and says "what is the best explanation for all of this?" Current evolutionary theory is the answer, when the assumption is that we can infer the answer from what we can see.
Any appeal to a designer destroys that assumption, and destroys our ability to do biological science at all.
In another post, you wrote:quote:
Dave, can you fill me in on your interpretation of the evolutionary theory of Darwin refered to in this quote on the first thread?
As soon as you answer my question about the things that Darwin said that are now agreed by many to be wrong. I've spent over a year having you not answer my questions, Doomar. I'm taking a stand now.
In yet another post, you wrote:quote:
The fact that so many still find fault in the Darwinian theories lends itself to the weakness of his arguments, not the stupidity of people.
Baloney. It's a famous dictum that if a million people belief a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. Arguments from popularity are often incorrect, and that point is demonstrated by the fact that five centuries ago, most people believed that the Sun went around the Earth. Those people were wrong. The people who argue against modern evolutionary theory are also wrong, often for the same reason you are wrong (they don't understand the theory, and so their arguments present the theory backwards).quote:
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
