|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2005 : 21:21:57 [Permalink]
|
Ah, MC Escher, one of my fave artists of all time, ever.
Well done DW.
Now I wait in breathless anticipation for the squirming to continue. |
"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 : 21:43:18 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Dry_vby.
And yes, I expect that my questions will go unanswered, and/or the points I was making will be misunderstood, but Doomar will continue to assert that he is correct, despite the fact that if he were correct, some scientist would have already picked up a Nobel Prize for it and we'd be discussing the replacement for evolutionary theory.
Really: nothing Doomar has said in this thread is new, it's all a rehashing of creationist arguments going back to Darwin's day. The fact that these ideas have had no impact upon science at all in the last 140+ years doesn't seem to impress Doomar in the slightest. The prediction that evolutionary theory is on its last legs has been published hundreds of times since 1900, yet it's still here and stronger than ever.
Really, the whole schtick is a big yawner. |
- 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 : 22:02:52 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, Dave. Methinks we spend too much time in this subject. Again, you have alluded me in providing your frame of reference on evolutionary theory, something that is supposedly so easy to understand and grasp. You have admitted to having ancestors in the primate family other than your our own family or human beings...thank you! Evidently I am adept at raising straw men and destroying them. THanks for that compliment. I have read Darwin's "Origin of the Species". I do follow his doctrine of "survival of the fitest". The morphing of species, however, is at the basis of this argument. To this end, the chimp's relation to humans is made. The closeness of genes is taken as proof of species morphing. It is also possible and plausible that each species had its own origin and did not morph. The similarities in design of the chimp and human can be reason enough for the similarity in genes. Can you disagree with that? I would also expect chimps and humans to have such similarities simply because of similarities of design (two legs, two hands with similar digits, two eyes, similar breathing and digestive tracts, and so on), just as I would expect to find the wood of a maple tree to be similar to the wood of a cherry tree. Both have similar uses. It does not follow that both evolved from one tree. It is the dissimilarities that make each species unique and speak to a unique beginning for each. The logical problems in "morphing" are extremely great and exceedingly difficult to prove. You must accept this theory on "faith" and then try to prove it. I just don't have that kind of faith that you are asking for. It requires such an extreme logical leap in my mind, that I just can't make it. Too many problems with the stats and probability. Way too many precise mutations must occur in exact order. You are just asking more than I can reasonable give. I just don't have enough faith to believe the theory. |
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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 22:11:39 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, in order to replace Evolution, if that is your goal, you need to do more than point out perceived flaws in the theory. You need to come up with a replacement--a scientific theory that makes predictions which can be tested.
Do you have such a replacement? If not, then you are wasting your time.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/04/2005 23:03:10 |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 22:24:41 [Permalink]
|
I think if it were possible to track the parentage of those 2 trees far enough back you would find that they are related, just like if you followed your and my particles far enough back you would find that we came from the same cloud of cosmic dust.
You might pride yourself on an understanding of the theory of evolution, but you are clearly having trouble with the concept of genetic mutations. |
"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 : 22:50:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dave, Dave. Methinks we spend too much time in this subject.
Actually, I think you spend too little time on it.quote:
Again, you have alluded me in providing your frame of reference on evolutionary theory...
I asked you a direct question which you failed to answer in any way, shape or form. I told you that until you answer that question, I will refrain from answering your question. Your hypocrisy is noted.quote:
...something that is supposedly so easy to understand and grasp.
Says whom? Evolutionary theory is more complex than the proverbial "rocket science." There is a good reason that people can spend an entire career to make a single addition to the field of evolutionary biology: it's hard work. That you, without the requisite knowledge, think you can dismantle the entire thing with a single post on this forum is the height of arrogance.quote:
You have admitted to having ancestors in the primate family other than your our own family or human beings...thank you!
Yes, and I spoke for you as well.quote:
Evidently I am adept at raising straw men and destroying them. THanks for that compliment.
Neither sarcasm nor feigned stupidity serve your argument well.quote:
I have read Darwin's "Origin of the Species". I do follow his doctrine of "survival of the fitest". The morphing of species, however, is at the basis of this argument.
Once again, you have it backwards. The modification of one species into two or more (or of one species into another) is the conclusion one draws from the "survival of the fittest." It's not a premise.quote:
To this end, the chimp's relation to humans is made. The closeness of genes is taken as proof of species morphing. It is also possible and plausible that each species had its own origin and did not morph.
How is it "plausible?" Is there any known mechanism through which a population of living primates can come into existence where none were before? No.quote:
The similarities in design of the chimp and human can be reason enough for the similarity in genes. Can you disagree with that?
There is no other scientific theory which logically requires the DNA of chimps and humans to be similar.quote:
I would also expect chimps and humans to have such similarities simply because of similarities of design (two legs, two hands with similar digits, two eyes, similar breathing and digestive tracts, and so on), just as I would expect to find the wood of a maple tree to be similar to the wood of a cherry tree. Both have similar uses. It does not follow that both evolved from one tree.
The thing which does not follow is your assumption that similar uses require similar designs. This thing and this thing are designed to do the same thing.quote:
It is the dissimilarities that make each species unique and speak to a unique beginning for each.
They only speak to a "unique beginning" if you assume that they couldn't have happened through a natural process.quote:
The logical problems in "morphing" are extremely great and exceedingly difficult to prove.
You haven't identified a single logical problem with the "morphing" itself. You've only established your own personal incredulity, which is evidence only of your lack of understanding.quote:
You must accept this theory on "faith" and then try to prove it.
Which is in absolute denial of what a scientific theory is. See, it's not that you don't understand evolution, it's that you don't understand the process of science itself. With such a poor basis, it's no wonder that you present the ideas of evolution backwards.quote:
I just don't have that kind of faith that you are asking for.
I'm not asking for your faith, I'm asking you (now) to take a basic science class before presenting yourself as an expert on any scientific subject.quote:
It requires such an extreme logical leap in my mind, that I just can't make it.
Yup, the old "if I don't get it, it must be false" argument. Bravo!quote:
Too many problems with the stats and probability.
If you say "tornado in a junkyard," you'll demonstrate again your ignorance of the subject to which you pretend knowledge.quote:
Way too many precise mutations must occur in exact order.
Only if you assume that humans were supposed to evolve. Evolutionary theory doesn't argue that we're special. Instead, we're just another twig in the bush of life.quote:
You are just a |
- 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 - 09/05/2005 : 00:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave, why you spend so much time refuting my statements is beyond me. If I am so stupid and illogical, then why waste your time? If, you are a decendant of the apes with no more purpose than any other animal, what is the purpose of this discussion at all. It is totally irrelevant in the vast scheme of things. To spend so much passion and energy and time is a total waste of your time. I guess you get your kicks from destroying the arguments of unlearned and stupid people (in your mind anyway). Your use of ad hominem attacks speaks volumes to me. I am aware that one uses such attacks when his own arguments lack strength. It does not surprise me. Do you think you are "protecting" the weaker minds of your students in the Skeptics forum? Are you afraid the indoctrinated will hear a squeak in the well oiled theory? Sure, make me out to be some unlearned, religious fanatic, brainwashed by the Gishes of this world. Maybe that will help your argument. Call me a hypocrite, maybe that will annul the logic. Use countless trivial arguments to cloud the real argument from the simple minded, or those too busy to read your every criticism. Try whatever you want. My guess is that some people who come to these forums are not afraid to look for truth in a matter, while some will never find it. But don't preach to me about hypocrisy, friend, when you have enough of it to go around for the rest of us.
Stick with the actual argument or I'll not waste my time with a reply.
The improbability of multiple, minute and varied mutations occurring randomly, such that would cause a "lesser evolved" species to morph into another, "higher evolved" species with higher brain function is so great that it is almost incalculable. Tell me that you've taken statistics and studied probability and that you find no problem in the lack of credulity of such occurances randomly happening. THe chances are almost nill for one species, not to mention millions. Is it any wonder that you cannot convince me by simply saying, "well, it happened, so there we are". Such ridiculous arguments that I've heard from evolutionists boggle the logical mind. Science and probability are not on your side. They stand diametrically opposed with a huge wall that is unscalable by any of your arguments. No matter how stupid or unlearned or hypocritical I may be, that wall still stands as an unpassable barrier. Unless you can deal with that wall, you're wasting your words. You might as well preach magic or aliens, they make more sense. |
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 |
| Edited by - Doomar on 09/05/2005 00:38:58 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 00:35:55 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, in order to replace Evolution, if that is your goal, you need to do more than point out perceived flaws in the theory. You need to come up with a replacement--a scientific theory that makes predictions which can be tested.
Do you have such a replacement? If not, then you are wasting your time.
So now I have to come up with a theory. Pointing out flaws in the existing is useless. I guess those poor souls who can't see the flaws are better off. Man, the poor accountant who finds flaws in business practice and records like those checking out Enron. He doesn't have that right unless he's a businessman with a better business plan than the Enron execs. The lowly lab tech who notices a scientist 'fudging' the report is wasting his time reporting it...he'll probably lose his job. Forget that he was trying to be truthful, who cares about that? He doesn't have a better theory, so, hey, stop thinking and just obey.
Actually, I have a better theory. If you haven't guessed it by now you never will. |
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 - 09/05/2005 : 00:51:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dave, why you spend so much time refuting my statements is beyond me. If I am so stupid and illogical, then why waste your time? If, you are a decendant of the apes with no more purpose than any other animal, what is the purpose of this discussion at all. It is totally irrelevant in the vast scheme of things. To spend so much passion and energy and time is a total waste of your time. I guess you get your kicks from destroying the arguments of unlearned and stupid people (in your mind anyway). Your use of ad hominem attacks speaks volumes to me. I am aware that one uses such attacks when his own arguments lack strength. It does not surprise me. Do you think you are "protecting" the weaker minds of your students in the Skeptics forum? Are you afraid the indoctrinated will hear a squeak in the well oiled theory? Sure, make me out to be some unlearned, religious fanatic, brainwashed by the Gishes of this world. Maybe that will help your argument. Call me a hypocrite, maybe that will annul the logic. Use countless trivial arguments to cloud the real argument from the simple minded, or those too busy to read your every criticism. Try whatever you want. My guess is that some people who come to these forums are not afraid to look for truth in a matter, while some will never find it. But don't preach to me about hypocrisy, friend, when you have enough of it to go around for the rest of us.
Stick with the actual argument or I'll not waste my time with a reply.
The improbability of multiple, minute and varied mutations occurring randomly, such that would cause a "lesser evolved" species to morph into another, "higher evolved" species with higher brain function is so great that it is almost incalculable. Tell me that you've taken statistics and studied probability and that you find no problem in the lack of credulity of such occurances randomly happening. THe chances are almost nill for one species, not to mention millions. Is it any wonder that you cannot convince me by simply saying, "well, it happened, so there we are". Such ridiculous arguments that I've heard from evolutionists boggle the logical mind. Science and probability are not on your side. They stand diametrically opposed with a huge wall that is unscalable by any of your arguments. No matter how stupid or unlearned or hypocritical I may be, that wall still stands as an unpassable barrier. Unless you can deal with that wall, you're wasting your words. You might as well preach magic or aliens, they make more sense.
Be carefull what you say, you might just be looking into a mirror.
I for one have nothing invested in this argument one way or the other, however if I was asked to choose between some guy with a beard sitting in a cloud waving his hand in some mysterious way saying "Abracadabra", and the evolution theory as it now stands, that is a no brainer.
You quite obviously haven't read any Richard Dawkins. |
"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
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 02:41:43 [Permalink]
|
Well hell, I guess somebody's gotta do it, might's well be me.
This is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the Touami Skull -- a bone of contention, as it were. quote:
Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). Based on faunal studies, it is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old, and more likely in the older part of that range. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc) comparable in size to that of chimpanzees.
No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. Brunet et al. say that it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.
Brunet et al. consider Toumai to be a hominid, that is, on our side of the chimp-human split and therefore more closely related to us than to chimps. This is not at all certain. Some scientists think it probable; others have suggested that it may come from before the point at which hominids separated from chimps, while Brigitte Senut (one of the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, "Millennium Man") has suggested that it may be an early gorilla. It is, I think, impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period.
Whatever it is, all scientists have been in agreement with its finders that Toumai is a find of major significance.
As stated, all anyone is reasonably sure of is that it's a hominid, and some highly qualified people doubt even that. Thus it will remain until more fossils are found. While finding a fully articulated skeleton is wishful dreaming, a pelvis and a femur would put forth a great deal of information, as would even a few teeth (a great many ancient species are known only from teeth).
And therein lies the beauty of scientific theory: nothing is settled until it's damned well settled, and even then, it's kept open-ended just in case new evidence is found and verified in stringent review.
Such cannot be said of faith. With faith, the story is told and that's that; the only argument allowable is in minor translation.
Is Sahelanthropus a 6-7 MYO ape? Is he a direct ancestor of ours? Does he represent the common ancester of chimps and ourselves? I don't know and at this date, no one else does, either. Lots of hypothesis out there, though -- it's being worked on and where one fossil rested, there could be more.
AiG hated Touami because it went against the ridged, cut & dry philosphy of faith. Whilst peddling vidios and related items, this was published in their in-house organ: quote:
by Dr Carl Wieland
12 July 2002
Newspapers are again abuzz with excitement at one more specimen which is claimed to have significance for 'human evolution'.
Get the TRUTH about so-called 'ape-men' …
The Image of God (Video)
Keziah Films
Exposes the notorious 'ape-men' frauds and the controversy surrounding their ages.
ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY
Briefly, this skull, nicknamed the 'Toumai' skull, found in Chad's Sahel region, was given the species name Sahelanthropus tchadensis. The excitement appears to be NOT because it affords any actual additional evidence that man evolved from apes, but because it is revolutionary for theories of human evolution. In other words, if we START with the belief that man evolved from apes, it turns some of the previous notions on their head. In one sense, it seems to make a mockery of the 'certainty' with which schoolchildren are taught of the neat 'schemes' of our alleged 'ancestry'. No doubt it will spawn a new orthodoxy, which will be taught with just as straight a face, until the next 'revolutionary' discovery (this one is said to have the 'impact of a small nuclear bomb'. A brief summary of the facts would appear to be as follows:
And so forth.
So what am I, a mere layman, to accept? The findings of dedicated professionals with the courage to say: "I don't know all of it. Yet." or magic and mysticism promoted by various texts concieved by people who did no science beyond finding relief for tooth ache?
Easy question, I think.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 06:25:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
[green][size=1]Man, the poor accountant who finds flaws in business practice and records like those checking out Enron. He doesn't have that right unless he's a businessman with a better business plan than the Enron execs. The lowly lab tech who notices a scientist 'fudging' the report is wasting his time reporting it...he'll probably lose his job.
These are instances of correcting mistakes like correcting someone's spelling or arithmetic.
You are trying to show that a theory is incorrect by simply saying, "the theory cannot explain 'x' fully". But you fail to provide an alternate theory (hypothesis, supporting evidence) and from your most recent post seem to think that this automatically makes the entire theory wrong or useless.
quote:
THe chances are almost nill for one species, not to mention millions. Is it any wonder that you cannot convince me by simply saying, "well, it happened, so there we are". Such ridiculous arguments that I've heard from evolutionists boggle the logical mind. Science and probability are not on your side.
So are the chances of winning the lottery. The chances for the UK lottery are 1 in 14million which is about 0.00000007 percent. But is does happen to there you go. Fact is, we're here and all the evidence points to some sort of evolutionary theory. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 08:51:45 [Permalink]
|
Poor Doomar...
Its actually kinda amusing to watch you flounder around like this. Please continue.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 08:53:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
It is just as easy to say man started as man and chimp started as chimp.
Started how?quote:
The things I read are "underwhelming" supposition and assumption, always with another plausible explanation.
What is the plausible explanation?quote:
What's to say that the same building blocks used in making the chimp were not used in making a human being? There is no evolution needed to explain such a "relationship".
Explain it another way.quote:
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.
Can you provide some of these other explanations?quote:
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.
Please pose your other possibility.quote:
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.
Explain what you mean by "their maker", and provide evidence of its existence and of how the making came about.quote:
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.
Provide a better, or "best" explanation. Don't forget to lay it out using logical progressive thought.quote:
We did not evolve from lower life forms. There is a common thread in all life forms, as there is a common creator.
Define this "common creator" and provide evidence for its existence.quote:
Is there another explanation besides evolutionary theory in regards to the orgins of species?
You're the one who keeps suggesting the theory of evolution doesn't hold water. How about you answer your own question here. Is there another explanation?quote:
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?
It's a scientific idea not a stupid religious idea. Are you proposing a stupid religious idea as your own explanation for the similarity in the genes?quote:
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.
Give an example of evidence that supports an explanation that a creator made each species independently from the others.quote:
ok then, so we rule out magic, being that magic is just smoke and mirrors.
Okay, you're ruling out evolution and magic. What are you suggesting as an alternative explanation for the origins of species alive today?quote:
Sure, make me out to be some unlearned, religious fanatic, brainwashed by the Gishes of this world.
You've made yourself out to be that, and provided much evidence to support it. Perhaps you simply lack the communication skills to present your position in a rational, intelligent way. But the consistency of your lack of rationale lends much credence to the idea that you're an unlearned, religious fanatic.quote:
No matter how stupid or unlearned or hypocritical I may be, that wall still stands as an unpassable barrier. Unless you can deal with that wall, you're wasting your words.
Perhaps you're onto something here. You may just be so stupid, unlearned, and/or hypocritical that you've got an impassable barrier. That, however, is to your detriment, and not to the detriment of those who do not have such an impenetrable wall.quote:
So now I have to come up with a theory.
In your statements listed above you continue to assert that you have an explanation or a theory. Provide it.quote:
Actually, I have a better theory.
If you'll recall the scientific process we discussed earlier in this thread, a theory comes about through a fairly well defined course of actions. You haven't yet proposed a theory.quote:
To me it is evasion of the issue at hand, nothing more, unless you can clarify positively stating your current belief on the subject.
Okay, your turn. Clarify positively stating your current belief on the subject. Provide as much evidence as you can to support your |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 09/05/2005 09:20:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 08:55:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Stick with the actual argument or I'll not waste my time with a reply.
Okay:quote:
Use countless trivial arguments to cloud the real argument from the simple minded, or those too busy to read your every criticism.
The real argument is that you've applied your logic to a backwards interpretation of evolutionary theory, and that's why your "refutation" fails on all counts. This is not at all trivial, but instead central to your thesis. I have shown that the most important facet of your argument - the idea that you're attacking evolutionary theory - is plainly false.
You have not responded in any substantial way to this argument.
On to your next argument:quote:
Tell me that you've taken statistics and studied probability and that you find no problem in the lack of credulity of such occurances randomly happening. THe chances are almost nill for one species, not to mention millions.
Tell you what, why don't you actually calculate the probabilities, and post your calculations here for everyone to see? Because I have no idea how to properly calculate the effects of natural selection, genetic drift, or any of the other non-random mechanisms of evolution.quote:
Science and probability are not on your side.
You have yet to show any probability calculations, nor have you made any attempt to demolish the actual science or logic behind evolutionary theory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 09:12:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Actually, Dave, I have refuted its logic time and again. And no one addresses it.
I think I did in this post. I made a point by point examination of your counter-arguments and found them lacking in the logical department.
If you had so perfect logic, and was so right, how come none of us are changing sides? Noone wants to be a dupe, and we all strive for knowledge of the real world. At least I do. And if I found your arguments to have merit, I would embrace them. But your straw-men, non-sequiteur and other logical flaws only reinforce the impression that the current theory is correct.
And I don't think anyone truly claims the Theory of Evolution to be absolute. It is a complex description of the real world, and it has flaws. It does not pretend to be The Ultimate Truth. It is an evolving mass of knowledge all by itself, and it will change from time to time as new finds brings new understanding. Like the HERV-traces in the DNA, such a wonderful piece of evidence that fits the prediction of what we would find in different species with common ancestry. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
