|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:30:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil, ultimately the theory of evolution relies on faith that the natural occurrences observed are its processes. |
So you're saying that for it to not be faith, evolution should rely on something that is not observed.| This is as unfalsifiable as "goddidit", and thus as scientific. |
No, it's just your bizarre "logic" that demands that science accept things that aren't observed that puts it on the same footing as "Goddidit." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:31:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You amazingly take your own words out of context! |
Not at all. The evidence that at one point in time there were no redheads is most-easily shown by the fact that at one point in time there was no hair at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:32:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is laughable to take ones own words out of context to avoid having to admit the inability to provide evidence of an assertion. |
Nobody here but you has done any such thing. You are projecting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:42:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Ah, at long last, the creationist flys his true colors. |
I never denied I believe that there is a creator.
| Ok, fine. Now, produce an example of direct, special creation, identify it's creator with empirical evidence as to it's existence, and demonstrate that it was the direct cause of said creation. |
I can ask the same of an evolutionist: Produce an example of genetic mutations; with empirical evidence, that presents a change within a species that though natural selection overtook the previous version and became another species.
| I do not believe that you have done the fruit fly experiment. If you had, you'd know perfectly well that it is not intended to produce favorable mutations; merely to demonstrate genetic change within a species. Or maybe you have and gave it your own, unique interpretation. Whatever..... it's pretty much the same thing. |
I fully know the purpose of the experiments, as I did take part in breeding fruit flies. Dave gave this example, my reply was an extrapolation of the knowledge gained from these experiments. The intent of experiments does not negate the evidence produced.
Jerome, you are as full of shit as a Chris'mas turkey!
 |
We all have a right to our opinions.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:48:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I can ask the same of an evolutionist: Produce an example of genetic mutations; with empirical evidence, that presents a change within a species that though natural selection overtook the previous version and became another species. |
This represents a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and not a challenge of it.| I fully know the purpose of the experiments, as I did take part in breeding fruit flies. Dave gave this example, my reply was an extrapolation of the knowledge gained from these experiments. The intent of experiments does not negate the evidence produced. |
I don't see where you responded to my point about your unsupportable assertions regarding fruit-fly experiments at all, Jerome.
And you never replied to my question to you about what classifies as a "kind," either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:53:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave, evolution does rely on things not observed. It is a connecting the dots type explanation, much like the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:54:10 [Permalink]
|
What and where is your creator, Jerome? You have made the claim, now produce the evidence. And while you're at it, study this link. It concerns all of our ancestors.
And this one as well.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:59:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, evolution does rely on things not observed. It is a connecting the dots type explanation, much like the 9/11 conspiracy theories. |
No, the conclusion is inferred from observations. How could a non-observation be used as evidence of anything?
Still no answer regarding "kinds," huh? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 12:00:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
This represents a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and not a challenge of it. |
Typical, you are saying i do not understand thus I am wrong. Would you please explain evolution. You can start a new thread if you like.
| I don't see where you responded to my point about your unsupportable assertions regarding fruit-fly experiments at all, Jerome. |
I presented my observations based on the experimentation and previous published research. Do you have evidence of fruit fly mutations creating a positive change that supplanted the previous species?
And you never replied to my question to you about what classifies as a "kind," either.
|
Sure did. I replied twice. Are you going to keep asking until you find a reply that you can argue?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 12:10:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Typical, you are saying i do not understand thus I am wrong. |
Wow, you're reading things I never wrote. You are only wrong in that you think that the challenge you presented for evolution is analogous of a request for evidence of special creation.| Would you please explain evolution. You can start a new thread if you like. |
No need: the knowledge you lack is that mutations overtaking a population is not a premise of evolutionary theory.| I don't see where you responded to my point about your unsupportable assertions regarding fruit-fly experiments at all, Jerome. |
I presented my observations based on the experimentation and previous published research. Do you have evidence of fruit fly mutations creating a positive change that supplanted the previous species? |
Even if this weren't an attempt to shift the burden of proof, why would I have such evidence? Neither positive change (which you have left undefined) nor supplanting the previous generation are required for evolution to have occured. Your question is not qualitatively different from "if man came from apes, why are there still apes?" It is a question that rests upon ignorance of evolutionary theory.| And you never replied to my question to you about what classifies as a "kind," either. |
Sure did. I replied twice. Are you going to keep asking until you find a reply that you can argue? |
No, I'm going to keep asking the question until you either answer it or admit that you can't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 12:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave, please define evolutionary theory.
With each point, you tell me I do not understand. Please define evolution.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 13:48:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, please define evolutionary theory.
With each point, you tell me I do not understand. Please define evolution.
|
Okey-dokey. Definition of evolution: ost non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
|
Now riddle me this, Jerome: Why should I, or anyone, do your homework for you?
Get off your lazy ass and look this stuff up for yourself!
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 14:13:17 [Permalink]
|
Though Dave may attempt to what he please, I doubt there really any point in defining evolutionary theory for you for the nth time. I gave you a link earlier to Wiki's "special" evolution article for children and slow adults, but that was apparently too complicated for you.
Jerome Da YEC wrote:| We all have a right to our opinions. |
Yes, in these enlightened fora (unlike in the Creationist fora), we do. But you don't have a right to your own facts.
Jerome Da YEC wrote:
Do you even understand evolution.
Natural selection does not produce a genetic mutation. |
Yes, though a layman, I do understand the basic concepts of evolution. And I also understand that genetic mutation is what makes evolution possible, not the other way around. I never wrote anything resembling the bizarre opinion you attribute to me. (It sounds something like Lamarckism.) Don't make up libels like that, you fundy liar! I repeat: You don't have a right to your own facts.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/15/2007 15:19:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 14:45:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, please define evolutionary theory.
With each point, you tell me I do not understand. Please define evolution. |
I did, in my first post to this thread. You even replied to that post, but failed to acknowledge the definition.
Still no answer to my question, I see. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Abdul Alhazred
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 16:51:09 [Permalink]
|
Miraculous creation means God making exceptions to His own existing laws of nature.
Is that what we're discussing here? |
The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation. |
| Edited by - Abdul Alhazred on 07/15/2007 16:52:20 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution caught in the act!
