Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Polymath257]

My pleasure.
Thank you for your courteous reply.
I'm sorry if it seems like I am trying to imply that Lemaître did not make observations. I'm not.

It's right there though.
It may not have said Cosmic Egg in your book, but that's what the primeval atom is. It's not an atom, but a single point, referred to as an egg that gave birth to the cosmos.

Bear in mind, and I hope I can explain that you understand my point of view, that we are talking men here - not about lifeforms of supernatural being. Men form ideas from the limited mind/brain that we posses. Those ideas can only come from what we have stored up there.
There is no outer automatic transmitter of thoughts... or maybe there is, but that's a different story.
So okay, man has an idea. He tests his ideas. He believes his ideas have been confirmed. But have they.

What recording can we replay that will confirm that things happened just as we believe they have.
We are looking into the past... without a time machine.
Perhaps some persons do hear a whisper in their ear, but you don't believe that stuff, do you? Most people don't.

It's all well and good if one wants to create a story, and call it reality, but at the end of the day, it's still a story.
Myth
noun
1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

I see the story as a myth. It not only looks like one, and sounds like one, but it bears all the markings as one.
If you or anyone else can show me that for sure, this is how it all happened, then it just might escape the myth category.

You know, on these forums, person identify the Biblical accounts as myths, on the bases that, you know, 'Well we never saw no one raised from the dead. We never saw no miracles. The flood could not happen. It's impossible. There is no evidence for it...' On and on they go.
Yet. They willingly hold on to - I call them modern day mythology. Why?
"Oh, we have evidence that this happened, and that happened."
Many people are still asking, "What evidence?"

We have a story.

[/QUOTE]


I watched the first few minutes of this documentary. In the first 30 seconds, it incorrectly described the current viewpoint of cosmologists. Then, it mentioned 'dark flow', which has been shown to be wrong.

Blow for ‘dark flow’ in Planck’s new view of the cosmos

Usually, BBC does these sorts of things well, but this seems to be poorly done or out of date (I didn't check the creation date on it).

 

[nPeace]

Do you really want to continue embarrassing yourself? OK...
Post #357


Post # 357


Post #358


#368

You just wasted a whole post trying to ... for what?.
All you did was verify the post you responded to.
You did not point out what you claimed in post #373.

However, if you want to continue that go ahead. Why should I be embarrassed by childish ego tripping?

 

[nPeace]

The question is: what point you were trying to make.

By taking a well written paragraph from a book and writing as your own thoughts, you were trying to impress with your erudition.

However, as soon as I read it, I mentally compared it to your other writings. I realized it probably didn't come from you. I copied a part of it, put it into quotes and pasted it into a Google search. Google quickly showed the book from which you plagiarized the whole paragraph.

Just a reminder, others have also noticed your tendency to do this and have called you out on on it.

I didn't respond to you, that's the thing.
You didn't want to read it... fine.
You won't have to be bother about it again... rest assured.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I admit I made a mistake of not taking the portions from the links that I agreed with. I will try to avoid repeating the same mistake.

So I scraped the - according to you - garbage, and replaced it. You don't accept it? That's okay.

We all make mistakes. No worries.

But here we are in the same place where you still haven't actually responded to anything I wrote in regards to your assertions about homosexuality, evolution, etc., except to say that you didn't fully read the links you provided to back up those assertions. You really have absolutely nothing to say? Can we disregard your posts on the subject now then, since you don’t seem to have any intention of defending them?

I did. Is there a script you like me recite? No thanks.

No you didn’t answer the question. You tried turning it around on me instead.

 

[nPeace]

We all make mistakes. No worries.

But here we are in the same place where you still haven't actually responded to anything I wrote in regards to your assertions about homosexuality, evolution, etc., except to say that you didn't fully read the links you provided to back up those assertions. You really have absolutely nothing to say? Can we disregard your posts on the subject now then, since you don’t seem to have any intention of defending them?

It's up to you.

No you didn’t answer the question. You tried turning it around on me instead.

It's an answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. I am sure. As sure as I am sure you are not sure.

For instance... When it comes to this subject, I don't like to give one or two instances. I like to thoroughly cover a wide range. That way, I feel it makes things clear.

I find many, many clues in support for creation, and endless clues against evolution.
So that you know, I am not talking about evolution on a small scale - that is, changes due to gene frequency.

One can say there are clues that evolution is true. One can say there are clues creation is true. Can we prove either?
To me, evolution verses creation is like a game of soccer, in which the creation team scores with all fairness, by executing well placed shots into the goal bars.
The evolution team on the other hand after taking poor shots at the bars, relies on the computer controlled mechanism dishonestly used to move the goal bars into the path of the ball.
We know that a computer program can quickly calculate the angle, and path the ball will travel. So the evolution team scores, when clearly all the spectators can see what's going on.
The referees, poor guys, just happened to look the other direction, and didn't see a thing. They want to make sure they keep their jobs, so they can continue to feed their family.
That's just a little analogy of how I view the debate.

So here are a few clues.
If you prefer things as brief as possible, you can take this agnostic's view - the first two segments (first 15 minutes), and the last segments (from 29:10), of the video - as my views of the clues. This I think, is a very, very short version.

David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

This is the long version.
Has anyone ever witnessed evolution on a large scale (macro)? No. That takes million of years according to the theory.

Okay. So here is the first clue.
Clue #1
My question is this. How does that prevent one from witnessing it?
Does evolution only take place in a particular year, and all organisms evolve together at that time?

What we witnesses today, suggests to me that this is absurd.

According to research...
Birth & Death Rates | Ecology Global Network
Estimated 2011
Birth Rate Death Rate
• 19 births/1,000 population • 8 deaths/1,000 population
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each year
• 360,000 births per day • 151,600 people die each day
• 15,000 births each hour • 6,316 people die each hour
• 250 births each minute • 105 people die each minute
• Four births each second of every day • Nearly two people die each second

So births do not occur only at particular years and all at that same time.
Hence, we can observe changes that take place, all the time - every single day.

We see organisms producing according to their kind, and growing up in their same form, and all their organs are fully formed and working - apart from defects that were inherited.

Now if evolution were true, I expect we would see clues of similar nature.
If for example, numerous organisms were evolving, and according to the theory, some faster than others, then we expect that this process would be taking place at different, and vast periods of time.
So in our time, we should at least observe some of those organism evolving. We don't.
Why not?

Perhaps the reason we don't, is because, I believe, the goal bars are always moving.
Mankind Has Stopped Evolving
Why human evolution pretty much stopped about 10,000 years ago
Has human evolution stopped? Many evolutionary biologists have answered this question in the affirmative. For example, the distinguished paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould1 stated:
“There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain”.

The basic rationale behind the conclusion that human evolution has stopped is that once the human lineage had achieved a sufficiently large brain and had developed a sufficiently sophisticated culture (sometime around 40,000–50,000 years ago according to Gould, but more commonly placed at 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture), cultural evolution supplanted biological evolution. However, many evolutionary biologists have not accepted this argument, and indeed some have come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

David Berlinski is agnostic, but I think what he says is reasonable.

David Berlinski on Science, Philosophy, and Society

Here's the thing about your attack on evolutionary theory ....

Let's say you're right, and evolution ends up being falsified. Like, let's say somebody found rabbit fossils in the Precambrian layers of the Earth.
I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but that wouldn't automatically make creationism (and let's face it, your particular brand of creationism that you personally believe) a reality. Everyone who believes in the brand of creationism that you adhere to still has all their work ahead of them in demonstrating that the God you believe in actually does exist and created the world in the specific way you imagine.

In short, attacking evolution with the idea that it will prove your beliefs in creationism isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's up to you.

Okay, then I will disregard all of your links, since you don't appear to want to back them up. And with the links go your claims.

Your games are getting very tired.

It's an answer.

Oh okay.
Well my answer is "goobledygloop bip bop."

It's an answer, but is it a productive answer to the discussion? Not so much. Like yours.

 

[nPeace]

Given the level of knowledge at the time his insight is one of the great discoveries of all time. There is still much to learn but everything since his theory was presented as supported his concept. Missing links are present only because it takes very special conditions to preserve enough of a life form and it has to be found which takes time. Yes living things are more complex than Darwin was aware but you cannot say the information was more than he hoped for or envisioned. That is an opinion and actually in my I think he would be very pleased how much our advances agree with his ideas. Do you think that Newton would feel the same way?

There have been new species that have developed over time and it is interesting that Darwin was concerned how people would react to this idea because if evolution was not the cause then god would have to visit the earth and create them whether mammal, bird bacteria, insect, fungus or other life. I wander if god is visits to make new species why does he not fix other problems, why create new species at this time and why not protect God's creation from destruction. Just some ideas

I believe Darwin was very, let me say, smart, and I believe there is a reason for this. Which I prefer to keep to myself.

Here is an example of how smart he was though.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and
in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.

Even if one doesn't find something, it can always be demonstrated to be possible - no need for worries.
He was a smart man. You can't beat "his" genius. Again, there is a reason, and the time has not arrived as yet to break up this work.
I believe it will though. I'm waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe Darwin was very, let me say, smart, and I believe there is a reason for this. Which I prefer to keep to myself.

Here is an example of how smart he was though.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and
in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.

Even if one doesn't find something, it can always be demonstrated to be possible - no need for worries.
He was a smart man. You can't beat "his" genius. Again, there is a reason, and the time has not arrived as yet to break up this work.
I believe it will though. I'm waiting.

Then you have not looked very far. The evolution of the eye has been demonstrated to fit your demands. In fact there is a rather old YouTube video with Richard Dawkins where this explained:

Get a load of that shirt!

 

[Audie]

Here's the thing about your attack on evolutionary theory ....

Let's say you're right, and evolution ends up being falsified. Like, let's say somebody found rabbit fossils in the Precambrian layers of the Earth.
I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but that wouldn't automatically make creationism (and let's face it, your particular brand of creationism that you personally believe) a reality. Everyone who believes in the brand of creationism that you adhere to still has all their work ahead of them in demonstrating that the God you believe in actually does exist and created the world in the specific way you imagine.

In short, attacking evolution with the idea that it will prove your beliefs in creationism isn't going to get you anywhere.

It is at least a half step in the creodirection,
instead of no start at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

People tend to believe what they want. Some people even believe lies.
Do you know why most skeptic debater here usually complain about persons using bogus sources?
It's allows them an excuse to avoid responding to what they can't debate. My posts always include credible sources that I use to support what I say.

Oh no you don't.
You don't get to say that when several people in this thread have actually taken the time to read your links AND to respond to the content of them. Something you demonstrated you yourself didn't bother taking the time to do.

Because of this, you know what the skeptics then do?
They make the most ridiculous sickening argument I have ever heard from a debater. "Oh. You only know how to copy and paste, but you have no idea what the information is saying."
So they become mind readers.

Again, you've demonstrated and flat out stated that you didn't take the time to fully read your links. No mind reading required. What's "sickening" about pointing out that apparent fact?

I'm not the only one they have done it with. They do it all the time.
I think this is just a false show of strength to cover up weakness - a false show of intelligence.

Yeah, darn those silly fools who require actual evidence to believe something!

Is Wikipedia a bogus site? I always try to use it.
Another thing these skeptics do which I hate, is accuse a person of being dishonest.
I cut out paragraphs to avoid a long post,
When I post a long page because I think cutting out certain material might not be appropriate - the skeptics complain about its length.


What is the truth from the lie?

Of course, you can do whatever you want. But you should try reading through your links before posting them.

 

[nPeace]

Here's the thing about your attack on evolutionary theory ....

Let's say you're right, and evolution ends up being falsified. Like, let's say somebody found rabbit fossils in the Precambrian layers of the Earth.
I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but that wouldn't automatically make creationism (and let's face it, your particular brand of creationism that you personally believe) a reality. Everyone who believes in the brand of creationism that you adhere to still has all their work ahead of them in demonstrating that the God you believe in actually does exist and created the world in the specific way you imagine.

In short, attacking evolution with the idea that it will prove your beliefs in creationism isn't going to get you anywhere.

This is what you believe, not I.
I don't depend on anyone to do my homework for me.
I don't have to prove it either. If you ask me for evidence, I will try my best, as I have been doing.

We already know that science doesn't prove anything, but i do believe all things will be proven.

I'm on a debate forum, so that's what I do.
I'm not here to prove anything.

I'm only sorry that some persons on these forums seem to think that persons should not believe anything different to them.
I wonder then, what's the purpose of the forum.

If it's a social club where everyone agrees, then I'm outta here.
i'm here to debate, so... I thought that's what would be expected.
Perhaps I am wrong. if so I beg your pardon.

 

[nPeace]

Oh no you don't.
You don't get to say that when several people in this thread have actually taken the time to read your links AND to respond to the content of them. Something you demonstrated you yourself didn't bother taking the time to do.


Again, you've demonstrated and flat out stated that you didn't take the time to fully read your links. No mind reading required. What's "sickening" about pointing out that apparent fact?


Yeah, darn those silly fools who require actual evidence to believe something!

Of course, you can do whatever you want. But you should try reading through your links before posting them.

I didn't say everyone, but thank you.

 

[nPeace]

Then you have not looked very far. The evolution of the eye has been demonstrated to fit your demands. In fact there is a rather old YouTube video with Richard Dawkins where this explained:

Get a load of that shirt!

Are you forgetting I responded to this, and how you responded?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you forgetting I responded to this, and how you responded?

It must have been a while ago. Tell me what part of the video did you not understand?

EDIT: And it did meet all of the requirements of something that evolved slowly and gradually. Each every small step is an improvement that makes survival more likely.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You call these missing links.
Well they are actually... missing links. In other words, they are missing the links.

What is your definition of a missing link?

 

[nPeace]

I watched the first few minutes of this documentary. In the first 30 seconds, it incorrectly described the current viewpoint of cosmologists. Then, it mentioned 'dark flow', which has been shown to be wrong.

Blow for ‘dark flow’ in Planck’s new view of the cosmos

Usually, BBC does these sorts of things well, but this seems to be poorly done or out of date (I didn't check the creation date on it).

Thanks.
I believe you are a scientist, so let me ask.
Is there a possibility that what is believed to be known, could be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks.
I believe you are a scientist, so let me ask.
Is there a possibility that what is believed to be known, could be wrong?

This is a rather pointless question. The answer is of course yes, but it does not help your argument one iota. In the sciences the concepts that are accepted are those that have been tested and confirmed. The theories that @Polymath257 has mentioned have been tested. Why would anyone switch to a concept that has not been tested?

 

[nPeace]

It must have been a while ago. Tell me what part of the video did you not understand?

EDIT: And it did meet all of the requirements of something that evolved slowly and gradually. Each every small step is an improvement that makes survival more likely.

I know how it is when you start losing your memory.
I'll post the link later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know how it is when you start losing your memory.
I'll post the link later.

Why not just answer the question now? The video met your criteria, why run away and dig up an old failed argument?