The battle of evolution vs creationism

[adi2d]

Alright then. Send me a private message here on the board with your refutations when you get the chance.

Then you can repost them here so we can all learn. Right?

 

[Parsimony]

Then you can repost them here so we can all learn. Right?

If Call_of_the_Wild will allow it, yes. If he wants to keep it private, however, I will respect his wishes.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't have the brain stamina to go over all of that stuff with you, to be honest. We can discuss it on messenger if you like. Trust me, I am not fazed by none of that stuff :no:

Then you can repost them here so we can all learn. Right?

I am also hoping that Call of the Wild will allow these refutations to be re-posted here.

I have a serious problem. I am currently under the delusion that ERV's are excellent evidence for common descent. And so far no creationist has been willing to try to cure me of this delusion. And if Call of the Wild refuses to allow his wisdom to be shared on this subject, my delusion will likely continue.

 

[Parsimony]

When you send your message, Call, make sure that the ERVs are the first thing you refute. That is the one I am most interested in.

 

[Simurgh]

For a couple reasons. 1. It is logically possible for God to exist, and all possible necessary truths must be true. 2. An uncaused cause is necessary because if you take God out of the equation, you are stuck with the absurd notion of an infinite chain of events leading up to the present moment, which is irrational.

Let’s not bring logic into an argument that bristles with irrationality. Try reading that drivel you just spouted and its absurdity should become evident.

You may be able to live your life without such a figurehead, but you wouldn't be able to have life without such a figurehead. And the necessity was explained, see above.

Yes, see above alright. Since the figure head is nothing more than a figment of your and other religious people’s imagination, you can stop pretending that you have an argument here.

If life can't come from nonlife, then there would be no life for evolution to take off in the first place

This statement just shows that you are scientifically illiterate.

Maybe you are the one that need to brush up on your science. Evolution does not concern itself with the developement of life. It concerns itself with the developement of species

If you want to play the game of semantics you need to go over your posts and sort them out as to what you said, denied, restated and then you can try again. Are you confusing yourself with your non-arguments again?

Lets not fool ourselves. We do not know how life can come from nonlife. The closest we've ever come was the Miller experiment and even that still had miles to go. Life from nonlife is one of the biggest mysteries of science. Don't know what that video is about and I don't pay attention much to links or videos posted on here. I can easily post videos and links supporting my position as well, as they are also out there.

of course, you would not want to watch anything that shows you the errors of your thinking. Why pay attention to the science that explains why and how your assertions regarding life from nothing and all that other stuff you apparently do not comprehend works.

Krauss was already dismantled by Bill Craig. The only videos that are made now are by his ghost.

Dismantled? The petty demagogue did not dismantle science he merely tried to placate his followers with his inane refutations of science by playing his little god card. You might want to actually listen to what is said rather than assume that your champion sabre rattler actually makes sense. He might make sense from a religious position—if it is narrowly construed and aligned with the creationist camp—but other than that, Craig is nothing but another pseudo-philosopher and apologist.

I've never seen Neil Degrasse Tyson have a debate with anyone regarding these subjects. Until I see him engage in a formal or informal debate regarding these issues where his position is attacked and critiqued, and he has to go through the motions of defending his position, then I don't want to be bothered with him.

DeGrasse Tyson does not defend his position or anything else in that clip; he just explains the workings of the cosmos. If you want to see him debate and argue his position on the origins of life and cosmology in general, then you have to actually watch that. Since you do not want to watch anyone debate anything that you do not agree with, your statement above makes no sense.

Yeah, it seems that you are strongly and unflinchingly subscribed to the “ignorance is bliss” school of thought. Funny, that you then try to argue positions you do not understand or are even open to explore.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Interesting that you agree with a definition that includes:

"the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally"
​

Yeah, and "through changes originating internally" could mean microevolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Alright then. Send me a private message here on the board with your refutations when you get the chance.

I said instant message, preferably yahoo. I can send you my yahoo username via private message and we can take it from there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If Call_of_the_Wild will allow it, yes. If he wants to keep it private, however, I will respect his wishes.

You can post it.

 

[Parsimony]

I said instant message, preferably yahoo. I can send you my yahoo username via private message and we can take it from there.

I find private messages preferable as it gives one sufficient time to think their points out more clearly and gives one much more room for posting. Do you have something against private messages?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am also hoping that Call of the Wild will allow these refutations to be re-posted here.

I have a serious problem. I am currently under the delusion that ERV's are excellent evidence for common descent. And so far no creationist has been willing to try to cure me of this delusion. And if Call of the Wild refuses to allow his wisdom to be shared on this subject, my delusion will likely continue.

ERV's? I won't answer until I have a dictionary and a lawyer present...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I find private messages preferable as it gives one sufficient time to think their points out more clearly and gives one much more room for posting. Do you have something against private messages?

Well, then there is really no distinction between posting on the main forum and posting privately other than one is private and the other one isn't.

 

[Parsimony]

ERV's? I won't answer until I have a dictionary and a lawyer present...

I explained what they were in post #549 on page 55.

Well, then there is really no distinction between posting on the main forum and posting privately other than one is private and the other one isn't.

You seem to be plenty willing to post on a forum. If you just want to take some time out to rest your mind, I can wait. Just make sure that you do eventually get around to addressing it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, see above alright. Since the figure head is nothing more than a figment of your and other religious people’s imagination, you can stop pretending that you have an argument here.

How about less rhetoric and more refutation of the argument that has been presented.

This statement just shows that you are scientifically illiterate.

So I am scientifically illiterate when speaking about something that isn't science (evolution). I will take that.

If you want to play the game of semantics you need to go over your posts and sort them out as to what you said, denied, restated and then you can try again. Are you confusing yourself with your non-arguments again?

I was just using my scientific illiteracy to explain to you what evolution actually is. I apologize if I offended you by doing so.

of course, you would not want to watch anything that shows you the errors of your thinking. Why pay attention to the science that explains why and how your assertions regarding life from nothing and all that other stuff you apparently do not comprehend works.

Because I can post two videos that agree with my position and I am quite sure you would disagree with my videos just like I disagree with yours. So why waste my time.

Dismantled? The petty demagogue did not dismantle science he merely tried to placate his followers with his inane refutations of science by playing his little god card. You might want to actually listen to what is said rather than assume that your champion sabre rattler actually makes sense. He might make sense from a religious position—if it is narrowly construed and aligned with the creationist camp—but other than that, Craig is nothing but another pseudo-philosopher and apologist.

Sam Harris said that Dr. Craig put the "fear of god" in some of his atheist friends. That is respect, my friend.

DeGrasse Tyson does not defend his position or anything else in that clip; he just explains the workings of the cosmos. If you want to see him debate and argue his position on the origins of life and cosmology in general, then you have to actually watch that. Since you do not want to watch anyone debate anything that you do not agree with, your statement above makes no sense.

Yeah, and Tyson doesn't seem to debate anyone that has a different interpretation of the evidence than he has. That is how you get your bones. And I do watch debates involving those I don't agree with, and they happen to be debating against those that I do agree with.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, and "through changes originating internally" could mean microevolution.

1 change. 100 times. Is 100 changes

Macroevolution is only microevolution many times over.

Denying macroevolution is to deny microevolution.

Macroevolution is when enough genes have changes in single individual steps (each a microevolutionary step) until the total change is large enough to be considered too different for two species to be the same species. Categories for species is somewhat still very subjective and arbitrary based on human views on how to group the biosphere. There is no absolute distinction, but only many small distinctions adding up to a larger difference.

Evolution is not about discrete steps but rather about how continuous changes become discontinuous.

In calculus, there's something called Riemann's sum. A sum of an infinite number of small areas totals up to the whole area under a curve. Many small changes become a large change.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I explained what they were in post #549 on page 55.

Okey Dokey

You seem to be plenty willing to post on a forum. If you just want to take some time out to rest your mind, I can wait. Just make sure that you do eventually get around to addressing it.

Yeah but the other posts normally come from what I like to call "quick fires", posts I can respond quickly too. Your post was not a "quick fire", and by the time I finish responding to it I will be to mentally drained to respond to anything else.

 

[Parsimony]

If you're not going to address my points, then just tell me so and I will leave you alone. I promise. I'd much rather you tell me that than to say that you will address them and then stall time and time again.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you're not going to address my points, then just tell me so and I will leave you alone. I promise. I'd much rather you tell me that than to say that you will address them and then stall time and time again.

I am saying I will be more than willing to discuss all of that good stuff, just on a different platform than this. Yahoo IM would be a perfect platform. And btw, I don't run from anyone.

 

[Simurgh]

I am saying I will be more than willing to discuss all of that good stuff, just on a different platform than this. Yahoo IM would be a perfect platform. And btw, I don't run from anyone.

well, if you don't "run" then you could address my reply to you earlier.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And if abiogenesis is disproven, there is no life. And if there is no life, then there is no evolution.

Yeah, not quite. If abiogenesis is disproven, then life arose some other way. Since evolution doesn't claim how life arose, this wouldn't affect it in the slightest.

And that is the problem. If you take away abiogenesis then you are left with NOTHING but divine creation...thus, God exist. So that would still be a defeater of naturalism/atheism all day, every day.

That's fine, since we're speaking hypothetically here; the point is it wouldn't be a defeater for evolution.

Don't need to do to much assuming there. The fact that life is here is a given. Tell me something I don't know.

Thanks for finally conceding the obvious point; life exists, however it came about, which is all that evolution needs to assume.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't have Yahoo messenger. That's another reason why I preferred to do this over private messages. Besides, the issue of the ERVs is going to be a complex one whether you do it here on the forum or on a messenger.

Actually, I have a feeling that we could probably get all of the other participants in this thread to hold off for a while just so you can have the time and energy necessary to address the ERVs here. I mean, I'm sure they're as interested in the ERV issue as I am. If it drains you, then work on your post a little bit at a time instead of all at once. Then just let us know when you've completed your post so we can then respond to it.