Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[Kerr]

Not all of them.

Of course not, people will always disagree, but many do.

 

[Tristesse]

And so it is with the theory of evolution. The "fact" is life exists, just your explanation is wrong.

No, the theory as it is right now, is the best explanation. It could be that one day the theory is wrong, but that doesn't mean that creationism wins by default, that just means our explanation for the evolution of species was wrong. We still have to explain the variations in species we see today, and new species that give rise. And thats what the theory of evolution explains.

 

[Atruthseeker]

No, the theory as it is right now, is the best explanation. It could be that one day the theory is wrong, but that doesn't mean that creationism wins by default, that just means our explanation for the evolution of species was wrong. We still have to explain the variations in species we see today, and new species that give rise. And thats what the theory of evolution explains.

It's not the best explanation. If it were people wouldn't have a problem with it. It just don't make no sense!:beach:

 

[Sunstone]

It's not the best explanation. If it were people wouldn't have a problem with it. It just don't make no sense!:beach:

It doesn't make sense to a person who admits to being ignorant of evolutionary fact and theory. But it does make sense to the evolutionary biologists who have bothered to study it. How strange is that?

 

[Kerr]

It's not the best explanation. If it were people wouldn't have a problem with it. It just don't make no sense!:beach:

That is because you do not understand it to begin with.

But what are you discussing abiogenesis or evolution? This is confusing...

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps not to the level you have. But let me ask you this. Have you studied the Bible and creation to the level I have? And honestly, who cares if you have or not? It doesn't mean you aren't able to ask questions. What if everybody you aksed a question of, brushed you off with your response? You couldn't even go to customer services at your bank cos they'd tell you to go away and get a degree in economics first.

Basically, you are someone who is saying he doesn't know much about evolution, but knows that it's wrong. To me, that's the arrogance of ignorance.

Hey, I never said I was a creditable source.

You have implied that you know something significant about a subject you are abysmally ignorant of. If you claimed the same expertise about car mechanics as you claim about evolution, and yet you showed the same lack of expertise about car mechanics as you show about evolution, you would be labeled a fraud and perhaps a charlatan. Why should I believe you are much less than that when it comes to evolution, my friend?

And on your point, evolutionary biologists are bound to expressly reject that distinction. If they accepted it, it would put a spanner in the works. They have to reject anything that may prove them wrong. They are like litigation lawyers sometimes.

So, after confessing to knowing nothing about evolution, you chose to smear evolutionary biologists as dishonest? LOL!

Also, it seems to me that you are the one avoiding the question, which was if it's a mathematical impossibility for life to have evolved from non-life, then the theory falls down. How do you explain life's origin. Stop dodging the issue. (Typical evolutionist )

Who's dodging? I have pointed out to you that the theory of evolution does not fall down even if it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve from non-life. You, who admit to having never studied evolution, claim that I am wrong about that. But your claims are increditable.

 

[Sunstone]

It doesn't matter that it's not supported. Galileo wasn't.

Which of Galileo's discoveries and hypothesises was not supported by evidence and reasoning?

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

So you are saying we were created!

Right now I'm saying re-read the quote I responded to.

Taking this as an example then, you should be able to argue that the HIV virus is a good example of evolution. Now, as millions of people have it ought it not by now undergone some evolutionary change? You'd have thought something fundamental would have changed over the last few decades, based on the number of people who have it. True it has built resistance to certain drugs, but it hasn't changed much. The same goes for E.coli, malaria and the like. And again, this is micro evolution if anything. Nothing largescale is happening.

What on Earth are you babbling about? HIV has thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands of strains. I'm pretty sure that implies it has changed quite a bit.

It's the on that William Dembski calculated. He calculated the point at which an improbable event (ie, life coming about unaided) becomes impossible. The odds of such a lucky event was 1\in 10 followed by 150 zeros. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed a universal probability bound of 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeros.

Care to explain how these results were reached?

It's not the best explanation. If it were people wouldn't have a problem with it. It just don't make no sense!:beach:

Two issues with this. First, it implies creationism isn't the best explanation. Second, and more importantly, you're forgetting the power of ignorance people have (i.e. you) in that they believe in something else (creationism) so much that they don't even consider evolution, and when they do, it usually gets twisted around (i.e. theistic evolution).

Let me give you some examples of this regarding your posts. You seem to use evolution and abiogenesis almost interchangably, demonstrating the fact that you don't know the difference between the two and possibly not knowing what either of them are. Despite your lack of knowledge, instead of trying to seek answers, you act arrogant and assume through your lack of knowledge, arrogance and ignorance that you'll somehow win the debate or learn a thing or two about science.

So answer me this: how can you argue against something when you don't know what that something is? Suppose you stick with A and want to argue against B, so you conjure up some vague, petty statements against B and when questioned you begin grabbing at random scientific explanations, hoping that since TOE is obviously scientific, then any other scientific or biological explanation can be used to counter it. So learn about what you're attempting to debate against and heed your own advice of quit dodging questions. If not, then there's really no point to continue this because you're going to turn a blind eye and continue babbling. :ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore:

 

[Atruthseeker]

Basically, you are someone who is saying he doesn't know much about evolution, but knows that it's wrong. To me, that's the arrogance of ignorance.

I know enough, I've read a book about it! And I know that the central claim of evolution is that an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity. Who's ignorant now!?

You have implied that you know something significant about a subject you are abysmally ignorant of. If you claimed the same expertise about car mechanics as you claim about evolution, and yet you showed the same lack of expertise about car mechanics as you show about evolution, you would be labeled a fraud and perhaps a charlatan. Why should I believe you are much less than that when it comes to evolution, my friend?

Mmm...just as Ernst Haeckel was honest about his drawings of those emrbyos....

So, after confessing to knowing nothing about evolution, you chose to smear evolutionary biologists as dishonest? LOL!

Not all, but some. Those who teach evolution as fact when there is little to no real evidence to back their claims. And those who do not own up to findings that go against theirs. When key points of evolution are debated and not supported by the theory, such as Eugenie Scott, head of the National Centre for Science who said that to change the text books would just confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.
[/quote]

 

[Riverwolf]

I know enough, I've read a book about it!

A book about it is not enough. You have to STUDY STUDY STUDY!!

And I know that the central claim of evolution is that an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity. Who's ignorant now!?

"Emergence" is not part of the claim. Evolution doesn't say anything about where the diversity emerged from.

Not all, but some. Those who teach evolution as fact when there is little to no real evidence to back their claims.

Can you back THAT claim up? Because it seems as if there's a TON of evidence in support of the theory, such as the fossil record.

And those who do not own up to findings that go against theirs. When key points of evolution are debated and not supported by the theory, such as Eugenie Scott, head of the National Centre for Science who said that to change the text books would just confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Right now I'm saying re-read the quote I responded to.



What on Earth are you babbling about? HIV has thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands of strains. I'm pretty sure that implies it has changed quite a bit.



Care to explain how these results were reached?



Two issues with this. First, it implies creationism isn't the best explanation. Second, and more importantly, you're forgetting the power of ignorance people have (i.e. you) in that they believe in something else (creationism) so much that they don't even consider evolution, and when they do, it usually gets twisted around (i.e. theistic evolution).

Let me give you some examples of this regarding your posts. You seem to use evolution and abiogenesis almost interchangably, demonstrating the fact that you don't know the difference between the two and possibly not knowing what either of them are. Despite your lack of knowledge, instead of trying to seek answers, you act arrogant and assume through your lack of knowledge, arrogance and ignorance that you'll somehow win the debate or learn a thing or two about science.

So answer me this: how can you argue against something when you don't know what that something is? Suppose you stick with A and want to argue against B, so you conjure up some vague, petty statements against B and when questioned you begin grabbing at random scientific explanations, hoping that since TOE is obviously scientific, then any other scientific or biological explanation can be used to counter it. So learn about what you're attempting to debate against and heed your own advice of quit dodging questions. If not, then there's really no point to continue this because you're going to turn a blind eye and continue babbling. :ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore::ignore:

Oh my word...I can't believe you can come to such conclussions. It's obvious from the above that it is you who doesn't know the differences of the issue at hand. Please explain the giraffe's neck. Or the duck billed platypuss. Or symbiology. Or how a newborn turle finds it's way to the sea. or how birds migrate and butterflies fly miles to where they have never been before. Who told them how to get there?

 

[Nepenthe]

I know enough, I've read a book about it! And I know that the central claim of evolution is that an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity. Who's ignorant now!?

No, evolution is guided by natural selection, just not intelligently guided.

Mmm...just as Ernst Haeckel was honest about his drawings of those emrbyos....

Yes, Haeckel faked and manipulated some of his work. He was still right as many of such studies have consistently supported his basic claims.

Not all, but some. Those who teach evolution as fact when there is little to no real evidence to back their claims. And those who do not own up to findings that go against theirs. When key points of evolution are debated and not supported by the theory, such as Eugenie Scott, head of the National Centre for Science who said that to change the text books would just confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.

[/quote]
Evolution is more supported than gravity. Has anyone dragged out that old chestnut yet?
Do you have the exact Eugenie Scott quote and a link? Sounds like you're misquoting Scott in her Salon interview and using what she said against textbooks including disclaimers:

I read that the next thing the proponents of this resolution want to do in Louisiana is put disclaimers in textbooks. What effect does that have on teaching?
A disclaimer in textbooks is a very intimidating gesture. Teachers don't like controversy. They just want to do their jobs. They like kids; they want them to learn.
That's the worst thing about them, and it just makes it more likely that evolution won't be taught, which of course is the goal. The second thing is that they really confuse the kids about what is science and what is religion, and they further confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science. Because only evolution is singled out among all scientific theories in these disclaimers.
Louisiana has a short memory, because there was a community in Louisiana, a parish called Tangipahoa, which was the site of a recent district court decision against the disclaimer. The Tangipahoa parish required teachers to read a disclaimer before they mentioned the "e" word, or showed a movie or assigned a reading or anything else. The disclaimer was struck down in district court and also lost in appeals court. ​

 

[Nepenthe]

Oh my word...I can't believe you can come to such conclussions. It's obvious from the above that it is you who doesn't know the differences of the issue at hand. Please explain the giraffe's neck. Or the duck billed platypuss. Or symbiology. Or how a newborn turle finds it's way to the sea. or how birds migrate and butterflies fly miles to where they have never been before. Who told them how to get there?

This is why debating creationists is like trying to teach my dog calculus.

 

[Atruthseeker]

A book about it is not enough. You have to STUDY STUDY STUDY!!

It was 192 pages!

"Emergence" is not part of the claim. Evolution doesn't say anything about where the diversity emerged from.

Ok, Abiogenesis does then.

Can you back THAT claim up? Because it seems as if there's a TON of evidence in support of the theory, such as the fossil record.

Don't get me started on the fossil record!

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

Exactly, cos you don't read what the other side is telling you!

 

[Atruthseeker]

Yes, Haeckel faked and manipulated some of his work. He was still right as many of such studies have consistently supported his basic claims.

Still faked it.

Evolution is more supported than gravity. Has anyone dragged out that old chestnut yet?
Do you have the exact Eugenie Scott quote and a link? Sounds like you're misquoting Scott in her Salon interview and using what she said against textbooks including disclaimers:

I read that the next thing the proponents of this resolution want to do in Louisiana is put disclaimers in textbooks. What effect does that have on teaching?
A disclaimer in textbooks is a very intimidating gesture. Teachers don't like controversy. They just want to do their jobs. They like kids; they want them to learn.
That's the worst thing about them, and it just makes it more likely that evolution won't be taught, which of course is the goal. The second thing is that they really confuse the kids about what is science and what is religion, and they further confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science. Because only evolution is singled out among all scientific theories in these disclaimers.
Louisiana has a short memory, because there was a community in Louisiana, a parish called Tangipahoa, which was the site of a recent district court decision against the disclaimer. The Tangipahoa parish required teachers to read a disclaimer before they mentioned the "e" word, or showed a movie or assigned a reading or anything else. The disclaimer was struck down in district court and also lost in appeals court. ​

So she did say it then....

 

[Atruthseeker]

This is why debating creationists is like trying to teach my dog calculus.

Or a monkey to write Shakespear...:run:

 

[Riverwolf]

Before we go on, please watch and consider what is said in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/3/vss1VKN2rf8

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh my word...I can't believe you can come to such conclussions. It's obvious from the above that it is you who doesn't know the differences of the issue at hand. Please explain the giraffe's neck. Or the duck billed platypuss. Or symbiology. Or how a newborn turle finds it's way to the sea. or how birds migrate and butterflies fly miles to where they have never been before. Who told them how to get there?

"Who?" No one.

They do it because it allowed them to survive for generations.

 

[Nepenthe]

Still faked it.

And Mendel massaged/faked his data. Genetics seems to be doing pretty well regardless.

So she did say it then....

Yes, but in a context completely different than what you implied.

 

[Atruthseeker]

"Who?" No one.

They do it because it allowed them to survive for generations.

Right, so the very first ones knew how to do it and weren't eaten by dinosaurs!? They just did it from the start, kinda instinctively. I wouldn't expect my child to be able to drive to Scotland in one go without a satnav as soon as she learns to drive. And yet, stangley animals can fly halfway across the world!? COME ON!:no: