Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

reply to post by Aermacchi


Avoid, avoid, avoid. Not sure what kind of argumentative logic you are using here. You criticize natural selection, but offer up no reason to believe it has faults.

Also, on the subject of Dawkins, he clearly never said that intelligent design was probably correct. Have you ever read his work?

Don't misquote people and take their words out of context, especially when you don't even know what they stand for. Let me give you a quote from Richard Dawkins, and then you tell me whether you still think he believes in intelligent design:

From "The God Delusion", in a chapter titled Why There is Almost Certainly No God

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.

3. This temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane", not a "skyhook", for only a crane can do the business of working gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that - an illusion.

5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.

6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Please, after reading this, tell me how Dawkins believes intelligent design most probable?

If we can't even get past step one, how do you expect this simple argument to go anywhere?

[edit on 1/4/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

Avoid, avoid, avoid. Not sure what kind of argumentative logic you are using here. You criticize natural selection, but offer up no reason to believe it has faults.

Also, on the subject of Dawkins, he clearly never said that intelligent design was probably correct. Have you ever read his work?

Don't misquote people and take their words out of context, especially when you don't even know what they stand for. Let me give you a quote from Richard Dawkins, and then you tell me whether you still think he believes in intelligent design:

I have all his books, one autographed after attending one of his lectures at the grady gammage center in Tempe AZ. I find him funny and respect him a great deal so I won't bother with the rest of your post mick as it wasn't ME who made the quote I was only suggesting where someone else may have gotten that saying it was the movie expelled where he again suggests we were seeded here by aliens but don't quote me on that verbatim I am saying it was words to that effect as I know you're salavating like a vulture as usual HA HA HA

sillyness is your propensity for being presumptuous, it astounds me

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


My point still stands. You have provided no reason to doubt evolution (natural selection). The other point, that Dawkins is clearly a Darwinist, is also correct, whether it pertains to you or not.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
They may say they don't have to explain away God because he doesn't exist and it is Religion that makes the claim there is a God so they have the burden to prove one. Lets be clear here because it isn't "Science" Making the claim their is no God, it is Atheists.

Would you make the claim that there isn't a pink unicorn of death if someone was to claim that there was a pink unicorn of death?
The burdon of proof lies on the person making the absurd claim which has no evidence.
That's you, buddy.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

My point still stands. You have provided no reason to doubt evolution (natural selection). The other point, that Dawkins is clearly a Darwinist, is also correct, whether it pertains to you or not.

You obviously haven't read the entire thread Mick but that's ok.

I would say your point is a lot like those I have heard here before when people like you cannot admit they are wrong, like the last statement you made, "whether it pertains to me or not" = whether you are wrong or not, you're right anyway.

You got no class mick but I guess in your terminally self righteous mind
I am wrong about that too Like I said before to you, when you don't like the reflection you see in the mirror,,


You blame the mirror

MICK: Mirror Mirror on the wall, whose point stands Righteous the most righteous of all?

MIRROR: Why yours does as always, Grand Master Mick!

sheesh




[edit on 4-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by Aermacchi
They may say they don't have to explain away God because he doesn't exist and it is Religion that makes the claim there is a God so they have the burden to prove one. Lets be clear here because it isn't "Science" Making the claim their is no God, it is Atheists.

Would you make the claim that there isn't a pink unicorn of death if someone was to claim that there was a pink unicorn of death?
The burdon of proof lies on the person making the absurd claim which has no evidence.
That's you, buddy.

The only thing you have to tell me is you think I am absurd ??

WoW ain't you "intellageinT"

Funny, last I checked their are multi millions of people out there that have asked the question I asked and ya know what,,

They agree with me and many more who have been just as hard headed as you. Atheists, famous Atheists like legendary British philosopher and atheist Anthony Flew

gee isn't so absurd to someone that knows better, someone like Anthony,

Someone like me



[edit on 4-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Just watch this:

He might be even referring to aliens :wow

Numerous posts later,, not a one of them wants to acknowledge or respond to this. They just pretend it never happened.

Like they pretend in evolution being the scientific fact and natural selection being its mechanism to explain how we all got here when it has never been observed in that way.

Oh what about lenski's e-coli Bacteria!

What about it?

The Magic Generation: 31,500
Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate (Cit+). As mentioned previously, E. coli are not usually able to utilize citrate (Cit-), and this fact is typically used as diagnostic identification of E. coli. A New Scientist writer proclaims, “A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.”2 However, as we will see, this is a gross overstatement in regards to what actually occurred.

Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.6 Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell).6 When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize it—so much for the idea of a “major innovation” and “evolution . . . making a rare and complex new trait”! Other labs have also produced Cit+ E. coli and speculated that mutation(s) in citT (or its regulators) allow the citrate transporter to function or be produced under high oxygen levels.6, 7 These types of changes are very consistent with the creation model (see below), but cannot serve as a means for evolution.

Lenski’s lab has not yet identified the genetic alterations of the Cit+ E. coli line, but he believes that there are multiple mutations involved. Studies of the “fossil record” of this line indicate that one or more mutations occurred around generation 20,000 which he terms “potentiating” mutations that were necessary before additional mutations around generation 31,500 led to Cit+ cells. Lenski thinks that the mutations may have activated a “cryptic” transporter (a once functional transporter that has been damaged due to the accumulation of mutations) that can now transport citrate. However, he states, “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted [sic] for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen levels] conditions.”1 He believes this could be the same citrate transporter (citT) used in low oxygen conditions (inferring a loss of regulation) or a transporter for another substrate that has been modified to transport citrate (inferring a loss of specificity).

Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenski’s work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution.

I especially find the conclusion written at the end of this article fitting because it goes back to the longer post I had made about Science and its a-priori arguments suited to Atheism

It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a “key innovation” and a “new function” and a “fascinating case of evolution in action.”1 Obviously, presuppositions (human reason vs. God’s Word) play a major role in interpreting the evidence. Richard Lenski and I are looking at the same evidence but drawing different conclusions based on our source of truth—man’s ideas or God’s ideas. It is only possible to obtain truth about the past if we start with the only source of absolute truth in the present—the inerrant Word of God.

Could it be the REAL REASON he said this was because he didn't want to look like THIS AGAIN





[edit on 4-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


All you do is throw insults around. No actual intelligence, no facts to back anything up - just insult people.

That's fine. Most people don't get away with that kind of ignorance around here for very long.

Even if facts are posted, they will be rejected since some apparently already know all the "real" facts...

Originally posted by Aermacchi


Numerous posts later,, not a one of them wants to acknowledge or respond to this. They just pretend it never happened.

or theres several posts explaining what he says but your clearly ignoring

he says its possible but we still evolved and so did they, thats NOT ID by any measure

Like they pretend in evolution being the scientific fact and natural selection being its mechanism to explain how we all got here when it has never been observed in that way.

suprisingly no source provided

its AIG and even in that paragraph you can see twisting going on, and a complete misdirectional argument of what they actualy have shown in labs, the point is not it developing a full time citronella mechanism from a fall back secondary mechanism but the predermination of prior benign mutations and thier effect on directing future evolutionary paths to test the two differing hypothesies of things re-run would be very different, and things re-run would be similar

AIG is arguing with ghosts of thier own creation, not the science found in the paper, and compared to nylonaise the cit+ variance isnt as impressive (still cool though)

but it does highlight our earlier talk on lung evolution in fish > tetrapod where you suggested somthing along the lines of fish flopping out on land to suntan and then deciding to grow lungs, while i pointed out the lungs were a back up system for low oxygen water enviroments and how the secondary system(lungs) became the primary system for respiration when those life forms became predominantley terrestrial

and stressing things to make them better and more useful is exactly what natural selection is, its natural selection in action

maybe you should try and read the paper its self rather then just borrow all your arguments from people who wilingly admit to lying for jesus, you might gain some credability

scientists comments on the research
scienceblogs.com...

scienceblogs.com...

the actual paper of the findings
myxo.css.msu.edu...

Could it be the REAL REASON he said this was because he didn't want to look like THIS AGAIN

ahhh the old classic ask someone a question they twig your a creationist and ask you to leave so you edit it to add a question afterwards to make it look like he is stumped

simple answer to the question downs syndrome what do i win?

that video has been exposed as hoax NUMEROUS TIMES

www.skeptics.com.au... in text here

so you bitch about the hoaxs some people have tried to get past science and then lo and behold you start pulling them out your self as evidence the hypocracy and irony appeals to my warped sense of humour

how many times was he asked this question and by how many people?





warning contains stuff that may make you think: biblical glasses must be worn beyond this point for your own weak faiths safety


bit of lanugaue in this first one, in dawkins own words showing it for the shame it is





[edit on 5/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by vasaga
Even if facts are posted, they will be rejected since some apparently already know all the "real" facts...

when your facts rely on ignoring 15 sentances and jumping on just one of them and using it to display somthing completley in opposition to the meaning of the over all message

while ours use all 16 in the context they were provided ......

a quote mine is a quote mine not a fact,



[edit on 5/1/09 by noobfun]

I wasn't only talking about that, but never mind me. I apparently know "nothing" anyway.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Greetings! Can you please enlighten me upon what you belive is to be your own personal truth on this one matter.

Dinosaur fossils. And how did they get here.

Do you feel it was God who put them there?
Or was it the devil?

Or was it that beasts roamed the Earth millions of years ago?

When considering what the bible says, then these fossils can't be more than a few thosand years old.

What do you feel is true? And you dont even have to get into why.

Thats all I would like to know.. Thanks for your time!

reply to post by vasaga

well its better to say it and if its wrong learn from it then not say it and cling to wrong things

just say it but as a possable rather then a deffinate fact as you did earlier with the ID comment

reply to post by Aermacchi


Wow. That's your response?
I was pointing out the fact that an atheist can't prove a negative, and the burdon of proof lies on you - the one making the extraordinary claims.
Was that too complicated for you?
Perhaps I should gather some childrens blocks and build you a picture?

This just keeps getting better ...

Originally posted by zysin5


Greetings! Can you please enlighten me upon what you belive is to be your own personal truth on this one matter.

ok

Dinosaur fossils. And how did they get here.

ok

Do you feel it was God who put them there?

I don't feel that way no

Or was it the devil?

I don't "feel" that way either.

Or was it that beasts roamed the Earth millions of years ago?

No I can't really see them digging holes and putting fossils in them for us to find later no.

When considering what the bible says, then these fossils can't be more than a few thosand years old.

Where does the bible say anywhere what the cap is on carbon dating of fossils?

What do you feel is true? And you dont even have to get into why.

I don't like to base my feelings on what is true, and what isn't and unfortunately you had based most of your questions on what I felt about them. Regarding the second part of your question not having to get into why, ill say, ok, to that too.

Thats all I would like to know..

Splendid! Then I won't be expecting anymore from you as I refuse to respond to someone who gives me their word and doesn't stick to it.

Thanks for your time!

You're welcome!

BTW, in the future, you may want to try this for some answers. *ClicK*

It works for me

reply to post by Aermacchi


Apparently you don't use your own answer very much, as you seem to have as much knowledge as my foot. Here's a link and some excerpts on how to argue, it might help:

What is an argument?

What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a "claim" or "thesis statement," backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

Well, after further examination, you possibly have used google, you just chose the wrong sites.

Logic

A. Debate - a formal discussion involving one or more people who develop arguments and logically defend their points to prove their position true.

Example:

"Ween gives the best live performance ever."
"No they don't."
"Yeah they do, stupid idiot."

B. Hypothesis - stance on a topic which the debate focuses around.

Example: "America's government blows [snip]."

C. Thesis - logical comparative clause that supports the hypothesis.

Example: "God exists because it says so in the bible, you moron. You're going to hell."

D. Argument - something you say to piss your opponent off and move the topic away from the hypothesis.

Example: "You're stupid and nobody likes you."

E. Logic - progressive statement that follows valid reasoning.

Example: "Some people who wear purple are stupid. You're wearing purple, therefore you are stupid."

G. Premise - A premise is a word you use when you've already said "thesis" too many times.

Example: "You're only pro-choice because you take pleasure in killing babies."

H. Contention - A statement that builds tension.

Example: "Yeah, I called you stupid. What are you going to do about it?"

This appears to be the form of argument that you subscribe to (and apparently other Christians on ATS who actually give you stars).

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Wow. That's your response?
I was pointing out the fact that an atheist can't prove a negative, and the burdon of proof lies on you - the one making the extraordinary claims.

Perhaps I should gather some childrens blocks and build you a picture?

This just keeps getting better

...

No, Actually I had already responded to this kind of logic
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry you didn't see it or what ever the excuse is I suppose it will be different then my reasoning.

Was that too complicated for you?

asked and answered

Perhaps I should gather some childrens blocks and build you a picture?

Only if you think it is necessary and only if it wouldn't be too much trouble. I know you wouldn't offer if you didn't already mean it.

It would be fun to watch you playing with blocks again it has been so long, what is it like,,, two days ago? It's so hard to remember kids grow up so fast. You go on, truth, show Daddy what you can make.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

All you do is throw insults around. No actual intelligence, no facts to back anything up - just insult people.

That's fine. Most people don't get away with that kind of ignorance around here for very long.

Ha ha Mick, Mick, Mick,, tsk tsk tsk.

I don't waste my time with people like you mick, you have a hateful angry prejudice against anyone who opposes you and you have no shortage of excuses to belittle and disparage them and now you force me to show you some of your own very recent examples.

not all of us were home schooled or went to private Catholics schools to be indoctrinated with fairy tales.

See what I mean.

They will continue to sit here and argue a dead topic until another
blog posts up more crap. Then they'll come here, post it, and talk
about that useless piece of garbage for another week or so until
the next piece gets put out. It's a vicious cycle of false news and
dumb people. " - Mick

Awe,, so poor witto mick has to suffer reading the opposing views he so desperately wants to ad-hom

Anyone opposing you is seen as "Un American"

You are less American than those who bombed the twin towers.
You ruin what is a great country with your ignorance and hate.

One of my favs of you mick is how you always start talking about

why someone opposing you, should be eliminated from ATS their are numerous posts like the one below by you mick, that you have given to a number of people

"What are you then, an ObamaHaterBot? Why are you still allowed to post here? " - Mick

"I can't stop laughing at you people. Jesus. I'd rather you post a

blog. Seriously guys. Stop.

My stomach hurts from laughing this hard. To me, this sums up the entire issue. Uninformed people using unreliable sources to base their argument*. " - Mick

yeah no one is a smart or as wise as you mickey and the post that

cinched it for me that you are NOT ONLY a socialistic obamanoidic

bind faith believer in his NWO plan to make the country and its

economy, totally nationalistic with the public school system teaching our kids the virtues of science with YOUR brand of morality and ethics telling us, home school kids are so stupid like those taught in catholic schools.

It seems the virtues of Darwinism has you within smelling distance of approving of eugenics too. Why does this not surprise me

"
I am all for gene therapy and getting rid of certain genetic
traits. I am also for forcibly stopping people from having so many
children. - Mick

Oh Rly??? What a guy!

We are literally polluting this world with kids - and many
times kids with bad genes. I don't know that I am all for killing, that seems pretty brutal and unnecessary. There are plenty of other reasonable means of helping develop a better gene pool." - Mick

You don't know that you are for killing??? does that mean you don't

KNOW that you are not against it? I sure as hell know I'm against it

without a second thought. You say it "seems" pretty brutal????

Maybe it seems that way,, BECAUSE IT IS BUTAL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you EVER CONSIDER THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I sure hope it isn't YOU that decides who the kids are with the "bad

genes" grand master mick.

Then their is THIS one

"You're crazy. (ad-hom?) You throw around accusations you can't
back up and/or are stupid - like graduating cum laude isn't an
honor. I did enjoy how you danced around my question, though.
Anyway, you can keep slinging mud. You can back it up with
nothing, and I'll just continue to laugh at you, or you can back it up
with sketchy sources, and I'll continue to embarrass you by using
real ones." - Mick

See this is why I don't bother with you mickey boy, you personify all you accuse me of from mud slinging where I have asked you to quote said personal attacks and you have not, to you ignoring facts I do put forth like the many videos I have shown including the one Vaga had put here and still not a one of you wants to mention a word about that. You had said Dawkins never said anything like that but watching him say what he says in that video, is it any wonder why you continue to ignore it? Even when you do respond to posts with referances to sites you invariably slough them off calling them bloggery or some excuse to the effect they are not good enough for you, while yours on the otherhand, you say are so accurate and credible.



You mean like factcheck.org? pfffT

If you'll notice mick, I left around four artcles in various media types for you to watch and read without so much as a single rebuttal by you. YES I DID RIGHT HERE www.abovetopsecret.com...

So don't lecture me on how to argue until you decide to actually engage me rather than acting like you're some kind of movie critic for ATS specializing in Posts rather than film.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


It doesn't matter what you say about the burdon of proof, the truth is that it's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to prove their point.
My claim - God doesn't exist.
That's not an extraordinary claim, it's a given. There's no evidence of God.
Would you have to disprove a pink unicorn just because you may claim that there isn't one? Of course not, that's silly. The burdon of proof lies on the one with the extraordinary claim.
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I have yet to see any from you... only insults.