It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WfknSmth
edit: dang you guys write fast
i swear when i started to write my reply your posts werent there yet


It's the latest thing in evolution. Text fast or you will lose your potential mate to someone who texts faster, and your non-nimble-fingered genes will be lost from the gene-pool.




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
ANyway, I find this fascinating, how come whenever 'people who believed in evolution theory' quotes something or provides a video link from someone - 'who believes in the evolution theory' and is a proponent of the evolution theory, 'people who believe in the evolution theory' assumes right away that the person being quoted who is a
believer of evolution theory - is accepted as THE AUTHORITY - like a god?


Straw man.

Whenever I, or any of the other supporters of scientific thought on here, quote a source or provide a video, we do so as a reference. Those quotes aren't of individuals making points and neither are those videos. If a sourced video doesn't contain references, you may question it. If a sourced article doesn't contain references, you may question it.

This is why I enjoy YouTube user ExtantDodo (whose account has gone the way of one due to false DMCA attacks, but there are plenty of mirrors of what was taken down), plenty of sources.

The difference between what you did and what I do is that I provide quotes as references to support my claim. You provide personal opinions of individuals that are nothing more than that.



Yet when I quote from an authority like Sir Isaac Newton - right away I get told that:


Newton wasn't an authority on everything and still needed facts to support his assertions. Hell, he's not even the last word on physics like he used to be (thanks to Einstein). His ideas, just like everyone else's, require support.



sup with that? - me thinks, that 'people who believe in the evolution theory' have a very weak platfom and foundation so they can't allow any opposing POV especially an "Argument from authority".


Um...no, we have a very strong platform. It's why we provide sources. I once provided a quote that was merely a list of the transitional fossils we have between reptiles and placental mammals with explanation, yet you dismissed it outright. It was sourced.

And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.



And if not succesful - destroy the messenger by portraying him/her as a:


"mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides" -- msAsty


Why is that?


...it's true about Newton. As brilliant a man as he was, he was a bit crazy and believed in a lot of non-science. He was also a heretic.



note:
sorry for the long description describing "people who believe in evolution". I was told not to use the term 'evolutionist' as it is (I guess) offensive to 'people who believe in evolution'


...it's not offensive, it's stupid. I guess Newton was a 'gravitist' and Einstein a 'reltavist' etc.
Evolution is science, not religion or ideology. It explains biodiversity.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by WfknSmth
 


So per msKailassa, if I quote an “ Argument from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate".

Because according profSmth the:


“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “



Anymore rules that I need to be aware of profSmth?

BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?

So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?

Thus whatever they said/say about that same person, that is, the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ is invalid. Correct?

That is:

“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.



“A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.



“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.



“Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald.



“For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.



“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.



“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.


As for the accuracy of the Bible, noted archaeologist, W. F. Albright, wrote in his book Archaeology and Israel:

“No major contention of Scripture has been proved unhistorical.”


As to small details such as chronological and geographical statements in the Bible, Professor R. D. Wilson writes in A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament:


“Whenever there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible in the original text have stood the test. . . . The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient documents.”


So none of these well recognized persons is a valid authority on the authenticity of Jesus Christ or the Bible per your rules, correct profSmth?

Or what about these authorities who questioned the truthfulness of the "evolution theory"? Do you also invalidate them according to you or msKailassa's rules?

Quote:


The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:

“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.



"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.


From The New Evolutionary Timetable:


“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv


Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:


“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49


Or the origin of life:

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years


“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.



With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:


“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.


Are they also invalid authority on the subject per your rules?

Or as madness put it:


And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.


What an interesting way to avoid and face the facts!
Might it be that the foundation of the "evolution theory" is so flimsy that it need rules as way to to eliminate any opposing POV - a view that will centainly make it weak? The uneducated me think so.


Yet when “a proponent of evolution” or “people who believe in evolution theory” quote or state something like the following, it is considered valid, the truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagree is considered ignoramus. Correct?

Note: (I'll just quote one here from the hundreds of imagined statements - based on a very flimsy evidence)


“Evolution of Elephants”:
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.


Here's a picture of the “proponent of evolution” was talking about.



So the quote above and artwork are factual according to you, correct?

Btw, do you know where the “proponents of evolution” based their conclusions that the ancestors of elephants looked liked the figure shown above? Scientific facts or plane imagination?

And who verified it? Was is verified by a neutral scientific community or verified, approved and peer reviewed by (sorry to use this term - getting tired of the long description) “evolutionist”? Renowned scientist who is also a “proponent of evolution theory”?

(tip: next thread)

But more importantly do you really believed that modern elephants “evolved” that way? Based on what? Based on this evidence?


Known from a single, incomplete fossil,


In addition, we know for a fact that the “people who believe in evolution theory” or those whom you claim to be 'authority' on evolution theory were not present when this purported “evolution” happened. So where then did they based their entire evolution theory? Darwin's findings? Fossil records? If so, again how solid are these purported evidence? Are they 100% trustworthy? That is, what they said really happened, unfalsifiable, infallible? If not, on what basis then is your belief founded on? Their statements? Really the “evolution theory” when it's studied with an open eye boils down to no other than based on “FAITH” on the words imperfect men.

But of course since “evolutionist A” was confirmed by “evolutionists B” then “evolutionists B” must be true. After all they are both “evolutionists”. Right?



Ciao,
edmc

next...time...
reply to msKailassa
msAsty

Note:

1) I find nothing wrong with “Newton was a 'gravitist' and Einstein a 'reltavist'.
since one defined/formulated a precise mathematical description of the universal law (gravity) and the other discovered that gravity not only shapes the universe but also governs the way we see and measure it - why gravity even affects the way time is measured (relativity).

btw:
2) If “evolutionists” seems “stupid” to you then what is the correct description for ““people who believe in evolution theory”.

Meriam-Webster Dictionary:

Evolutionist = a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.


edit on 5-12-2010 by edmc^2 because: shortened



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth
 


So per msKailassa, if I quote an “ Argument from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate".


....yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.
Linus Pauling was a 2 time Nobel prize winner. He believed DNA had a triple helix structure. He was wrong.



Because according profSmth the:


“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “



Anymore rules that I need to be aware of profSmth?


It's not according to any individual, it's according to the rules of logic. Here's a list of logical fallacies with a nice breakdown of why they are fallacies.



BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?


Logicians established the rules by working them out. You can actually prove that logical fallacies are logical fallacies with absolute certainty.

Again, Linus Pauling has two Nobel prizes to his name, but did that make his claims about DNA being a triple helix valid?



So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?


Yep. Unless you can give us historical evidence of his existence you can't say that he really existed. As for being the greatest man who ever lived, you can't really do that without providing a standard and a lot of evidence to show that he was so great. Of course, you have to prove he was great after you prove he existed.



Thus whatever they said/say about that same person, that is, the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ is invalid. Correct?


Of course, it's the argument from authority.

Hey look, a bunch of random preaching that is entirely off-topic to the thread's title from the same person who started the thread.

Of course, I can't really expect that you wouldn't just take this opportunity to preach the 'good word', not surprised in the least that you're diverging to talk about how great Jesus is no matter how off-topic.



That is:

“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.



Saying it doesn't make it true. Where's his evidence?

Also, a Biblical scholar saying that Jesus is real? Oh my I'm so surprised.
Clear case of foundational bias.





“A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.



Gandhi may have been a great guy, but he was no historian. Hell, he was a lawyer and political leader.

Again, where's the evidence for his existence?




“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.



Yes, Einstein liked the character of Jesus, there's no evidence that Einstein considered him as anything more than an interesting mythic character.

Hell, I am enthralled by the luminous figure of Odin, that doesn't mean I think he exists.

Again, Einstein was an agnostic by his own admission.

And Einstein wasn't a historian. And there's no evidence of a historical Jesus.
Also, source?




“Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald.



So a Catholic essayist quoted by a Christian publication is saying that Jesus was awesome and existed? Again, foundational bias.
Also, not a historian nor an individual who has any historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.




“For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.



Source for this one? I can't find it on any non-Christian websites.

And again, no evidence provided.




“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.



...a Christian missionary, foundational bias.
No evidence.
Though finally a historian.




“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.



...Socrates? Socrates had contemporary critics. There's actually not a single contemporary account of the life of Jesus.

And once more, source?
Seriously, a source on these. All of them. Follow the T&C. If you're going to use external sources you have to provide them.

And again, there are actually historians that doubt the existence of Socrates and think he was merely a fictional character created by Plato to use as a sock puppet in his writings.



As for the accuracy of the Bible, noted archaeologist, W. F. Albright, wrote in his book Archaeology and Israel:

“No major contention of Scripture has been proved unhistorical.”



....really?

Here's something that's easy to find from Wikipedia...


In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever notes that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer "secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology."[9]

Thomas L. Thompson strongly criticises his methods: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[10]


From wikipedia, there are sources for all claims in the article



As to small details such as chronological and geographical statements in the Bible, Professor R. D. Wilson writes in A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament:


“Whenever there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible in the original text have stood the test. . . . The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient documents.”




Who? I'm sorry, I looked up the guy on Google and came up with nothing. Also, his claims add nothing, where is the evidence for his claims, yadda yadda yadda.



So none of these well recognized persons is a valid authority on the authenticity of Jesus Christ or the Bible per your rules, correct profSmth?


...authority doesn't amount to a hill of beans...hell, why am I bothering? You've ignored most of my posts thus far.

Of course they aren't valid. Aside from the fact that, if they were correct, you could simply provide us with the direct evidence of their claims, most of them aren't historians. You aren't even quoting an authority in the correct field of study!

It would still be wrong to quote the authority simply because it's a logical fallacy, but at least quote an authority in the correct field of study.

What's the point of quoting Einstein on his preference in movies?



Or what about these authorities who questioned the truthfulness of the "evolution theory"? Do you also invalidate them according to you or msKailassa's rules?


....there are more scientists named Steve that accept evolutionary biology than there are scientists in total that reject it.



Quote:


The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:

“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.



...
suspicious ellipses, no full quote, no source link.

And again, where's the direct evidence? Why provide a quote when you can just provide direct evidence?




"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.



...again, mountains of evidence directly contradict him. He's just arguing from personal incredulity.



From The New Evolutionary Timetable:


“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv



...quote mine!

After that first sentence, you can find the following sentence:

We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly


...in that exact same book...

So this was basically an argument against gradualism. It's not an argument against evolution.

At least quote people who are opposed to evolution.



Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:


“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49



...Yes, they are modern looking. That doesn't mean they didn't evolve. It doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen.

Now you're just grasping at straws, using people who support evolution to attempt to demean it.

I feel like getting my old friend melatonin back on O&C, it's just like old times on here with quote mines and arguments from authority throughout.



Or the origin of life:


...which isn't evolution....



In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years


“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.



I'll let Professor Meinesz speak for himself:


rofesseur Meinesz contacted by email 24/08/2010 5:31 pm (French Hour)
* Did you authorize the Watchtower to make reference to your book ? Of course, not !
* Do you support the creationist view of JW ? Absolutly not !
* Is this quote correct? They’re making reference to my book on page 32 to 60 but this is not what I wrote. The sentence they are mentioning appears on page 47 but taken out of its context. They made an amalgam starting on a discussion where I examined 2 possibilities of life rising up on earth : (cells coming from space or cells formating on earth) and I develop my opinion supported by numerous current datas (for me there is no evidence that it happened on earth so it's the other hypothesis (life began elsewhere) which should be considered as well as the other hypothesis. That's it !
On the contrary, I'm opposed to creationists but also to the ID movement (several paragraps on the subject). I am very clear in my book and a chapter underlines the contingency factor in all the process of evolution (with pictures to support on page 186 !).
They’re promoting my book in their publications but if Jehovah's followers will read it, they will be very very disappointed !
Please be aware that my book is a very serious work very well documented (nearly 1000 references) and it passed through the filter of 8 referees before being edited in USA (University of Chicago Press !)
So you are authorized to publish my words!
What would you advise me to do to counterfact those lies? I'm ready to sue them ! Therefore I would need their brochures and documents in order to prove through the huge publication of their craps, the damage caused to my reputation
A. Meinesz
-- Professeur Alexandre MEINESZ

Source

So you just posted a blatant misquote.




With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:


“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.



Hey look, another misquote that I can refute from the exact same source as my last one.

Man, there's a quote-mine goldrush going on over here!


The opposing model of abiogenesis, the ‘metabolism first’ idea, attempts to avoid complicated RNA formation and polymerization and instead focuses on energy production. A prominent advocate of this theory is Robert Shapiro of New York University. .He is also a vocal critic of ‘genes first’. In this capacity, TOL exploits his quotes to attempt to tear down ‘genes first’ while failing to explain the model he does support. In ‘metabolism first’, a particular mineral like iron disulfide catalyzes certain key biochemical reactions. This mineral is commonly found in deep sea vents. These vents also release gases that can be broken down by certain chemical processes to release energy. The metabolism of these gases produces organic compounds that could serve to further increase the efficiency of the original reaction. A possible clue to this ancient process is the presence of iron sulfide in several important enzymes used in cells today. From there, a cell membrane can be formed in a similar manner to that mentioned above. The introduction of RNA and genetic replication happens at a later stage after metabolizing units with a vesicle exist. This last step may end up including ideas from the competing ‘genes first’ hypothesis. Advocates of this model claim that the development of catalytic networks is a simpler and more robust starting point then genetic material. Ongoing research will surely throw light on this topic.
The conclusion of the article ends:
The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: “If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with as yet unknown companions.”


Source: Scientific American, "A Simpler Origin Tor Life." by Robert Shapiro. June 2007. p. 47-53


Same source

...so again, this was an issue over whether it is metabolic function or genetic function first, not a question of whether or not a naturalistic origin of life can occur.



Are they also invalid authority on the subject per your rules?


Well, I think I've already addressed that...you misquoted people.



Or as madness put it:


And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.



Still true. We need to provide evidence for our claims, not just the opinions of individuals.



What an interesting way to avoid and face the facts!


Nope, not a way to avoid facts. Provide all the facts you want. However, the ideas of an authority cannot be considered facts.

Also, the blatant misquoting of individuals to make them support a position they are entirely against cannot be seen as facts.



Might it be that the foundation of the "evolution theory" is so flimsy that it need rules as way to to eliminate any opposing POV - a view that will centainly make it weak? The uneducated me think so.


Well, I guess you should stay proud of your ignorance. We don't need to eliminate the opposing POV, it's silly and doesn't hold any water. Evolution is not flimsy, it's actually one of the most robust scientific theories there is.

All that we're asking is that the opponents of evolution follow the same rules as its proponent.

Arguments from authority do not change the validity of claims. If I say that honey is green and then I quote the Illiad about it, it's not going to change the fact that honey is not green.



Yet when “a proponent of evolution” or “people who believe in evolution theory” quote or state something like the following, it is considered valid, the truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagree is considered ignoramus. Correct?


...we quote and state things with direct evidence. If I provide a quote, it's a listing of evidence. Just like I quoted in full what you quoted in parts earlier. I showed you were wrong by going back to the original source.



Note: (I'll just quote one here from the hundreds of imagined statements - based on a very flimsy evidence)


Oh, I just realized something. You're recycling old material

I tried searching the following quote (as you didn't provide a source for it) and found the above thread as one of the first sources.




“Evolution of Elephants”:
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...




Well, it seems you love quote mining, as you took two entirely separate articles on separate topics and threw them together. I separated them for you.
Article one, which is about the evolution of elephants.





“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.



Article two, which is title One subset of Gnathostomata is Osteichthyes, bony vertebrates




Here's a picture of the “proponent of evolution” was talking about.




...yes, it's from what I sourced as 'Article one' above. It's an artistic rendering



So the quote above and artwork are factual according to you, correct?


...no, the article you quoted pertaining the evolution of elephants doesn't provide a single reference and the artwork is an artistic rendering. Neither of those can be considered factual at face value.



Btw, do you know where the “proponents of evolution” based their conclusions that the ancestors of elephants looked liked the figure shown above? Scientific facts or plane imagination?


...I don't know if they have flat or very robust imaginations, but I think they made inference from scientific data.



And who verified it? Was is verified by a neutral scientific community or verified, approved and peer reviewed by (sorry to use this term - getting tired of the long description) “evolutionist”? Renowned scientist who is also a “proponent of evolution theory”?


...science is a self-regulating process. I've given up on explaining this to you in detail, as you ignore it.



(tip: next thread)


Great, more ignorant anti-scientific nonsense for me to use to pad my star count.



But more importantly do you really believed that modern elephants “evolved” that way? Based on what? Based on this evidence?


Known from a single, incomplete fossil,



I'm sorry, but that's not what the article says about the elephant, it's talking about Solenodonsaurus janenschi. I just caught you lying. You took two different articles, one that was about elephants and the other which was about "One subset of Gnathostomata is Osteichthyes, bony vertebrates" and took the part where it says "Known from a single, incomplete fossil" to verify your elephant claims.

The article about elephants doesn't contain that statement.



In addition, we know for a fact that the “people who believe in evolution theory” or those whom you claim to be 'authority' on evolution theory were not present when this purported “evolution” happened.


*headdesk*
...*reread*
......*headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk*....

I'm sorry, for those of you unaware, "*headdesk*" refers to the action of slamming your head against your desk when you read something unimaginably ignorant.

1: I do not claim them as authority.
2: Of course they weren't present, but presence doesn't add to veracity of claims. Witness bias is useless in science. We can piece together events without actually being there. *sigh* To repeat an example: If you walked into your house and found that the window was broken, the TV, DVD player, jewelery, and cash was missing from it would you not be able to piece together a working hypothesis as to what happened?
3: Evolution still happens, I've personally provided you ample evidence of it that you never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have acknowledged.
4: You're really testing my sanity.



So where then did they based their entire evolution theory?


Genetic information, observed speciation, the fossil record, phylogenetics, etc.



Darwin's findings?


Well, that's how Darwin himself first proposed it. He used his own observations to put together a working concept.



Fossil records?


Part of it.



If so, again how solid are these purported evidence? Are they 100% trustworthy? That is, what they said really happened, unfalsifiable, infallible?


More ignorance? Really?
Rambling on in question of claims doesn't invalidate them.

Also "unfalsifiable" is a term that means that a claim cannot be tested, it is not a claim as to validity. Any good scientific claim is falsifiable. Evolutionary claims are falsifiable. One easy way to falsify evolution using the fossil record would be to provide a fossil of a modern rabbit among Cambrian fossils.



If not, on what basis then is your belief founded on? Their statements? Really the “evolution theory” when it's studied with an open eye boils down to no other than based on “FAITH” on the words imperfect men.


...no, it's based on the rigors of the scientific method and mountains of evidence that you have clearly chosen to ignore.



But of course since “evolutionist A” was confirmed by “evolutionists B” then “evolutionists B” must be true. After all they are both “evolutionists”. Right?


...nope, nice straw men throughout this post though.

You've engaged in so many logical fallacies that I'm not even going to bother listing them all...




1) I find nothing wrong with “Newton was a 'gravitist' and Einstein a 'reltavist'.
since one defined/formulated a precise mathematical description of the universal law (gravity) and the other discovered that gravity not only shapes the universe but also governs the way we see and measure it - why gravity even affects the way time is measured (relativity).


...yes, but they aren't a belief system. It would be silly to label them as such. They're scientific theories, not terms descriptive of individuals.



btw:
2) If “evolutionists” seems “stupid” to you then what is the correct description for ““people who believe in evolution theory”.

Meriam-Webster Dictionary:

Evolutionist = a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.


Another reason why I don't put too much stock in most dictionaries to define scientific terms.

edit on 5/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Fixed a formatting mistake



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Just to get this correct

Those that accept evolution and the evidence to back it up as the most accurate way to describe how life evolves do not 'believe in evolution'.

Until something comes along with better evidence that will remain so.

If you want a belief system there are plenty out there that need no evidence to back them up and no pier reviews to check their claims.

The only problem with evolution is it offends people with belief systems. Get over it, evolve.

Example.
I was told ‘look left, look right then left again’ when crossing a road. Evidence shows this gives me the best chance of crossing the road and living.

Belief is, just step out and trust in whatever deity you put your faith in to get you across safely.

I dont believe the system for safely crossing the road is correct, I base it on evidence.


edit on 5-12-2010 by colin42 because: Example



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth
 

So per msKailassa, if I quote an “ Argument from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate".
Because according profSmth the:

“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “

Anymore rules that I need to be aware of profSmth?
BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?

Actually I did.

Back in primary school I had a stupid teacher who didn't have a clue about logic.
Not having resources I sat down and worked out what was wrong with the things he'd say to prove himself right.

That doesn't mean I'm smart though.
It means the rules of logic are accessable to anyone.
There is no need for anyone in particular to have invented or decided them. They have doubtless been rediscovered time after time by people trying to analyse arguments.
Of course I should give credit to Aristotle, whotaught logic as a formal discipline, but the laws of logic would hold just as true if Aristotle had never been born, though they may have been less well understood.

If you would turn your brain back on for a moment you could understand.
But if you believe turning your brain on will send you sliding down to hell, I guess you'd rather spout holey nonsense.
What did you think you were achieving by posting lies about elephant evolution?
- apart from earning contempt -
Is lying for Jesus another requirement to get into heaven?


So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?

By the way, I'm Kailasa, not msKailassa.

I notice that, when "arguing from authority" you leave Newton out. Is he less of an authority now you know he did not believe Jesus was god?
This is an example of the stupidity of naming lists of people who you say agree with you instead of presenting arguments. Anyone can make a list.

OPINIONS ARE NOT PROOF!



“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.

Confused Christians often mistake the popularity of Christianity for proof of the story of Jesus.
This does not take into account the political advantages which governments have gained by pushing Christianity, or the millions of murders that took place in much of the world for hundreds of years, (inquisitions), in order to force Catholic Christianity onto people.
The "Christian" world has been well and truly brainwashed for a long time now, and the pressure is on people, politically and socially, to call themselves Christian.

This was not Jesus' doing.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


pardon me for calling you ms (as in MS manners - just a show of respect for older person).

anyway here's where the "elephant" quote came from - looks like the two quotes got combined when I went back and reviewed it again (the danger of being in a hurry to post) - there was no intent to lie as the intent is to show the truth.


Originally posted by edmc^2
[qoute]
? Q: how much of a 'fossil' evidence is available to us today since the conception of the evolution theory? Any idea? With the passage of time, surely we should have enuff evidence to silence any doubters.


We are still on this ?
Is elephants good enough ?
locolobo.org...
You have obviously never actually spent 10 minutes to look and see what fossils we have .. have you ?”


On the contrary, there are so many books and websites out there that purported to be authority on the subject (the origins of life). But as soon as you dig into them, you will discover that much of the information are just figments of imagination mostly based on inaccurate data, incorrect hypothesis, pre-conceived ideas and most all incomplete specimens (i.e. fossils).

Here, do you agree with this statement that “one of the interesting things about evolution and paleontology is that its sometimes nearly impossible to tell whether you're looking at two different kinds of animals, or just two different version of the same thing. Because the way evolution works, everything can be described as another version of anything else you want to put next to it.” Agree?

In other words, evolution is very subjective - it all depends on how the “experts” including the ’artist’ interprets the data (fossil record).
Thus any evolutionist can make statements or assumptions like the one quoted below and considered as scientific and ‘very intelligent. Agree?

Here’s a quote on “Evolution of Elephants”:


Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...


Question:
Is the artist’s conception of the “mother of elephant” shown below based on scientific fact or imagination?



What about this one below? Was this one the ancestors of the modern elephant? Is the “artwork” based on complete fossil records or a partial or just on imagination?



(hey – this gives me an idea of new thread)

Continuing…

You said:

“You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.”


Well, after going to voluminous statements, dissertation upon dissertations, and pages of assumptions on top of other assumptions. I found this disclaimer:


“This site is an amateur endeavor to promote science, but is not a scientific resource.
Readers interested in further investigation of either biological evolution or the origin of life
are encouraged to visit the University of California at Berkeley's exemplary web-primer.”


Are you aware of this statement nophun? Do you consider this site a good scientific resource since you recommended it as a “REAL science … web page?

BTW, any idea what your fellow evolutionist will do to me if I use information coming from sites that supports Creation? They will enthusiastically say, the information is ‘hogwash’. Why some even complained when I quoted a contradictory statement of a well respected evolutionist’s from the 80’s. I was accused of providing old information as if it’s longer valid. Imagine that!

Anyway, after going thru the sites, I eventually stopped reading because the story line is always the same. I got bored (sorry). But I was hoping that somehow it will reveal something very convincing about evolution and factual some like:

If the evolution theory is founded in facts; the fossil record reveals beginnings of new structures in living things. We found fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs, fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. We also found reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

Fact is, after going thru much of the statements, the fossil records presented are still INCOMPLETE and did not PROVIDE any PROOF OF EVOLUTION (whether Macro or Micro)

Here’s just one evidence of the many statements I found: On the subject of Helicoprion


“In any case, Helicoprion exemplifies some of the difficulties involved in reconstructing ancient creatures from only a few clues.”


Were you aware of this?

www.elasmo-research.org...

Many of the pictures shown in your sites purporting to prove evolution are mostly based on the so-called expert's best guess.

Here’s what the author of one the site said:


“Below is a sculpture I did of Elginerpeton, what I consider to be the real-life animal depicted on all the Darwinfish bumper stickers. I did this piece a few years ago, when I didn't know so much about them. But I had the assistance (via email) of paleoartist, Richard Hammond, and the famous Cambridge professor of vertebrate paleontology, Dr. Jennifer Clack, the world's foremost expert on the fauna of that period. We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape. But this is one of several contemporary species in this apparent sequence, and they all look about the same. So I've made this one consistent with its siblings. Notice that both dorsal fins and the anal fin are absent from this rendering, as they are on all similar species from this class. And as is typical, the tail fin is not fluked. The first fish with fluked tails lived alongside this one. But their tails are still obviously quite primitive, like a salamander's tail. Most sarcopterygiian fish never had a more fish-like tail than Elginerpeton did.”


Will you say the image of the Darwinfish accurate when “We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape”?

Cont...

edit: added missing link (pix)


[edit on 28-8-2010 by edmc^2]


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Second source of quote:

Originally posted by edmc^2
Here’s another statement I found on the site: The Evolution of Lamnoid Sharks

The lamnoids (order Lamniformes) include many of the most famous and instantly-recognizable of sharks. The Goblin Shark, Sandtiger, threshers, Megamouth, Basking, and the Great White are all members of this group. From the dim depths of prehistory, these sharks have left a rich fossil record.

As a group, lamnoids are characterized by heavily-built, solid teeth that have proven durable against the onslaught of erosion over geological time. As a result, their ancestors have left many beautiful and highly informative fossil teeth. In addition, the lamnoids have heavily calcified but fragile vertebral centra which are also sometimes preserved. Beyond these structural basics, only a few assorted fossilized bits and pieces survive - some of them squirreled away in private collections, where their true value remains hidden from paleontologists.”


So based on fossilized teeth one can conclude how sharks evolved and construct how it supposed to look liked? Is it possible that the tooth/teeth found is a variety of the shark family instead of purely evolving from one form to another shark form? Remember the finch family?

Here’s another:


“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.


As for assumptions:


Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, had several skeletal features becoming more mammalian, particularly in the teeth, which began to show the first true rooted canines, and not the sort of fangs snakes have. Subsequent species lost the last vestiges of strictly-reptilian bones, and developed the ear drum, another exclusively mammalian trait. Throughout this sequence, we also see an improvement in the ligaments and muscularity to show a steady progression from very primitive lizard-like things to more advanced and adaptive "reptiles" that were also arguably mammals of one sort or another at the same time. In fact, there were several of these which blur the line between reptiles and mammals so much that in some cases, its difficult to state which class these things should belong to. Procynosuchus (latest Permian) the first cynodont, was already a sort of dog-like pseudo-lizard which quickly begat some very lizard-like primitive quasi-mammals, like thrinaxodon. These early Triassic cynodonts had very definite canine teeth and are considered by many to be one of the first mammals, even though they weren't quite complete mammals, and still bore some vaguely-reptilian vestigial traits. These were also among the very few mammal-like semi-reptiles to survive the Permian extinction, an event even more devastating than that which later brought on the demise of the dinosaurs. By the time we get to things like Cynognathus (early Triassic, but suspected to have existed even earlier) we have a nearly complete mammal with just the slightest reptilian traits, like the as-yet undistinguished uniform reptilian-style cheek teeth behind the definitely mammalian canines.


More assumptions and hypothesis -


Lagomorphs:
Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional, while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large premolars.
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.


Unbelievable, hypothesis and assumptions based only on few clues and incomplete specimen! Presented as FACTS!

Now to prove my point further, I’ll quote to you what some of the recognized experts in the same field said (again) - confirming the incompleteness of the fossil record to support of the evolution (abiogenesis) theory:


“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.


But you said:


Stephen Jay Gould .. Did you know he is a evolutionary biologist?
Yes, he would be talking about the Cambrian explosion, and the point of quoting this would be ... ?
Your creationist website might tell you the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution ... but it does not. ( I am guessing this is your point )

No, sorry but you missed the point again nophun. The point is evolution has so many contradicting statements and evidence to support their evidence but it’s still accepted as facts.

Here’s furhter proof taken from the site/link you provided:

en.wikipedia.org...


Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, as evidence comes exclusively from biological and chemical signatures in rocks and very sparse fossils.


So what should one do if one is bent on proving a theory based on a “very sparse fossil” evidence?

Cont...

...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ciao,
edmc2


post my reply later on your past post.

so as not to offend msAsty - I'll remove the 'ms' (a show of respect for older person) also.
same thing with mrSmth - I'll remove the "mr" (a show of respect for older person).

'ms' 'mr' similar to 'son' in Japanese.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate". BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?

Yes. These are called the rules of logic, and if we wish to be sure of speaking the truth, it is necessary--though not always sufficient--to follow them.


So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?

It is a valid statement about the opinons of those historians, scientists, scholars, etc. It has no value with respect to the question of whether on not Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived, or even whether he lived at all.


Thus whatever they said/say about that same person, that is, the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ is invalid. Correct?

It would be an opinion, nothing more.


So none of these well recognized persons is a valid authority on the authenticity of Jesus Christ or the Bible per your rules, correct profSmth?

Correct, unless they can come up with indisputable proof that he even existed.

Okay: let's get real. Jesus Christ is certainly a pivotal figure, perhaps even the pivotal figure in western and world civilization. That is a measure of his cultural importance, not his putative divinity. It is the Christ-legend and its effect on history that is important. No-one needs authority to state this: it is obvious.

Your tailings-heap of quotes all refer to the cultural importance of the Christ-legend, not to the supposed divinity of Jesus.


And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from authorities.

Precisely. And such has been the way of philosophers since Aristotle. You're a little late to the party.


Might it be that the foundation of the "evolution theory" is so flimsy that it need rules as way to to eliminate any opposing POV - a view that will centainly make it weak? The uneducated me think so.

No such luck. These are the rules of logic, not something specially dreamed up by 'evolutionists'.

Since you admit to being uneducated, these errors of yours are hardly surprising. I suggest you get yourself an education. Then, if you still believe the mumbo-jumbo you believe now (which I doubt you will), come back and we'll have a proper debate.

A proper education would also allow you to make a better guess as to the sex of Astyanax--even if you never get round to reading the Iliad.



edit on 5/12/10 by Astyanax because: of my spelling bad



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



No such luck. These are the rules of logic, not something specially dreamed up by 'evolutionists'.


you mean logical common sense?


Since you admit to being uneducated, these errors of yours are hardly surprising. I suggest you get yourself an education. Then, if you still believe the mumbo-jumbo you believe now (which I doubt you will), come back and we'll have a proper debate.



Not bad for an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple mind full of common sense huh?

I'm really surprised though, if an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple-mind full of common sense is able to stand his ground against a group of HIGHLY EDUCATED PERFECT ENGLISH speaking folks (prolly a lot older too). How much more damage I can do if I'm really educated, but........ no thanks for the scriptures said:

“Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.” – 1 Cor 1:20, 21



A proper education would also allow you to make a better guess as to the sex of Astyanax--even if you never get round to reading the Iliad.


I was wondering about that one too – mr Hector's son is a dude then again this person might a grandma – don't wanna get grandma mad – hey be safe. I guess oops sorry for making you a female Asty. - didn't mean to offend you dude! Won't happen again DUDE!



posted on 2-12-2010 @ 04:37 AM this post reply to post by edmc^2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you trying to teach me about Newton? An old proverb about grandmothers and sucking eggs springs to mind.





ciao,
edmc2



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Astyanax, since my posts in this thread are thus far being ignored, I'm going to have to start going up to bat for some of your posts.

reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Astyanax
 



No such luck. These are the rules of logic, not something specially dreamed up by 'evolutionists'.


you mean logical common sense?


Nope, this isn't based on common sense. These are logical rules derived by an intense study of the subject. If you read the reply I made to you (unless you've magically rediscovered the prodigal 'block' button), you'll find a link to a website that goes over the complete list of logical fallacies.




Since you admit to being uneducated, these errors of yours are hardly surprising. I suggest you get yourself an education. Then, if you still believe the mumbo-jumbo you believe now (which I doubt you will), come back and we'll have a proper debate.



Not bad for an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple mind full of common sense huh?


...number of languages spoken in multiple dialects is impressive, but common sense is entirely useless in science.



I'm really surprised though, if an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple-mind full of common sense is able to stand his ground against a group of HIGHLY EDUCATED PERFECT ENGLISH speaking folks (prolly a lot older too).


You're not standing your ground, you've been blasted back repeatedly with every single post you've made. And I wouldn't even say I'm "highly educated", as I don't even have a University degree (yet, working on it though).

And I'm not all that old. You can see in my profile that I'm approaching my 22nd birthday soon.

The crazy thing is that I (and many others) have attempted to provide you with plenty of resources for you to help yourself get educated. You just ignore them.



How much more damage I can do if I'm really educated, but........ no thanks for the scriptures said:


You'd probably start doing damage for our side if you got an education.



“Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.” – 1 Cor 1:20, 21


...WOOOO Iron Age ramblings!

Look at the Bible closely. It is full of unscientific nonsense like Geocentrism, Flat-Earthism, sexism, racism, genocide, and a demonizing voice against intellectuals.

The "wisdom of God" as found in the Bible is severely lacking. In fact, it's mostly laughable.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.


That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.
Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.
Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.


That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.
Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.
Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.




Authority isn't the problem, but if what they say isn't following scientific method, that is a problem.

Newton making a statement about something without backing it up scientifically isn't "evidence" for anything. It's nothing but a personal opinion that isn't backed up by scientific evidence.

And that's the difference between your (or edmc2) posts and posts by madness and others. Their posts show hard evidence, while your only state OPINIONS. Newton for example never backed up his opinion about god, but he did back up numerous other findings.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.


That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.


Nope, your viewpoints lack reason, evidence, or any sort of logic to them. You also regularly abandon or move discussion of them the second I challenge them with things like "basic reason" or "evidence"



Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.


No, I discount all authoritative quotes that aren't based on evidence. If Einstein says "Evolution is awesome!" randomly and without context, I'm not going to take it as evidence.

Again, this isn't a hilariously biased issue, this is discarding arguments that are based upon a logical fallacy. Any statement whose sole claim to validity rests upon the authority of the individual saying it is something that must be discarded. It may even be true, but it cannot be taken as proof of a point.

Once more, if Descartes says "Nutmeg is the worst spice to use in baking" it's not going to have any bearing on a discussion of baking unless he gives reasoning for his position and his position will not be any more valid than mine unless his reasoning is more sound.

If I wanted to, I could beat you at the argument from authority game, I have more authorities on my side than you do. But it proves nothing. It would just be a combination of the argument from authority with the argumentum ad populum (the argument from popularity).

It doesn't matter who said it, it doesn't matter how many people said it. An argument should be judged on the merits of its reason and evidence, not on who said it.

Also, a good number of edmc^2's quotes are quote-mines and fabrications, yet another reason to discount them.



Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.


No, I just dismiss all arguments from authority outright. If a statement doesn't stand on its own without the authority backing it up, it's a silly statement that should be discarded.

This has been another example of Creationist ignorance, this time of logical fallacies.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Getting personal now, are we? Oh, dear. Oh, well...


you mean logical common sense?

No, I mean logic. Something to rely on when common sense finds itself on shaky ground.


Not bad for an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages and three dialects with simple mind full of common sense huh?

If the location is important, I'm as Asian--and as 'third world'--as you are. I can't claim to speak three languages, though; I speak two and stumble along in a third. For the rest, well, you've come to the wrong shop for compliments. Your English is pretty good, though, if it's not your first language.


I'm really surprised though, if an “uneducated” third world Asian Christian who speaks three languages, etc., is able to stand his ground against a group of HIGHLY EDUCATED PERFECT ENGLISH speaking folks (prolly a lot older too). How much more damage I can do if I'm really educated, but...

If by damage you mean spreading ignorance and obscurantism, I imagine you would do a good deal less.


mr Hector's son is a dude then again this person might a grandma – don't wanna get grandma mad

Don't worry, grandma isn't mad. Have you proved the compatibility of evolution with creation yet? Does it actually need to be proven?

I hadn''t realized evo-bio had advanced that far.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Not ignoring ur post madness - just too many to respond to and takes time to do research to make sure I don't mistate something (which just happened a while ago).

Anyway you talked of education. Sadly the education you talked about is stacked against me – no school or university in the world would allow or do a research on the scientific side of Creation. Thus it’s non-existent. Reason for it is this one overwhelming and overriding statement: its un-FASIFIABLE. Since it’s un-falsifiable, Creation then is NOT science, thus it CAN NOT be taught in schools (according to the scientific community of course). On the other hand, since “evolution” is FALSIFIABLE then it must be scientific (according to the scientific community of course).

The irony though, to believe on something falsifiable is ‘a’ foundation of scientific truth while to believe on something that IS TRUTHFUL is ignorance (I believe this is what you were trying to show on your threads: “Evolution: Falsify It” and “The Ignorance of Creationist”). Amazing grace indeed!

But, all is not lost because these same men and women of science whether they are aware of it or not – are confirming what the majority of us - believers of Creation know already, that Life Indeed is a product of a loving and intelligent Creator. This part “evolutionist” cannot and will never see, even for those who try to inter-mingle the two.

And it is this part that believers of evolution cannot ignore no matter how they try for in the end the Creator of life is the final arbiter. That I’m sure of!

Ciao,
edmc2

I'll get back to some your interesting and challenging (I must admit) posts.
maybe next – professeur Meinesz.

Astyanex - don't get run over by a reindeer! And no Evolution will never be compatible with Creation imho.

(Hey this gives me an idea of the title of a new thread)


gotta go ... later.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You do not look for evidence to 'falsify' a theory you look for evidence that that backs it up. If you can find no evidence then you create a god to explain it and use that instead it seems.

Dont even know if 'Un falsifyable' is even english.

And again Evolution is not meant or able to answer the question of how life began, just how it progressed. If you feel a need for a creator no one is stopping you.

So is your problem with Evolution that it destroys some simplistic stories or you feel you are not part of 'lower' species on this planet?

Does sharing an ancestor with the other modern apes hurt your fragile ego?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Does sharing an ancestor with the other modern apes hurt your fragile ego?

Is that what it is? What is it with that?

I'm sure it's not too off topic to ask whether someone can explain it to me.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Not ignoring ur post madness - just too many to respond to and takes time to do research to make sure I don't mistate something (which just happened a while ago).


Alright then.



Anyway you talked of education. Sadly the education you talked about is stacked against me – no school or university in the world would allow or do a research on the scientific side of Creation.


Well, if you were actually serious about research you could research the non-creation scientific stuff, you know the neutral facts of biology. Then you could head over to the Discovery Institute, which actually has a research department for creationism and has for several years been doing...absolutely nothing that proves creationism at all actually.



Thus it’s non-existent.


Well, it's actually non-existent because there isn't a scientific side to it. There isn't even a proper statement of a scientific hypothesis.

Also, you could try to falsify evolution. If you're right it shouldn't be too hard to do.

If you falsify evolution it would only be a matter of time before research into other avenues of thought would develop.



Reason for it is this one overwhelming and overriding statement: its un-FASIFIABLE. Since it’s un-falsifiable, Creation then is NOT science, thus it CAN NOT be taught in schools (according to the scientific community of course).


Actually, it's not science for several reasons. Primarily the entire lack of evidence, entire lack of publications, entire lack of research, a lack of stated hypothesis or predictions, etc.

Being unfalsifiable, which means there isn't a way to actually test it, is only one of the myriad problems.

You need to be able to test science...it's sort of the whole point.



On the other hand, since “evolution” is FALSIFIABLE then it must be scientific (according to the scientific community of course).


No, falsifiability is only one part of the reason why it can be taught.



The irony though, to believe on something falsifiable is ‘a’ foundation of scientific truth


...falsifiable means testable. As in, you can see if it is false or not.
If evolution is false, you could demonstrate it.
If creationism is false...how would you demonstrate it?



while to believe on something that IS TRUTHFUL is ignorance


Ok, please demonstrate it's truthfulness in this thread over here, it's been open for a while calling for demonstrations of the truth of creationism.



(I believe this is what you were trying to show on your threads: “Evolution: Falsify It”


In that thread I was merely trying to see why creationists think evolution is false and show them that they are misinformed.



and “The Ignorance of Creationist”). Amazing grace indeed!


That thread is about how many creationists display an ignorance of some of the most basic of scientific principles...



But, all is not lost because these same men and women of science whether they are aware of it or not – are confirming what the majority of us - believers of Creation know already, that Life Indeed is a product of a loving and intelligent Creator.


Please demonstrate this wild assertion.



This part “evolutionist” cannot and will never see, even for those who try to inter-mingle the two.


Show it.
I'm open to evidence above all else. I hold no allegiance to particular theories beyond their evidence.



And it is this part that believers of evolution cannot ignore no matter how they try for in the end the Creator of life is the final arbiter. That I’m sure of!


So you're basically saying "Haha, you're wrong and Jesus will show you when you're dead!" ?
Very mature.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The gentle minded among us have no issues with that compatability. They see the positive intent of Atheists and Evolution-Thinkers and the positive intent of Christians and Creationists and how either are no contradiction to each other.

Bless their eager little hearts, trying to make sense of the big and mysterious world around them, each in their own way. Bless their eager little hearts trying to "disprove" one of the other sides in order to advertise secure what they consider true.

You gotta love em.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





.yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.


That`s awesome now my opinion and viewpoints are equal to yours and every other brilliant mind through history and into the present.
Your reasoning is hilariously biased, discount all authoritative quotes and statements by people and literature I disagree with.
Problem is we all do it to some degree, some of us just won`t admit it.


I can't believe you dont' see the difference between someone making a claim and backing it up with a SCIENTIFIC STUDY and someone making a random claim he doesn't back up.

So if Newton talks about gravity, he's backing up his claims with scientific studies and mathematical formulas. When someone asks him about god, he's stating his BELIEF and isn't proving anything!

Being an authority in one field you studied and provided backup isn't the same as stating your belief



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join