How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: Phantom423

You know this is blatantly false. Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? Do you expect that if you throw enough mud at the wall that some will stick? Is that your "scientific method"?

You know of an experiment where a fruit fly changed into something besides a fruit fly? Or where a mouse changed into something besides a mouse? You don't. All you have is myopic experiments that are ambiguous at best, and by no means prove evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phage

It's funny because the word evolution appears in that article 22 times.

Really glad I learned about this logical fallacy, because you guys use it all the time. It's called the appeal to authority fallacy. And it is your only defense.

a reply to: cooperton

You know of an experiment where a fruit fly changed into something besides a fruit fly? Or where a mouse changed into something besides a mouse? You don't. All you have is myopic experiments that are ambiguous at best, and by no means prove evolution.

And can you find anything in the scientific literature that said evolution changed a fly into a dog or a cat? Can you cite any textbook, research paper, article which describes evolutionary science in the manner you just mentioned? No, you can't. And that's because it doesn't exist. You misrepresent evolutionary science to fill in the cracks in your own beliefs.
You continually post erroneous descriptions of evolutionary science which have NEVER been published in the scientific literature.

I challenge you to post anything in the literature which defines evolutionary science the way you do.

We can wrap our minds around it. They are governed by a set of laws that make up our reality. Cause and effect into infinity.
a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

You know this is blatantly false. Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? Do you expect that if you throw enough mud at the wall that some will stick? Is that your "scientific method"?

You know of an experiment where a fruit fly changed into something besides a fruit fly? Or where a mouse changed into something besides a mouse? You don't. All you have is myopic experiments that are ambiguous at best, and by no means prove evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phage

It's funny because the word evolution appears in that article 22 times.

Really glad I learned about this logical fallacy, because you guys use it all the time. It's called the appeal to authority fallacy. And it is your only defense.

So what you really mean is that you never bothered to read the provided links and can only misrepresent what is actually discussed and postulated in evolutionary biology to prop up your non existent position.

Any time you want to discuss the science, there are many here who are happy to do so. However, you flat out refuse to do that and run amok with straw man fallacies and straight out lies about what the MES actually claims and you prove this every time you demands paper showing a fly changing into a bee or a cat or whatever mythological version of evolution you think you’re mocking. Sadly, the version of evolution that you talk s# about in every post only exists in the minds of YEC proponents like you.

Here's the only explanation for all the holes in evolution/abiogenesis:

"It took millions and billions of years."

Peace out.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Here's the only explanation for all the holes in evolution/abiogenesis:

"It took millions and billions of years."

Peace out.

Evolution and Abiogenesis aren’t the same thing. Theyre not the same process and aren’t related aside from the fact that nothing can evolve if there wasn’t any life to begin with.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. So yes, there are holes and gaps. It’s been demonstrated that most of the processes thought to be in play have been shown to be possible to have occurred under natural conditions. There are still unanswered questions and it, as yet, can’t be proven to be definitively how life began. So sure, you can say there are holes in Abiogenesis. But again, it’s still a hypothesis not a theory.

Evolution on the other hand has a mountain of evidence to support it. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the most heavily supported scientific theory ever. There’s more evidence in favor of evolution than there is gravity or even cell theory, yet I don’t see anyone going on about the holes in gravitation or disputing that our bodies are made up of cells.

a reply to: cooperton

Gravity is not an ordered processes, it's an effect of energy bending the space-time it occupies.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Here's the only explanation for all the holes in evolution/abiogenesis:

"It took millions and billions of years."

Peace out.

Nope, the explanation for the holes is that they aren't actually holes, creationists just misrepresent and misunderstand the science every single time. Coop's been doing it this entire thread repeating the same exact arguments from years ago that have already been refuted.

a reply to: cooperton

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well? Hiding under your dinosaur's tail? You make statements and accusations and never respond. Of course, you don't have to respond. That says everything we need to know, doesn't it?

originally posted by: Peter Vlar

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs

Gravity is not an ordered processes, it's an effect of energy bending the space-time it occupies.

I am wasting my time with you guys. You are just flat out not developed enough to analyze things objectively. You are now saying gravity is not an ordered process to try to disprove my claim that the cosmos move in an ordered manner.

Of course gravity is an ordered process.

So much so that it can be predicted mathematically:

F = GMm/r^2

Acceleration from Earth's gravity has persistently been 9.8 m/s^2.


You're like phantom when she tried to argue that you don't need initial concentration to determine 't' in the half-life equation, when it's a mathematical la



It's futile discussing things with you, Tzarchasm, Peter Vlar, and Phantom, because you all lack the objectivity to hold a conversation. You attack me, or nitpick semantics rather than respond to the point I am making. It is getting old. Everyone else seems to have some understanding of the points I am conveying, it is you and the other's persistent nihilism that prevents you from even considering you may be wrong. You even denied the law/order of gravity to try to refuse my point that the cosmos are ordered.



To the non-nihilists:

You aren't ancestors of mutants, your body is the chosen vessel and physical manifestation of the Spirit of the Most High God. To answer the point of this whole thread, sex was meant as a gift for a man and a woman to experience eternal bliss together. Love is the force leading us to this unity. Follow it and do not compromise.

a reply to: cooperton

Gravity is not a process of any sort. A process is a sequence of events.


In Newtonian physics (the equation you posted), gravity is a force of attraction between masses. Works well enough for most purposes.

In general relativity, gravity is a bending of spacetime by mass.

Not a process. Ordered or otherwise.

originally posted by: cooperton
..."...We and the cosmos are far beyond the current comprehension of humanity, so if us intelligent beings are incapable of wrapping our heads around it, then it is sourced from a greater intelligence than we currently possess..."...

Hiya Coope.

Wonder if there is any interest in challenging this?

If not: love the first two phrases, (before the second comma.), thanks, and have a good day.

If so: how can one justify the assumption, requiring us to draw conclusions, from our own wondering?
Why not just wallow in the wonder, and release that part of us that demands conclusions?

Leaps-of-faith; leaping to conclusions; at-large assumptions: is there any truth in those?

originally posted by: Nothin

Hiya Coope.

Wonder if there is any interest in challenging this?

If not: love the first two phrases, (before the second comma.), thanks, and have a good day.

If so: how can one justify the assumption, requiring us to draw conclusions, from our own wondering?
Why not just wallow in the wonder, and release that part of us that demands conclusions?

Leaps-of-faith; leaping to conclusions; at-large assumptions: is there any truth in those?

I toiled with the idea that it is best to either know absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. Anywhere in between you're either conceited and/or desire more knowledge. Wallowing in the wonder is definitely the end result for most everyone in history. But look into Kierkegaard's leap of faith, it essentially says that reason will inevitably get you to a chasm that you can only pass with a leap of faith.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Gravity is not a process of any sort.
Not.... Ordered or otherwise.

The gravitational dance between the solar objects is most definitely a process. Summer, fall, winter, spring, repeat.

You also say it's not ordered. This is also absurd. The acceleration downward on earth due to gravity has remain unchanged since it was first described mathematically.

a reply to: cooperton

Gravity is not a process. A process is a series of events.

Gravity is a force or a distortion of spacetime. Take your pick.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Hiya Coope.

Wonder if there is any interest in challenging this?

If not: love the first two phrases, (before the second comma.), thanks, and have a good day.

If so: how can one justify the assumption, requiring us to draw conclusions, from our own wondering?
Why not just wallow in the wonder, and release that part of us that demands conclusions?

Leaps-of-faith; leaping to conclusions; at-large assumptions: is there any truth in those?

I toiled with the idea that it is best to either know absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. Anywhere in between you're either conceited and/or desire more knowledge. Wallowing in the wonder is definitely the end result for most everyone in history. But look into Kierkegaard's leap of faith, it essentially says that reason will inevitably get you to a chasm that you can only pass with a leap of faith.

Hi Coope. Thanks for your reply.
Sorry for your toiling.
Do you know nothing, or do you know everything? Does it really simplify to those extremes?
Have you chosen to believe that you know everything?
If so: then what happens when you meet another person, whom has also chosen to believe that they know everything, but then you realize that they don't 'know' the same things as you?

Why must one in-between: absolutely adhere to either conceit, or desire? Don't see how you could know this?

Why is it not satisfactory that we stop on the edge of that chasm, and not feel the impulse to leap it?
You know: barefoot to the ground? Why attempt to jump a chasm? Can't perceive that need.

Is it an evolutionary throw-back for Humans to engage in fruitless debates? Is it for the purpose of solving an issue?
- Or just argument for its own sake?

Believe it or not this debate was discussed in the past by those who really wanted answers:

On the Origin of the Term “Intelligent Design”

"Critics of intelligent design often allege that the term was invented by lawyers to get around the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Edwards v. Aguillard which struck down the teaching of creationism because it referred to a “supernatural creator.” This is plainly wrong, and it can’t hurt to explain, not for the first time, why it is wrong.

The terms “intelligent design” and “intelligent designer” have lengthy histories, long predating 1987. Charles Darwin himself referred to “intelligent design” in a 1861 letter:

"One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this.
"1

"In fact, the term was in use throughout the 19th century. A search of Google books from prior to 1900 confirms this, with multiple instances.2 Here’s one from 1847 in Scientific American:

"And where must we look for this fountain but to the great store-house of nature — the innumerable and diversified objects there were presented to our view give evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation to each other and to the nature of man".3

"Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller wrote as early as 1897 that “it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.”4 The term was also used by John Tyndale in 1874 in an address given to the British Association for the Advancement of Science.5 Prominent 19th-century scientists held similar views, including even Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-developer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. By the late nineteenth century, Wallace came to believe that natural selection acting on random variations could not explain a number of things in biology, especially the development of the human brain. He concluded that “a Higher Intelligence” guided the process.6 In 1892, George John Romanes published his book Darwin After Darwin which stated:............


"But the research and ideas that ultimately inspired today’s ID proponents were conceived in the 1960s and 1970s. Highly influential in this respect was the discovery that life depended upon information, whose structure was not only independent of its physical or chemical form, but whose ordering was not amenable to explanation by physical or chemical laws. As the chemist Michael Polanyi wrote in an article, “Life’s Irreducible Structure,” published in the journal Science in 1968:

"Suppose that the actual structure of a DNA molecule were due to the fact that the bindings of its bases were much stronger than the bindings would be for any other distribution of bases, then such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its code-like character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy. […] Whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page."11

"The term “intelligent design” appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle. In 1982 he argued that “if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.”12 The term “intelligent design” was also used by a non-scientist, James E. Horigan, in his 1979 book Chance or Design? Horigan framed his argument as an empirical one, “without resort to biblical or other religious references,” and without investigating questions about “ultimate purpose"13

"Horigan and Hoyle themselves did not become part of the later ID movement, although their ideas were certainly very influential upon those who did. Thus, in 1984 — three years before the Edwards ruling — three scientists who did help found the ID movement published a book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, argued for an “intelligent cause” behind the origin of the information in DNA:

"We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?"14

"Those three scientists were Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. Soon thereafter, Thaxton, a chemist and academic editor for the textbook Of Pandas and People, adopted the term “intelligent design” after hearing it mentioned by a NASA engineer..............."15

"The term “intelligent design” not only long pre-dates the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, but, far from being a Christian invention, the basic arguments for design pre-date Christianity itself........."

See whole article here:
evolutionnews.org...


So you see people, even though this debate has devolved into tedious rhetoric that is going nowhere
- Once upon a time in another land where intelligence had evolved almost as though by intelligent design
Humans of greater intellect had seen that design requires intelligence, intelligence exists by design
- And nothing, absouluely nothing can exist without both intelligence and design.

- AlienView

originally posted by: AlienView ... So you see people, even though this debate has devolved into tedious rhetoric that is going nowhere - Once upon a time in another land where intelligence had evolved almost as though by intelligent design Humans of greater intellect had seen that design requires intelligence, intelligence exists by design - And nothing, absouluely nothing can exist without both intelligence and design. - AlienView

So nothing exists without design?
Without concepts?
Without constructs?
Without ideas?

Welcome to: no thing.

a reply to: AlienView

The reviews for The Mystery of Life's Origin book are very encouraging, I'll have to check it out. However, I was reading some comments which helpfully supplied actual quotes:

Another question which can be answered, however, is whether such a view as Special Creation is plausible... How then does one determine whether an origin science scenario is plausible? The principles of causality and uniformity are used... does creation employ cause-effect and the principle of uniformity? Yes. In fact, it appeals to them as the only way we can plausibly reconstruct the past... May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?... We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes... Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source?... We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to being a Creator into science. The above discussion is not meant as a scientific proof of a Creator, but is merely a line of reasoning to show that Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is a plausible view of origin science."

What I noted here is that WHO HOW and WHY are all strangely absent, which strongly suggests to me that evolution is not the only theory facing significant challenge and might actually be the most complete of the whole debate, even for all its gaps. How can you propose an intelligent design theory without substantial basis for answering the above questions?

a reply to: cooperton

Still waiting.

originally posted by: cooperton
I am wasting my time with you guys. You are just flat out not developed enough to analyze things objectively. You are now saying gravity is not an ordered process to try to disprove my claim that the cosmos move in an ordered manner.

You are the one who is not being objective. You call something an ordered process, simply because mass attracts more mass? What is ordered about that? It's just a fact of physics. Plus there is a lot of chaos out there caused by gravity.

The effect of gravity can be measured. That doesn't magically turn it into an "ordered" process. You are just trying to romanticize the properties of the universe to make it seem like a perfect balanced entity that requires a designer, but you have no actual argument in support of such, so instead of supporting your proposition you misrepresent physics.

it is you and the other's persistent nihilism that prevents you from even considering you may be wrong. You even denied the law/order of gravity to try to refuse my point that the cosmos are ordered.

I can't speak for everyone, but as a skeptic I do not buy into things not backed by evidence. My view is willing to change if burden of proof can be met for the claims being made. The problem is, this never happens and it is actually you who is refusing to even consider being wrong about creationism. Otherwise your argument would evolve, instead of just denial of people's refutations and then waiting a few months and repeating the same refuted claim again from the beginning as if the entire previous discussions never happened.

You aren't ancestors of mutants, your body is the chosen vessel and physical manifestation of the Spirit of the Most High God. To answer the point of this whole thread, sex was meant as a gift for a man and a woman to experience eternal bliss together. Love is the force leading us to this unity. Follow it and do not compromise.

And your evidence in favor of this is?