RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >   
  Topic: Common Descent - Evidence No.1< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:12   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 13 2005,15:07)
Your argument isn't even an argument from incredulity. It's an argument from deliberate blindness.

More precisely, it's an argument where Evopeach has his eyes shut tight, his fingers jammed in his ears, and his head stuck under a pillow, while coming up with all sorts of rubbish.

As evidenced by the post just above mine, where he makes ludicrously erroneous claims about abiogenesis and the evidence for evolution.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:27   

This is exactly why it's a waste of time arguing with people like you, evo. You ignore evidence you don't like. I could give you links to articles presenting plausible pathways from abiotic beginnings to the first precursors to life, but it won't matter. You'll dismiss them out of hand.

Your whole argument about how abiogenesis is impossible can be characterized as "Lies", Damned Lies, and Statistics."

The evidence for evolution is a bit more extensive than reference to a few bone fragments. The evidence for common descent with modification might be characterized as mountainous.

And I can't fail to note that you have proposed no alternative theory explaining the rather obvious fact that life does actually exist. Did god "poof" it into existence?

You can't make an entire theory out of criticisms of another theory. If you think "God (or some other supernatural entity) did it," good luck coming up with an explanation for how he (or it) did it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,00:26   

Oh, but Eric, just read the Bible and all will be clear. :D

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,03:47   

Since the Herd mentality characterizes this group of true believers I'll just respond to the Herd.

Of course you can make up several just so stories about any and every aspect of evolution.. thats the entire theory beyond modest changes within kinds called microevolution.

People make up stories that could have happened all the time but in life their called fiction because although plausible they never happened.

People make up stories that at broad brush seem plausible but upon examination turn out to be "cold fusion" , thats abiogenesis for 100 years of fraud and failure.

People make up stories they want people to believe to sell books but upon close examination of the facts are nothing more than fairy tales.. thats general evolution.

See just so stories are just that until they are observed, tested experimentally, reviewed, repeated by independent groups successfully etc. then you have a believable theory.

Evolution beyond micro-evolution has never accomplished any of the above.

Thats not science thats conjecture and mythology.

And there are no wild statements about abiogenesis because it is a totally unproven concept.. can't even make a mathmatically believable hypothesis of it.

Tick Toc Tic Toc

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:13   

Evopeach,
Again, you have made the charge of fraud...back it up.

Let's also put the Bible under the same scrutiny, shall we?  I mean, you accept the Bible as the definitive word on how the universe began, where man came from, etc. so why shouldn't we scrutinize it?

Can you observe the events in the Bible?  Can you experimentally test the events in the Bible?  Can you review them?  Can they be repeated by independent groups?

The answer to all those questions is, "No."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:28   

No charge of fraud just the observation that your theory is believed because you want to believe it as part of your world view, your credentials and career are totally dependent on your devotion to it, for many their tenure and taxpayer subsidized grant money depends on it, being published depends on it... etc.

Creationism is in the same boat as evolution regarding origins except they say very clearly that regarding origins their statements are not scientifically varifiable. IDers do not make any statement regarding any particular religious explanation period other than the Designer of life is an entity and not a random process.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:31   

So, Evopeach,
If you reject evolution for those reasons, why do you not similarly reject Creationism/ID for the same reasons?  Where is your intellectual honesty?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:20   

Because evolution is not intellectually honest, is hostile to all other explanations, wastes time, talent and taxpayer resources on useless work driven by the atheists desire to prove God doesn't exist and has no possible useful outcome.

Creation and ID simply take the world as it is, assume it was designed, analyze it from that perspective not worrying about 15 billion years ago but rather about how to learn from the beauty and intricacy of the design, mimic it, fix it where broken and generally search out methods and techniques for using the knowledge to benefit mankind and the entire ecosystem.

Because creation and ID are srtaight forward and truthful in their claims and presentations and any reading of them affirms same.

There is a well respected, scholarly, multidisciplinary and quite accepted book of knowledge that supports my belief, the Bible. Though of course not a book of science per se I have no problem with its explanations of irigins though again they are not scientific.

ID id not creationism period and even Henry Morris says it plain and clear... they have no relationship in their repsective work.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:33   

The Bible has not changed in how many years?  Do you not think that we have learned anything since the Bible was written?

Again, you have made the baseless claim that evolution equals atheism, which I once again challenge you to back up.

Tell me how Creationism/ID helps to benefit mankind.  How does one go about doing that using Creationism/ID.

As for the honesty of Creationism/ID, perhaps you have never seen the Quote Mine Project on Talk Origins?  What about the Index to Creationist Claims?  Of course, I know you have seen those and ignore them.

What you are really saying here is that you accept the Bible without any question, but if another idea comes up, like evolution, then it must be questioned until it is found wrong in your opinion, just so you can continue to follow the Bible without question.  That's not at all consistent.  You should hold all evidences to the same standard and I challenge you to do that with the Bible.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,06:05   

evopeach:

I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you've actually read the links I've provided. Your next assignment is to show me, in detail beyond "they're all just crap," exactly why you think they're crap. So far you haven't said anything that leads me to believe you have a single scrap of an argument to rebut anything in either of those links.

Until you've done that, I think I can safely ignore your rants.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,06:10   

The bible has withstood 2000 years of criticism and scholarly examination and its still the most owned and read book in the world and followed by many, many millions of people as the central guide to their way of life.

Equating Darwin and Dawkins writing with scripture is laughable in terms of impact on human life and authority.

ID and Creation beliefs are not hostile to good science and many IDers and Creationists work effectively in many scientific discliplines that may very well result in drugs, etc. that benefit people. NOt because of ID necessarily but because origins and fossils and such contribute nothing to their work nor to most work in the fields of science in the context of science that actually benefits mankind directly.

Contrary to the rantings herein teaching the debate would have no practical adverse effect on beneficial science and certainly not on the progress of the students.

Maybe talk.origins should be renamed talk.afterlifestarted since abiogenesis is not important or necessary to evos theories.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:39   

Origins does not necessarily refer to the origins of life.  It could very easily refer to the origins of species.

The Bible has been around for a long time, that is true, but as soon as you start taking your science from it, you should put it under the same scrutiny as other science.  You are more than willing to scrutinize evolution, but not the "science" you get from the Bible.  I ask again, why is that?

You also admit that Creationism/ID does not lead to any benefit to mankind, I'm glad we can agree on that.  But, let's examine that a little more, shall we?  If these scientists that believe in creation are helping manking, but not because of ID, then it's safe to say that they are doing it while separating their religious convictions from their work, correct?  But, you want to do the exact opposite when you get your science from the Bible.  That, once again, is not logically consistent.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,08:33   

Actually I have never taken a technical or scientific subject where the Bible was a textbook. The Bible is not a book of science primarily but where history impinges on science by necessity I suggest it is as well supported as general evolution. It simply does not speak to 99% of science period.

I do not agree that IDers and YECs theories have no impact on the results of thier work in science.

1) I have outlined elsewhere the impact of using the tols normally associated with systems design, analysis, debugging, securing etc. has been extraordinary in the genome project and subsequent outcomes. This is consciously or unconsciously the direct result of a design implication rather than a random walk through animal space, there could not be a greater dichotomy.

2) We would never waste time talent and resources on origin of life experiments over 100 years, space alien research, panspermia research but rather direct empirical science of understnading the marvelous designs and learning how to apply them to helping mankind.

3) It is the Bible's provence to lift the spirit and hope of mankind outside of science which is a large part of existence, actually.

Didn't your mommy teach you not to mistate other peoples positions?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,08:45   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 14 2005,13:33)
Actually I have never taken a technical or scientific subject where the Bible was a textbook. The Bible is not a book of science primarily but where history impinges on science by necessity I suggest it is as well supported as general evolution. It simply does not speak to 99% of science period.

I do not agree that IDers and YECs theories have no impact on the results of thier work in science.

1) I have outlined elsewhere the impact of using the tols normally associated with systems design, analysis, debugging, securing etc. has been extraordinary in the genome project and subsequent outcomes. This is consciously or unconsciously the direct result of a design implication rather than a random walk through animal space, there could not be a greater dichotomy.

2) We would never waste time talent and resources on origin of life experiments over 100 years, space alien research, panspermia research but rather direct empirical science of understnading the marvelous designs and learning how to apply them to helping mankind.

3) It is the Bible's provence to lift the spirit and hope of mankind outside of science which is a large part of existence, actually.

Didn't your mommy teach you not to mistate other peoples positions?

In answer to:

1.  How does saying, "This is designed" lead to figuring out the genome sequences?  That's just ridiculous.

2.  You can't say that Creationism/ID helps mankind by....helping mankind.

3.  That only applies for Christians.  What about other religions?  Also, you are the one that is using the Bible as an accurate account of the origin of life.  Now, you say that it is only to be used as a way of lifting spirits?  So, now, where do you turn to for your backing of the origin of life story in the Bible?  Do you turn to the same Creationists that admitted under oath in Court that their "science" is based on the Bible?  Do you even see the circular reasoning there?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:55   

GCT

I never said that figuring out the genome sequences depended on a design committment, I said the tools used were transferred from the disciplines of systems, IT and were of enormous assistance to the project and they by definition start from a design perspective.

Since one team was headed by a purely materialistic evolutionist, Craig Vetner, and the other by a practicing Christian, Francis  Collins it is clear that good science was performed in both cases.

Thus the work was enabled using tools that assume a design, look for logic and propose solution methods based such whether they are themselves IDers or not.

Truth is not the captive of the mindset of the inquisitor or investigator but of the efficacy of the method used in finding it.

A simple example: I know that on average e is the most popular letter used in English language written expression, followed by t,a,o,i,n,s,r when I solve a cryptogram. Knowing that is quite important in terms of pace and success. I know it is a code with a certain logic, conceptual thought behind it and is rational as to purpose, etc.

If I assume the crytogram is a sequence of randomly chosen letters from a uniform distribution with replacements then whereever shall I start in my investigation. I shall adopt the same trial and error method and be searching for sense when the last star burns out.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:59   

GCT, I did not say the Bible only lifts spirits I said it was one aspect of helping mankind.. among many.

The Spiritual aspects are not appropriate to this forum.

  
  75 replies since Mar. 30 2005,01:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]