Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Just One Argument is Sufficient

Pages: (4) < 1 2 [3] 4 >

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:16    Dan, Please.... you are holding to a theory that hangs on skyhooks, anchored in nothing and its eating your guts out. You among many suggest that origins, abiogenesis, life from non-life are irrelevent to evolution. The you and the otheres spend days illustrating the efficacy of Urey Miller, Fox, etc. and referencing that old evo standbys "A Lot of Good Work is Being Done in that Field"; theories are always evolving and changing for the better (evolution is evolving), Its right around the corner, really great science.. LOL It must be very painful to rest your case on such nonsense and try to carry on. And when you come up with something I can't quite grasp just send it over and go ahead... include the integral signs if necessary.... mr leafman. "Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Paul Ehrlich (Stanford Biology Professor) and L. Charles Birch (Sydney Biology Professor), 1967 An example of intellectual honesty  by real biologists and pretty good ones at that.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:47    Evo, Quote And when you come up with something I can't quite grasp just send it over and go ahead... include the integral signs if necessary.... mr leafman. No problem, bronco! "Hydrogen has always been, is, and always will be more plentiful than Helium." For some reason you just can't quite grasp such a concept. Another concept you can't seem to grasp is the realization that you are wrong. -Dan

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,11:53    Hang in there skyhook.. you're on firm solid evo scientific ground other wise known as nothing.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,20:29    I'm only relying on scientific grounds that you have supplied, Evo. What scientific grounds are you standing on?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2005,10:09    I wonder why Creationists sometimes assume that "evolutionists" want the ToE to be true. Accepting the conclusions of a theory and actually liking those conclusions are two different things. Henry

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:22    Here is what I have gleaned from this sites evos so far: 1)  The hundred year search for a believable just so story of abiogenesis involving millions of dollars and alot of scientific talent was just an intellectual curiousity which has no import for the theory of evolution. Evolution has no interest or concern in the basis of life and any theory from panspermia to the Life Force to alien visitors to whatever is equally acceptable. 2) The one hundred fifty year search for any of the billions of transitional fossils is a non-issue post Darwin (who was very concerned about the complete lack of such) because a) Every progeny of every species is transitional, every mutation generates a transitional form and the handful of contested transitional forms is sufficient for evos. 3) Common decent being always and for ever based on homologous large scale structures having some common elements is not effected by the advances in science that have shown in many species that different genes in these species are responsible for the development and unique characteristics of such structures. Further the differences in the structures across species are so profound that it is often difficult to imagine any line leading to a common ancestor or even identify them as common. 3) The genetic code is not really a code but rather just a sequence of chemical reactions that were developed by trial and error and fortuitous selection pressures. 4) Although the science of statistics is among the most proven in our experience the calculations illustrating the impossibility of abiogenesis, separation of right and left hand amino acids by chance, etc. are not to be taken seriously. 5) You can tell if a scientist is to be taken seriously in his statements and publications. If he supports any alternative explanation for life he is to be discredited and drummed out of the club. If he holds fast to the evolutionary paradigm he is eligible for grants, tenure and publication. Conclusions:  People who are trying for instance to make cochlear implants deliver sounds other than spoken words ,such as music ,acceptably are all wrong using electrical engineers and information technology specialists as their principle investigators because thay are employing the principles of intelligent design. To get from 24 channels of data delivery to the inner ear to the 30,000 normally functional they should employ induced random mutation in the controlling genes and let natural selection work its magic to get the 30,000 required for success.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:33    1.  Abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  I'm glad you are finally getting it.  Life arose, somehow, and evolution took over from there.  It's that simple.  That's not to say that abiogenesis is not a area of research that is worth studying, because it is, it is simply not part of ToE. 2.  You've already been shown links to papers and sites that talk about the transitional fossils.  Putting your fingers in your ear and shouting, "There aren't any transitional fossils" won't make it true. 3.  A)  You can't argue common design due to similarities and also argue that there are no similarities to support common descent.  B)  Examples please. 3.  (again)  Please define "code".  Until you define the terms that you are using, your complaint is wholly vacuous. 4.  Must we point out (again) the problems with your statistical ramblings? 5.  I would say that scientists that get their science from the Bible should not be taken seriously.  Since Creation Science has been shown to be based on Biblical literalism, it is not viable science. Finally, how does one use ID to make cochlear implants?  Also, to say that random mutation should be used is to erect a blatant straw man.  But, it should be noted that through the process of studying evolution we learned about the processes that are necessary to make these implants possible in the first place.

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:33    All design is intelligent as it is the only process known to man that resultsin progress of any kind that is beneficial. It is the only method that is scientific, planned, purposeful and is the only method used to perform science in the world. On the other hand evolution depends on a purely random source for "apparent design" a term used in no other context in the history of mankind. A method whose principles are so preposterously inefficient and unlikely to produce anything functional that no one who proposed them as an approach to performing scientific investigation would be considered sane. Every high school student in America should have Mike Denton and Behe's books as required reading whether or not they are ever used as textbooks in a formal class. No person of intellectual honesty can accept neodarwinian though as explanatory after reading those two books.. which I suggest have not even been cracked by this audience in general.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:48    First, I'll note you had no rebuttals to any of the numbered points. Second, are you trying to say that believing in ID instead of accepting evolution is what leads people to be able to perform science? Also, we have tons of evidence of random processes that produce results and functional things.  You are one of them, unless you think that god or the intelligent designer went into your mother during conception and made a specific sperm with a specific set of genes interact with the egg that was there. Behe's book has been thoroughly vetted and debunked.  To teach his "science" would be unlawful.

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,12:26    I have a question for you, evopeach.  Why, when you decided to create this thread, did you choose helium over hydrogen?  Was it arbitrary, or was it by some data you ran across?  If it was data, how recently did you come across it?

snaxalotl Posts: 9 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,22:07    I'm guessing peach has confused elemental production order in stars with order of production in the universe. It seems like his mind is a grab bag of half understood facts read at random, but down at the church youth group this accords him hero worship as scientific genius master of all scientific knowledge ("oh please, genius master, delight us again with an explanation of what foolishness evolution is"). The result you see is an irritating combination of ignorance and inability to back down from a pronouncement. His inability to come to terms with a single simple fact shows how pointless it is to tackle something more complex with him. How can you guys argue with someone so boring? You're wasting your time unless you draw him into some investment in his statements, because just competently refuting him is something he is emotionally immune to. For example, instead of responding "wrong about helium, blah blah blah", I think it needs to be more like this: "really magnificent peach, is that a true fact about helium"? "ok, because I didn't know that in my insignificance. are you sure of that? can I take that fact to the bank?" "so, if helium WASN'T the first element, you'd be WRONG then"? "well, of course you're not wrong, but IF you were wrong over a basic fact like this that would make you some kind of moron"? "sure, but if, say, hydrogen came first, that would mean you're a moron"? "yes, but you'd have to be a TOTAL MORON to get a point like this wrong, right"? "then what about blah blah blah..."? unless you can draw out some sort of emotional investment which might make him actually consider the negative ramifications of being TOTALLY EFFING WRONG as usual, then you are dealing with an unstoppable random BS generator, and you might as well argue with the Eliza computer program. -------------- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:19    Snaxalot, Nice diatribe, very intellectual, added a lot to the discussion.. sure sign of a critical thinker. Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei. How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life. You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue. If thats too tough just explain the steps up to the supposed first replicator in detail or maybe the last steps from non-life to the first replicator. After that you can explain the origin of the avian lung unique in the animal kingdom and unrelated to any other species in its design. Every time I read through Mike Denton's book and research one of the topics back through his references I break out laughing that educated people can actually believe in anything about evolution beyond the most modest sort of micro-evolution. I forget at times how anal wireheads can be on trivialities and how militant evos are in defending the impossible. When someone can explain the metamorphesus of the Monarch butterfly at the gene level,from random mutations, since thats where everything starts and ends, I will really appreciate that. But we do agree on one thing I don't understand why you whiney babies and empty suits keep coming back for for butt kicking by yours truly. Keep your kool-aid handy.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:29    Quote You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue. That's something you are definitely an expert in.  You are guilty of transference though.  It was you who made the original argument that Helium somehow became the human brain.  When it was argued that you were wrong, you persisted that you were right.  Now, you shift the goal posts and accuse us of evasion?  Typical fundie stuff, I shouldn't be surprised. Quote If thats too tough just explain the steps up to the supposed first replicator in detail or maybe the last steps from non-life to the first replicator. That is outside the scope of evolution.  I suggest you look up cosmology and abiogenetic theories.  For a quick summary, however, I will offer that the heavier elements were formed through fusion (in stars) and the specific elements C, H, O, and N formed into self-replicating life amid the chaotic pre-biotic soup that was the Earth's surface.  From there evolution took over.

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:40    Quote (GCT @ Oct. 18 2005,08:29) When it was argued that you were wrong, you persisted that you were right.  Now, you shift the goal posts and accuse us of evasion?   Evopeach, have you ever thought about going into politics? -------------- 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."

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:33    Evos, I am not shifting the goal posts. I have asked for several months now for someone to be intellectually honest enough to admit as have Shapiro and others that evolution has zero answers for how life started and thus has no scientific basis for being anything more than a just so story without foundation. The story has to begin with origins and proceed with a logical, rational and believable detailed explanation of these necessary events. Defining away a problem is just another example of the intellectual dishonesty that is pervasive throughout your cult.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:51    Evopeach, Your original argument was that Helium could not have become the human brain, which was agreed because Helium is inert.  Of course, we pointed out that it was not necessary for Helium to become the human brain because Hydrogen was, is, and forever has been more present than Helium.  Now, you are trying to say that all along you have been asking how Hydrogen could have become the human brain.  That is a textbook case of moving the goal posts and lying.  Plus, now you are mistaken that you haven't moved the goal posts and it has been pointed out.  If you persist in telling us that you haven't, then you will be lying about that as well. Also, origins are separate from evolution and no, that is not intellectual dishonesty.  As I've pointed out to you quite a few times now, they are separate questions.  You still have not been able to answer my example of my trip from NY to LA.  If you have incontrovertable proof that I was in NY (just as we have incontrovertable proof that life arose somehow) and I show up in LA telling you how I got there, you can dispute how I got to LA, but the story of how I got to LA is NOT tossed out because you don't know how I got to NY.  Period.  Get over it.

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:53    evopeach, you ignored my question.  Again, why did you choose helium over hydrogen for this thread?  Was it arbitrary, our did you choose it because of some data?  If you chose because of data, how recently did you come across this data?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,06:18    Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,08:19) Snaxalot, Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei. How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life. You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue. Evopeach, Are you familiar with the phenomenon of the supernova? Get back to me after you've done some research. -------------- 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. 18 2005,06:30    GCT, Your level of intellectual dishonesty is unsurpassed in my experience. I did not change the argument concerning hydrogen and helium but rather pointed out the nitpicking stupidity you people display so openly and clearly and continuously to avoid having to face real issues head on. That is intellectual dishonesty defined. The point is that making a completely arbitrary assertion that origins are unreleted to the theory of evolution in the face of literally hundreds of pages of books, texts, papers all dedicated to the very topic and using the words evolution in context belay your dishonest attempt to avoid an unsoluable problem for evos. I truly hold you in derision... you are in need of serious couch time.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:00    Evopeach, Look at this site. Also, you have been completely unable to counter my argument about my trip from NY to LA.  Until you can do that, quit crying about how unfair it is that evolution is separate from abiogenesis. Now, to have to show you your own quotes is just plain silly, but here goes: Quote I see no need to debate these various problematical and sometimes fuzzy sub-topics when one can easily illustrate the falsification of the theory and its complete separation from logic, common sense and scientific credibility by simply observing that its proponents to be logically consistent must accept and defend the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself through trillions of chaotic and random unguided, undirected and non-purposeful changes, iteration upon iteration, resulting in the human brain, its network of neurons, synapses, nerves and its capabilities of conscious cognitive thought, memory and self awareness. That was from your original post that started this thread.  You clearly state that we had to defend how helium gas transformed itself over billions of years into the human brain. Now, on to your goal-posted moved challenge: Quote How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life. Note that now you are talking about Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium.  Now you are expressly allowing the inclusion of elements other than Helium.  That is moving the goal posts.  You are guilty.  The fact that you say you have not done it once again makes you a liar.  The fact that you are accussing me of intellectual dishonesty for pointing out your lies is just pathetic.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:32    Evopeach wrote Quote I have asked for several months now for someone to be intellectually honest enough to admit as have Shapiro and others that Just a reminder that Professor Shapiro recently specifically confirmed that he does not support creationism or intelligent design in any form.

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:16    evopeach, once again you ignored my question.  Again, why did you choose helium over hydrogen for this thread?  Was it arbitrary, our did you choose it because of some data?  If you chose because of data, how recently did you come across this data? If you choose not to respond again, I will assume that you arbitrarily choose helium and proceed from there.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:24    My guess is that he wanted to start calling everyone here Helium heads.

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:55    Does Ved stand for venerial disease I hear it often goes to the brain in short order. Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms. My point was and remains that regardless of which one or all of the three chosen no one can or will even attempt to answer the central and original question.. how did the human brain develop from any combination of the three... take you pick.. make it easy on yourself. Instead the same old denial of history in evidence that the search for for a plausible, demonstrable origin of life explanation has never been demonstrated. If someone can show me where I claimed Shapiro had renounced evolution etc. I would like to see that. I did say he had embraced Life Force arguments in his further publications after giving up on the possibility of life  from non-life based on a through documented analysis of the data.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,09:01    Evopeach, doesn't your conscience bother you after lying so much? Quote Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms. You specifically, repeatedly said Helium was the most abundant element in the universe and therefore the human brain must have come from it.  Now you are trying to weasel out of that and say that it was one of the three first elements, and you still haven't figured out how to read your own sources that specifically say that no atoms formed until 10^6 years after the big bang. Quote My point was and remains that regardless of which one or all of the three chosen no one can or will even attempt to answer the central and original question.. how did the human brain develop from any combination of the three... take you pick.. make it easy on yourself. Lying again.  I gave you a cliff noted version of it.  Of course, I've also repeatedly said that evolution does not rest on whether life formed on its own or god zapped life onto the planet.  You continue to ignore my NY to LA argument.  What's the matter?  Can't you admit that you are wrong?

HPLC_Sean Posts: 12 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,09:28    evopeach: You seem to have concocted all of the reasons you need for rejecting ToE, but you've proposed nothing to fill the void. What's your theory? If everything ToE has come up with is bunk, what do you say the mechanism for our existence is? Surely you have an explanation for how we got here.

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:00    Quote Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms. I suspected that was the case.  So why did you spend half a month insisting that it had to be helium, not hydrogen, that we had to trace the brain from, when everyone else was saying that helium did not make sense, whereas hydrogen did?  Especially in light of the fact that in late August and early September you were demanding that we had to trace the hydrogen to brain link.  It would have been so much simpler just to say that you had made a minor error in the title, point out you had previously said hydrogen, and we could have all gone on our merry way. Instead, you decided you had to defend a choice you have now admitted was arbitrary.  You misrepresented several sources, and insisted you were accurate even after the errors were pointed out in direct quotes from your own sources.  In doing so, you have demonstrated that you are unable to admit to mistakes and will do anything, including misrepresenting and even outright lying in order to hold onto a statement you have made - even if that statement conflicts with something you said a month earlier!  If you are unable to admit to even this minor of an error, why should we believe that you would accept any explanation we give to your questions?

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:09    GCT, All space, time and energy began with the Big Bang. As the universe cooled, energy turned into matter. Quarks and electrons, then protons and neutrons appeared in the first minute. But at temperatures of 1 billion degrees, it was too hot for complete atoms to form. Scientists have found that it took another 300,000 years for the temperature to cool off enough for whole atoms of hydrogen to appear. Notice the word complete. http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/atom.html About 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, the Universe had cooled enough for electrons to be captured by protons and alpha particles to form atoms. In one post you say helium atoms or nuclei... no matter.. now you attempt to differentiate dramatically, yet apparently you can't tell the difference between 10**6 and 300,000 years, the generally accepted figure. I will take this as a measure of your scientific knowledge and integrity.. off about a factor of three.. at least. "According to the Big Bang model of the early development of the Universe, the vast majority of helium was formed in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Its widespread abundance is seen as part of the evidence that supports this theory." Wikopedia I would just call you a liar but in your case your too dumb to even be able to lie.. you simply cannot differentiate between two numbers. Now remember you're the evo expert(s) and faithful so its up to you to present the evidence for your theory not me. As foryour analogy its so lacking in meaning, so poorly described and so inappropriate to the argument that it defies understanding. But here's a test for you. Which of these numbers is the larger 7 or 18? Stumped huh?

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:48    evopeach, both the 10**6 and the 300,000 year figures came from sources you provided for our reference.  On the first post of page 3 of this thread, you provided three sources.  The second provides the 10**6 figure.  GCT is as justified to use the 10**6 figure as the 300,000 figure.  The third provides the 300,000 figure.  In essence, you are ridiculing yourself for providing two sources that were so wildly off in their estimates! In reality, a timeline of this nature is only expected to be accurate to within an order of magnitude, which it is (eg, when mapped on a logarithmic scale, 300,000 is approximately halfway between 10**5 and 10**6, and 10**6 is preferred due to our numbering system)

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,11:00    But what's really so funny about all of this is that Evo still can't get himself to admit he was wrong when he claimed that helium was formed before hydrogen. He makes an utterly meaningless point about 3X10^5 being smaller than 1X10^6, which has absolutely nothing to do with his claims that * there's no explanation for how the human brain evolved from helium (a claim that's not even wrong); * helium formed before hydrogen; * there was a time when there was more helium than hydrogen in the universe. Anyone want to take bets how long it will take evo to admit there was never more helium than hydrogen in the universe? That will really give us an opportunity to use scientific notation! I still say there's more helium in Evo's brain than hydrogen... -------------- 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

Pages: (4) < 1 2 [3] 4 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard