Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    So, scientists around the world are "cookie-cutter posers" then. Every single one that doesn't deny evolution, a young earth or universe at least it would seem. All of the intricacy and in depth testing and scrutiny, not to mention continual and peer review process counts for nought.

    Oh, well...

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
    ...Darwinians take manipulative advantage of the "number" of the word species, that it is both singular and plural.
    Yes!

    That's definitely part of the intentionally murky language game they've built for themselves over the decades.

    Also, they say things like "Wolves evolved into dogs", but then, when you confront them, trying to find out if they even mean anything by such a saying, and you ask, "Well, then, what is it for a wolf to evolve into a dog?", they get irate. So, somehow
    • "Wolves (plural) evolved into dogs (plural)" = good thing to say
    • "A wolf (singular) evolved into a dog (singular)" = bad thing to say


    How can wolves have "evolved into" dogs, without at least one wolf having "evolved into" at least one dog?

    Their reaction: "Oh, well we don't mean wolves by the word "wolves"--we mean a population of wolves!"

    Darwinists are not at all fans of being drilled about their own use of their own most commonly cherished, and parroted, slogans--words like "evolve" and "evolution". I mean, shouldn't it be considered elementary for them to need to be able to stand up to such drilling? But they don't stand up to it: they can't. They fall--and that by their own device, under the weight of their own, pompous, incoherence and nonsense--every single time. I ask them what (if anything) it is supposed to be for something to "evolve into" something, and I get nothing but self-righteous pretense of indignance from them, and unbroken stonewalling against my questions.

    Thanks, Bob, for dropping by this thread!

    God bless!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Enyart
    replied
    Guys, sorry that I've only read the OP and the first few replies, but as I discussed when I had the honor of speaking on the Pepperdine University campus...



    ...Darwinians take manipulative advantage of the "number" of the word species, that it is both singular and plural. They thereby trick millions of people who hardly pay attention into thinking that the evolutionists can explain life apart from a Creator. Then, when you call them on what they deceptively lead the public to assume, they mock you for being ignorant.

    In Christ,

    - Bob Enyart

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    You haven't the foggiest notion why you would, or should, call one thing "evidence", and why you would, or should, call another thing "not evidence". You will fail as miserably in regard to questions about the nature of evidence as you have failed in regard to all the other questions you've been asked.

    If you fail--as you shall--regarding a question as elementary as what constitutes evidence, then you are necessarily a poser whenever you try to impress people with your pretended command of the word, "science", or of the phrase, "scientific method". Every Darwinist, without exception, is a cookie-cutter poser with absolutely no clue when it comes to epistemology.
    Well, I'm not a "Darwinist" as much as some folk like to toss the term around anyway so the rest is pretty much moot. If you wish to describe every scientist around the world as a "cookie cutter poser" then you're missing the point that the theory(ies) that you have such a hang up with came about because of the evidence, not the other way around. Such evidence has been supplied time and again and you could even do your own research if it hadn't but it has. Of course, it doesn't fit in with your apparently unshakable conviction that the earth has to be young so...no!

    As it is, your calling other people posers is incredibly ironic.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Science deals in evidence.
    You haven't the foggiest notion why you would, or should, call one thing "evidence", and why you would, or should, call another thing "not evidence". You will fail as miserably in regard to questions about the nature of evidence as you have failed in regard to all the other questions you've been asked.

    If you fail--as you shall--regarding a question as elementary as what constitutes evidence, then you are necessarily a poser whenever you try to impress people with your pretended command of the word, "science", or of the phrase, "scientific method". Every Darwinist, without exception, is a cookie-cutter poser with absolutely no clue when it comes to epistemology.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I actually know what I'm talking about













    Which must be why you persistently whine and cry and stonewall against questions that you've been asked, repeatedly, such as,
    • Of what is evolution the cause?
    • To what are you referring by your phrase, "life itself", when you say "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life itself"?
    • What is the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?


    and oh so many more questions, in this very thread, that you've never answered.

    I'll grant you that you probably pretty well know what you're talking about when it comes to your passion for Pokemon collecting. I wouldn't want to take that from you, and, frankly, you can keep it to yourself. But, as far as the questions you've been asked in this thread are concerned, you've failed dismally, consistently.

    Think about that: you can't even answer a question as elementary as, "What is the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?"

    Of course, your inability to answer that question isn't caused by sheer stupidity. Rather, it's out of calculation. Tactically (though in futility), as a Darwin cheerleader, you are committed to stonewalling against it. See, you are committed to not saying that one individual can constitute a population, because, were you to admit such an elementary truth as that, then what's to become of Darwinism's idiotic slogan, "Individuals don't evolve; populations evolve"??? That's right: You'd walk yourself right into the unenviable position of being asked, "Well, since an individual goldfish can constitute a population, then, does that goldfish--that individual/population--evolve, or not?"

    See, you lose, either way. Answer the question, you lose. Stonewall against the question, you lose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." Seems pretty specific to me. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about, so that might be the problem for creationists.
    Your arrogance seems to know no bounds.

    Please help us understand changes that do not occur "over time".

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    That vague and malleable term...
    "A change in allele frequency in a population over time." Seems pretty specific to me. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about, so that might be the problem for creationists.

    ever changing
    It has changed. Darwin's definition was "descent with modification." After the rediscovery of genetics, it became more precise. "Change in allele frequency in a population over time." The new one is also "descent with modification, just in greater detail. Darwin's term is still true and valid.

    to make sure that the "theory" cannot be falsified.
    As Haldane noted, a fossil of a bunny in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would do that nicely. So would many other things. Would you like to learn about some of them?

    The majority of those that call themselves "evolutionists" believe that a SINGLE LIVING THING came into being and that all life is a descendant of that wondrous creature.
    Haven't taken a poll. Darwin just thought that God made the first living things. It doesn't matter, because the origin of life, as you now realize, is not part of evolutionary theory. If God just poofed the first things in to existence, instead of having the Earth produce them as He says in Genesis, it would be of no consequence at all to evolutionary theory.

    "Evolution" cannot begin until there is life
    Yep. Darwin thought God did it. Some think it might be a "space alien" (some IDers) and so on. Evolutionary theory just assumes life began, and describes how it changes.

    Nice try, but it's what we used to call a PRATT. (Point Refuted A Thousand Times)

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    You still cannot even understand what I'm talking about.
    You might want to try following how the conversation has gone. You accused me of bias, which in answer to your previous post was simply pointing out how young earth creationism works. Conclusion based on a religious belief first, anything that doesn't fit in with rigid belief dismissed, the complete opposite of how the scientific method actually works. Hey, we all have biases to a certain degree so I won't deny it. I have an aversion to religious dogmatism for starters...

    You believe that the entire Bible is a fairy story.
    Why? Because I'm not a hardline fundamentalist? Otherwise, that was pretty childish of you.

    Please tell me what empirical observations led to the unscientific method of radiometric dating of rocks.
    You can read all about it yourself, along with all of the methods as linked to in this thread and as explained by Alate. You can then claim that they're all just bunk and that it's "non science"!

    Time and again you try to confirm your old earth by telling us about how popular the idea is. You never discuss actual science.
    No, I don't. I've pointed out that popularity doesn't hold sway in science. Either the evidence holds up or it doesn't. Pointing out that many Christians have no issue with science is not the same thing either. Do you think that the discovery of the DNA double helix came about by a vote?

    So, once AGAIN, "there are plenty of Christians".... popularity does NOT determine truth.
    See above.

    Sure I will. Alate's "facts" are just like yours.
    Then refute them. She is an assistant professor of biology as I recall and her knowledge in biology extends far beyond most people's on this forum and that certainly includes mine as well. Barbarian is an obvious exception but you don't listen to anything that conflicts with your dogmatic belief system, else why the problem? All I've seen you do when Alate has taken the effort to explain things to you is a juvenile dismissal and a stupid smiley or something. Why is that?

    Always back to the "links". I read it and showed YOU that even that article admits that the method is based entirely on assumptions. You cannot date rocks based entirely on assumptions, but you believe it anyway.
    You didn't show any such thing and you were ridiculously simplistic. It's almost laughable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well, no. That's exactly what young earth creationists posit, that the earth is no older than ten thousand years old. That isn't bias on my part, it's mere observation.
    You still cannot even understand what I'm talking about.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well, again, no. I reject man made doctrine that insists on a rigidly literal reading of an account that has so much poetic and symbolic narrative to it. Of course you're going to reject anything that counters a young earth which is why you have such a hang up with so much in science. You're not in a position to call anything fake in science frankly.
    You believe that the entire Bible is a fairy story.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well...again, no. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it and you're once again just showing ignorance of how the scientific method works and how such theories come into being.
    Please tell me what empirical observations led to the unscientific method of radiometric dating of rocks.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    There's no popularity contest going on. If the evidence pointed to a young earth then science would reflect that. It doesn't.
    Time and again you try to confirm your old earth by telling us about how popular the idea is. You never discuss actual science.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    The only reason you have such an issue with it is because a young earth seems to be a crucial aspect of your faith. It doesn't need to be as there's plenty of Christians who have no disconnect with science and belief but as long as you put such emphasis on that then you'll disregard anything that contradicts it.
    So, once AGAIN, "there are plenty of Christians".... popularity does NOT determine truth.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    You've dismissed Alate's detailed examples and direct answers to you as it is so be honest. You won't listen to anything will you?
    Sure I will. Alate's "facts" are just like yours.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Of course I understand it, along with associated methods, all explained in the links I provided you and else. But it doesn't say what you want to hear so you write it off regardless.
    Always back to the "links". I read it and showed YOU that even that article admits that the method is based entirely on assumptions. You cannot date rocks based entirely on assumptions, but you believe it anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    You are blind to your own bias.
    Well, no. That's exactly what young earth creationists posit, that the earth is no older than ten thousand years old. That isn't bias on my part, it's mere observation.

    You reject sound evidence, like the word of God. But you accept fake evidence like radiometric dating.
    Well, again, no. I reject man made doctrine that insists on a rigidly literal reading of an account that has so much poetic and symbolic narrative to it. Of course you're going to reject anything that counters a young earth which is why you have such a hang up with so much in science. You're not in a position to call anything fake in science frankly.

    And yet time and again you use popularity as your way to confirm ancient dates and the bogus methods used to get them.
    Well...again, no. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it and you're once again just showing ignorance of how the scientific method works and how such theories come into being. There's no popularity contest going on. If the evidence pointed to a young earth then science would reflect that. It doesn't. The only reason you have such an issue with it is because a young earth seems to be a crucial aspect of your faith. It doesn't need to be as there's plenty of Christians who have no disconnect with science and belief but as long as you put such emphasis on that then you'll disregard anything that contradicts it. You've dismissed Alate's detailed examples and direct answers to you as it is so be honest. You won't listen to anything will you?

    That you STILL, YOURSELF, do not understand how radiometric dating "works" is amazing. I showed you, EVEN in the article that you linked to, that every aspect of the method is based on unverifiable assumption and yet you will not see.
    Of course I understand it, along with associated methods, all explained in the links I provided you and else. But it doesn't say what you want to hear so you write it off regardless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    It's hardly "nonsense". Young earth creationism starts with a conclusion, that the earth is young.
    You are blind to your own bias.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    There's no scientific deduction going on, it's simply a dogmatic religious belief based on Genesis having to be taken as absolutely literal. So it obviously follows on from that that actual science that doesn't fit in is discarded and lo and behold, that's exactly what's happened here and on multiple threads where the subjects of evolution, the age of the earth etc crops up. People who are experts (and incidentally Christians) like Alate and Barb go into detailed length only to be met with walls of ignorance a lot of the time, not that some people don't appreciate their efforts amid the "evolutionists/Darwinists" tropes.
    You reject sound evidence, like the word of God. But you accept fake evidence like radiometric dating.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    And once again, nobody said it did so it's bemusing why you continue with this silly tactic. Of course theories don't come about in science because they're "popular", that would be at odds with the scientific method. The discovery of the DNA double helix didn't come about because it was "popular" among scientists by way of.
    And yet time and again you use popularity as your way to confirm ancient dates and the bogus methods used to get them.

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    The irony is almost itself, ironic. You've had detailed links and in depth explanations of how such methods work and all you do in turn is declare "non science"! You've asserted that you can debunk them and have had absolutely nothing but...assertion, which amounts to absolutely nothing.
    That you STILL, YOURSELF, do not understand how radiometric dating "works" is amazing. I showed you, EVEN in the article that you linked to, that every aspect of the method is based on unverifiable assumption and yet you will not see.
    Last edited by Right Divider; November 7, 2019, 07:14 AM. Reason: grammar

    Leave a comment:


  • Stuu
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    You pretend not to believe God exists, yet you admit believing that prayer to God exists.
    The cargo cult peoples make runways and control towers in the hope they will attract the planes with the cargo. In this case, the planes with the cargo don't exist, even though the wooden control towers definitely do.
    You pretend not to believe God exists, yet you admit believing that blasphemy against God exists.
    Well given the number of times I have been banned for blasphemy, it would be strange for me not to believe that exists, or at least it does in the heads of believers.
    You pretend not to believe Heaven exists, yet you admit believing that avoiding Heaven exists.
    Not really. There is such a tiny fraction of probability that the Judeo-christian heaven is real that I wouldn't call its existence a belief. We are just talking about insurance against an extremely low probability but high consequence risk.
    Assuming that, by "qualify", you mean "be worthy"--of course, I do not hesitate to say that you, indeed, absolutely do not qualify, just as much as I, also, absolutely do not qualify, nor does anybody else qualify.
    I have to say I find your pessimistic tone very reassuring.
    What about you, though? Do you think you are worthy of "ending up in the Judeo-christian heaven"?
    I wish to die finally (eventually!), in order to give my life the purpose that finality brings. The concept of heaven is a cheap parlour trick. It is not worthy of me, and I'm nothing particularly special.
    You want to make sure you avoid that in the existence of which you pretend not to believe, eh?
    I knew a person of your intellect would get there eventually.
    You pretend to not believe God exists, yet you admit believing you have committed an unpardonable sin against Him?
    How about we call it a reverse Pascal.
    I will continue to pray for you, Stuart.
    If you keep asking to be put through to the vengeful god then I shouldn't be in too much danger.

    Stuart

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Oh, Monty Python is one of my faves! They did some classic skits and no mistake. Some of the animation was off the wall but still on satirical point as well...

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    ... You've had detailed links and in depth explanations of how such methods work ...
    "in depth explanations"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X