Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(07-11-2014 07:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(07-11-2014 06:51 PM)dante Wrote:  One argument that often floors Creationists is "would you like our Justice system" to be based on 'faith' or on 'evidence'?

Excellent suggestion. "I have complete faith that you are the murderer, no evidence can sway me." Consider
The justice system relies on both faith and evidence. We require faith that:
Going into the trial the jury will be unbiased (no predetermined paradymes);
That the evidence has not been tampered with;
That all available evidence has been presented (no evidence has been excluded);
That the 'expert witnesses' are capable and interpret the evidence accurately;
That the jury will fully comprehend the evidence; and
That the jury will be able to accurately distinguish between differing 'expert' interpretations of the evidence [it was noted that each of the PhD's in the movie received their doctorates from 'secular' universities.]

The latter is the most important faith-element as both sides in the evolutionary/Creationist trial are both relying on exactly the same evidence which is being presented.

Are these not the very attributes that allow us to 'have faith in the justice system'?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(04-12-2014 02:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Anatevka,

Name one person who wrote of jesus that knew him...just one.....


and by the way, it seems highly likely the whole story was based on Romulus...lets take a look..

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.

In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Research, think, evolve beyond the myth..

I know Him. That is why my faith is not blind. I also write about Him, as have countless millions (those who know Him) before me.

So that you may 'Research, think, evolve beyond the myth..' you should the read the four Gospels (which include three eye-witness accounts of Jesus, His activities and His teaching) and you will quickly realize that the mythology theory is quickly dispelled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:20 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Evolution has been observed in the lab with short live cycle animals, particularly bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...H9-SGd0xdM

You do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution. No Creationist has an issue with observable micro evolution. There was no macro evolution (which has never been observed in any laboratory) - the ADDITION of NEW and UNIQUE genetic material, simply the degradation of existing material. The author clearly explains that every change observed was a result of mutation. There was no macro evolution (which has never been observed in any laboratory) - the ADDTION of NEW and UNIQUE genetic material, simply the degradation of existing material.

According to Wikipedia the earliest recorded life was 3.4-billion years ago. According to a National Geographic article your body has 3.7-billion cells in it. This would require the addition of NEW material to be added at a rate of 1,000 cells every year (of which there are hundreds of different kinds and structures) from the beginning of life until now in order for you to exist in your present form. I'm sorry, my faith doesn't stretch quite that far.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 03:01 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 03:20 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Evolution has been observed in the lab with short live cycle animals, particularly bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...H9-SGd0xdM

You do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution. No Creationist has an issue with observable micro evolution. There was no macro evolution (which has never been observed in any laboratory) - the ADDITION of NEW and UNIQUE genetic material, simply the degradation of existing material. The author clearly explains that every change observed was a result of mutation. There was no macro evolution (which has never been observed in any laboratory) - the ADDTION of NEW and UNIQUE genetic material, simply the degradation of existing material.

According to Wikipedia the earliest recorded life was 3.4-billion years ago. According to a National Geographic article your body has 3.7-billion cells in it. This would require the addition of NEW material to be added at a rate of 1,000 cells every year (of which there are hundreds of different kinds and structures) from the beginning of life until now in order for you to exist in your present form. I'm sorry, my faith doesn't stretch quite that far.

But your ignorance stretches even farther. There is no distinction between micro or macroevolution, for you to acknowledge microevolution as fact, you have accepted evolution in principle.

What biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
29-12-2014, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2014 04:12 PM by Harry79.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution? If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000* new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention. As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

*PS Obviously this would have had to evolve on something of a bell-curve, resulting in the addition of millions of new cells per generation in latter years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution? If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000 new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention. As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

Here is a laboratory example of how macroevolution takes place: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab.

You have already acknowledged that microevolution occurs. What would be the distinction between micro and macroevolution?

No god is necessary to explain human origins, in fact the biblical creation accounts are clearly myths that can't be taken seriously.

I do note that, theists believe a super-genie (god) poofed it all into existence. Since we really don't have any proof of that, there's no reason to believe in it.

It is up to you to prove creationism is anything but a myth.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution? If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000 new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention. As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?


So germ theory is just a theory?

The theory of relativity?

Music Theory?

I suppose you dispute fission doesn't exist because it's just a theory.

I could go on....

Shoo fly!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution? If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000* new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention. As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

*PS Obviously this would have had to evolve on something of a bell-curve, resulting in the addition of millions of new cells per generation in latter years.

Hooray, another uneducated jackass who thinks they can come here and tell us all about evolution, when it's clear they don't even understand it themselves. Because that never gets old... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
29-12-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:14 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution? If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000 new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention. As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

Here is a laboratory example of how macroevolution takes place: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab.

You have already acknowledged that microevolution occurs. What would be the distinction between micro and macroevolution?

No god is necessary to explain human origins, in fact the biblical creation accounts are clearly myths that can't be taken seriously.

I do note that, theists believe a super-genie (god) poofed it all into existence. Since we really don't have any proof of that, there's no reason to believe in it.

It is up to you to prove creationism is anything but a myth.

I am not arguing creationism - I am arguing against evolutionary theory. I don't have to prove anything. I studied the link you provided and it only refers to "accumulating mutations". No new genetic material was added which would be required for macro evolution.

If you are so persuaded that we evolved from a primordial soup perhaps you can answer my question? And, as Lenski points out, it took approximately 20,000 generations to observe the first mutation that resulted in subsequent mutations. Lens's paper further persuades me of the near impossibility of the evolutionary process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:27 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

I have been waiting for this day for so long, to whoop some creationist ass. I am happier than when I see fried chicken Tongue. A

Any way You don't know what observed means by definition. Here it is

Observe
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

So what do we notice in science that shows macro evolution. Well one is transitional fossils, in which I have a list http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...al-Fossils

So what we notice is that these fossils have traits of both releated groups that was able to be known due to predictions.(i.e tiktaalik). So by that notice we have observed macro evolution in action.

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution?

There isn't


(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000* new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...tations_01

In short it is something like DNA changing when it copies wrong and how the environment changes the DNA. And this is possible because DNA grows as fast as the cells that grow, they are the reason they grow.

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

But we have a natural explanation, I know america is not the brightest, so don't be upset you did not notice.

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

Just did

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  *PS Obviously this would have had to evolve on something of a bell-curve, resulting in the addition of millions of new cells per generation in latter years.

And what scientific paper did you get that from?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: