Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 06:35 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:29 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  NO YOU GUYS GO AWAY, HENRY IS MINE!!

Go get 'im Zeke!

*Harry

I see him, he is here for round 2/

[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
29-12-2014, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2014 07:44 PM by Metazoa Zeke.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 07:32 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:37 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First you need to know the definition of a transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is a fossil that shows an evolutionary connection between to groups and must fit in a certain time line.

For example tiktaalik :

Temporal Range: Late Devonian, 375 MYA

Description: Tiktaalik was a fishapod coming from the Late Devonian. Tiktaalik had traits shown in fish and tetrapods. It had scales, fins, and gills like that of fish, but it had A flexable neck, ribs on its side, ear notches, and an almost complete homologous structure. This is of course, the coolest transitional fossil.

The fact it has traits of fish and tetrapods and the fact that it fits in a time before tetrapods but after more primitive tetrapod like fish, it shows it is transitional fossil.

Sorry there is no other explanation.

From the description you provide it sounds very much like a unique specie. It's a question of perspective. Is your glass half full or half empty? It's the same glass viewed from a different viewpoint.

Wrong again. There is a reason predictions play a big part in science. Here is what a prediction is:

"In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

So if tiktaalik was a prediction, not only where studies rigorus enough, but accurate enough to know tiktaalik was a transitional fossil before it was found. The different view point, is someone so busy trying to deny the facts that they think science is an opinion thing, when in reality it is not. In science there is no half, either empty or full, some times near full, sometimes near empty, but never in an opinionated way. So it still stands tiktaalik is a transitional fossil based on predictions and the definition of transitional fossil .

[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
[+] 5 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
29-12-2014, 08:04 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:34 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:25 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  I am not arguing creationism - I am arguing against evolutionary theory. I don't have to prove anything.

If you have a better theory than evolution, then let's hear what this is. I suppose you have proof for this amazing, Nobel Prize winning theory?

Or do you just nitpick evolutionary theory because the facts don't buttress your faith?

It's not a question of me having a better theory. I'm simply asking you to validate yours. The string started concerning the video of Evolution's Achilles Heels (of which there seem to be many).

I used to be an evolutionary atheist too. When I turned 35 I had a change of mind (and heart) and decided that the theories I had learned about did not answer all the non-scientific questions I had. Why is a sunset beautiful, why do babies antics make me laugh, why do certain things bring me joy, why do certain things make me sad, how can the growth process of a dandelion be so immeasurably complex and yet simply evolve randomly, who or what initiated the Big Bang, who or what created all the material that was condensed into that microscopically small ball of matter that supposedly start it all? When you look in the mirror what do you see, an undesigned cellular grouping with no meaning, purpose or worth whatsoever, a random being simply taking up a small amount of space and time in the universe? Or do you look at yourself and see an incredibly complex being of infinite worth that was created for an ultimate and greater purpose?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:29 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  NO YOU GUYS GO AWAY, HENRY IS MINE!!

Chas, Inquisition: Piss off (please). I wanna see this^ go down.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:04 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:34 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If you have a better theory than evolution, then let's hear what this is. I suppose you have proof for this amazing, Nobel Prize winning theory?

Or do you just nitpick evolutionary theory because the facts don't buttress your faith?

It's not a question of me having a better theory. I'm simply asking you to validate yours. The string started concerning the video of Evolution's Achilles Heels (of which there seem to be many).

I used to be an evolutionary atheist too. When I turned 35 I had a change of mind (and heart) and decided that the theories I had learned about did not answer all the non-scientific questions I had. Why is a sunset beautiful, why do babies antics make me laugh, why do certain things bring me joy, why do certain things make me sad, how can the growth process of a dandelion be so immeasurably complex and yet simply evolve randomly, who or what initiated the Big Bang, who or what created all the material that was condensed into that microscopically small ball of matter that supposedly start it all? When you look in the mirror what do you see, an undesigned cellular grouping with no meaning, purpose or worth whatsoever, a random being simply taking up a small amount of space and time in the universe? Or do you look at yourself and see an incredibly complex being of infinite worth that was created for an ultimate and greater purpose?

Evolution is not random. Mutation is largely random, selection is not. Accumulated selected change is the non-random answer.

I don't think you ever actually understood evolution; you sure don't understand it now.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-12-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:04 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  It's not a question of me having a better theory. I'm simply asking you to validate yours. The string started concerning the video of Evolution's Achilles Heels (of which there seem to be many).

I used to be an evolutionary atheist too. When I turned 35 I had a change of mind (and heart) and decided that the theories I had learned about did not answer all the non-scientific questions I had. Why is a sunset beautiful, why do babies antics make me laugh, why do certain things bring me joy, why do certain things make me sad, how can the growth process of a dandelion be so immeasurably complex and yet simply evolve randomly, who or what initiated the Big Bang, who or what created all the material that was condensed into that microscopically small ball of matter that supposedly start it all? When you look in the mirror what do you see, an undesigned cellular grouping with no meaning, purpose or worth whatsoever, a random being simply taking up a small amount of space and time in the universe? Or do you look at yourself and see an incredibly complex being of infinite worth that was created for an ultimate and greater purpose?

When I look in the mirror I see stardust.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
29-12-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 07:40 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 07:32 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From the description you provide it sounds very much like a unique specie. It's a question of perspective. Is your glass half full or half empty? It's the same glass viewed from a different viewpoint.

Wrong again. There is a reason predictions play a big part in science. Here is what a prediction is:

"In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

So if tiktaalik was a prediction, not only where studies rigorus enough, but accurate enough to know tiktaalik was a transitional fossil before it was found. The different view point, is someone so busy trying to deny the facts that they think science is an opinion thing, when in reality it is not. In science there is no half, either empty or full, some times near full, sometimes near empty, but never in an opinionated way. So it still stands tiktaalik is a transitional fossil based on predictions and the definition of transitional fossil .

A prediction does not 'make' anything. A Creationist would 'predict' that there would be many varieties of creatures with like characteristics (the One Designer argument).

You note, "The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories." So the question is how can you scientifically test your argument. You cannot, no more that I can prove the Tiktaalik is a unique specie. You can only look at the fossil of the Tiktaalik and make assumptions based upon your paradigm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 08:16 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:04 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:34 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If you have a better theory than evolution, then let's hear what this is. I suppose you have proof for this amazing, Nobel Prize winning theory?

Or do you just nitpick evolutionary theory because the facts don't buttress your faith?

It's not a question of me having a better theory. I'm simply asking you to validate yours. The string started concerning the video of Evolution's Achilles Heels (of which there seem to be many).

I used to be an evolutionary atheist too. When I turned 35 I had a change of mind (and heart) and decided that the theories I had learned about did not answer all the non-scientific questions I had. Why is a sunset beautiful, why do babies antics make me laugh, why do certain things bring me joy, why do certain things make me sad, how can the growth process of a dandelion be so immeasurably complex and yet simply evolve randomly, who or what initiated the Big Bang, who or what created all the material that was condensed into that microscopically small ball of matter that supposedly start it all? When you look in the mirror what do you see, an undesigned cellular grouping with no meaning, purpose or worth whatsoever, a random being simply taking up a small amount of space and time in the universe? Or do you look at yourself and see an incredibly complex being of infinite worth that was created for an ultimate and greater purpose?

Of course scientific theories don't address non-scientific questions. Questions don't tend to be answered by explanatory frameworks when they are irrelevant to said framework.

For the first three questions you should be investigating cognitive neuroscience, for the fourth you need to stop misunderstanding how evolution works, for the fifth the answer is 'we don't know, but we're working on it', for the sixth you'd be best served studying quantum mechanics and subatomic physics, that last one is hardly a question at all being more of an emotional plea for validity.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
29-12-2014, 08:16 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:10 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 08:04 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  It's not a question of me having a better theory. I'm simply asking you to validate yours. The string started concerning the video of Evolution's Achilles Heels (of which there seem to be many).

I used to be an evolutionary atheist too. When I turned 35 I had a change of mind (and heart) and decided that the theories I had learned about did not answer all the non-scientific questions I had. Why is a sunset beautiful, why do babies antics make me laugh, why do certain things bring me joy, why do certain things make me sad, how can the growth process of a dandelion be so immeasurably complex and yet simply evolve randomly, who or what initiated the Big Bang, who or what created all the material that was condensed into that microscopically small ball of matter that supposedly start it all? When you look in the mirror what do you see, an undesigned cellular grouping with no meaning, purpose or worth whatsoever, a random being simply taking up a small amount of space and time in the universe? Or do you look at yourself and see an incredibly complex being of infinite worth that was created for an ultimate and greater purpose?

When I look in the mirror I see stardust.

Wipe the Christmas glitter off your bathroom mirror and take another look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Harry79's post
29-12-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:04 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:34 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If you have a better theory than evolution, then let's hear what this is. I suppose you have proof for this amazing, Nobel Prize winning theory?

Or do you just nitpick evolutionary theory because the facts don't buttress your faith?

I used to be an evolutionary atheist too.

An example of a transitional species has been offered. Evolution is fact like nuclear weapons (frisson theory -- I suggest you look that one up. No one disputes its existence yet it's "only" a theory.

Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionary atheist".

There are Christians who believe in evolution and there are atheists who do not.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s).

Your personal experiences though real to you bears no relevance.


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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: