New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:36 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  The outreach of random mutation has been inflated. Its actual reach is much more limited.

Oh really? How would you know something like that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 03:54 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:36 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  To clarify what I mean I say: what is observable is limited in its scope. The facts of natural selection have been proven through observation. Random beneficial mutation on the other hand is less observable but nevertheless is also a reality. It has been noticed in nature. However it does not account for building complex organisms, that is something inferred and hypothesised by scientists.
The outreach of random mutation has been inflated. Its actual reach is much more limited.

Then we have the fossil records... Well much of what is INFERRED from the fossil record is speculation. It does not count as overwhelming bindin proof. What is inferred is based upon the inferences of Darwinism. Yes there are a few cases of hybrid forms but the Cambrian explosion shows that not all creatures have hybrid forms but appeared fully formed on earth..

Your personal incredulity does not an argument make Drinking Beverage

Edit: I've bolded your unsupported statements.

I stand by that. My claim: random mutation does not account for building complex creaures.

Fossil finds in comparison to the number of creatures makes it mathematically improbable.

Cambrian explosion is a gaping problem. Even Richard admits it.

Prove me wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 05:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:36 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Then we have the fossil records... Well much of what is INFERRED from the fossil record is speculation. It does not count as overwhelming binding proof What is inferred is based upon the inferences of Darwinism. Yes there are a few cases of hybrid forms but [b]the Cambrian explosion shows that not all creatures have hybrid forms but appeared fully formed on earth

Evolution is no longer "Darwinism". It no longer rests on anything he said or did. It's been proven in countless ways and countless times since he died by other major scientists. Calling it "Darwinism" just demonstrates your ignorant bias. But thanks for the opportunity. Your examples of why Evolution might be wrong are completely absurd and have been proven so by reputable scientists. I will demonstrate that all your criticisms are utterly false.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:36 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Then we have the fossil records... Well much of what is INFERRED from the fossil record is speculation. It does not count as overwhelming binding proof What is inferred is based upon the inferences of Darwinism. Yes there are a few cases of hybrid forms but [b]the Cambrian explosion shows that not all creatures have hybrid forms but appeared fully formed on earth

Evolution is no longer "Darwinism". It no longer rests on anything he said or did. It's been proven in countless ways and countless times since he died by other major scientists. Calling it "Darwinism" just demonstrates your ignorant bias. But thanks for the opportunity. You examples of why Evolution might be wrong are completely absurd and have been proven so by reputable scientists. I will demonstrate that all your criticisms are utterly false.

I have to admit I used 'Darwinism' on purpose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes objectivetheist's post
18-05-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:19 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 11:33 AM)jockmcdock Wrote:  To quote yourself "Majority of people cannot verify these facts but must conform to the scientific clergy. Reminds of the Church."

So, you can verify all the facts about medical treatment? I'm impressed.

Medical research is confirmed once it works. People recover from illnesses. Even then it is experimental and not certain.

Evolution on the other hand is an inferred hypothesis from different observable experiments.

This started with finches, then moths and now genes and DNA. I wouldn't disagree with empirical observed science.
What I would dispute is the inferences made from it.

I'm just passing by and noticed this thread..... then I noticed your post.

Evolutionary Biology is used in medical treatment on a daily basis. If evolution weren't a fact much of modern medicine wouldn't be effective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352411/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/evo...-medicine/

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:52 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  Listen, mate. I'm an English native speaker and my English is better than yours.

"11) You said OMGATHEISTSDONTHAVEGODINEVOLUTION, idiot"

That really is pathetic, mate. Go and lie down in a dark room. You'll feel better tomorrow.

lol still trying to pick that fight, huh?

What are you trying to even argue now? That you as a native English speaker are better at English than me as a... native... English... speaker?

You got pissed at me me for saying EXACTLY what you said. I really do think... and this is an honest assessment... not a smartass comment... that your reading comprehension and/or your tunnel vision towards theists are the problem here.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
18-05-2015, 03:57 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:19 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 11:33 AM)jockmcdock Wrote:  To quote yourself "Majority of people cannot verify these facts but must conform to the scientific clergy. Reminds of the Church."

So, you can verify all the facts about medical treatment? I'm impressed.

Medical research is confirmed once it works. People recover from illnesses. Even then it is experimental and not certain.

Evolution on the other hand is an inferred hypothesis from different observable experiments.

This started with finches, then moths and now genes and DNA. I wouldn't disagree with empirical observed science.
What I would dispute is the inferences made from it.

I'm just passing by and noticed this thread..... then I noticed your post.

Evolutionary Biology is used in medical treatment on a daily basis. If evolution weren't a fact much of modern medicine wouldn't be effective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352411/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/evo...-medicine/

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:54 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  Your personal incredulity does not an argument make Drinking Beverage

Edit: I've bolded your unsupported statements.

I stand by that. My claim: random mutation does not account for building complex creaures.

Fossil finds in comparison to the number of creatures makes it mathematically improbable.

Cambrian explosion is a gaping problem. Even Richard admits it.

Prove me wrong.

You're on. I will. (In a bit).
1. It's not "random mutatuion". As usual, someone so ignorant of math and Probability and Genetics uses words like that as it looks improbable. One a process is begun, the next step is not really any longer (really) "random", (which you would know had you ever actually studied math, Genetics or Probability Theory), or watch the videos.
2. Your "fossil finds'' is false, which I will list later.
3. So you're on a first name basis with Dawkins ? You still seem to be unable to discuss ANYONE other than him. Why is that ?

You cannot refute even ONE of Dr Szostack's points here :



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2015, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 04:47 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 04:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're on. I will. (In a bit).
1. It's not "random mutatuion". As usual, someone so ignorant of math and Probability and Genetics uses words like that as it looks improbable. One a process is begun, the next step is not really any longer (really) "random", (which you would know had you ever actually studied math, Genetics or Probability Theory), or watch the videos.

Tell that to Daniel Dennet:

"Evolution is all about processes that almost never happen. Every birth in every lineage is a potential speciation event, but speciation almost never happens, not once in a million births. Mutation in DNA almost never happens—not once in a trillion copyings—but evolution depends on it. Take the set of infrequent accidents— things that almost never happen—and sort them into the happy ac- cidents, the neutral accidents, and the fatal accidents; amplify the effects of the happy accidents—which happens automatically when you have replication and competition—and you get evolution." -Breaking the Spell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 04:13 PM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 03:56 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:52 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  Listen, mate. I'm an English native speaker and my English is better than yours.

"11) You said OMGATHEISTSDONTHAVEGODINEVOLUTION, idiot"

That really is pathetic, mate. Go and lie down in a dark room. You'll feel better tomorrow.

lol still trying to pick that fight, huh?

What are you trying to even argue now? That you as a native English speaker are better at English than me as a... native... English... speaker?

You got pissed at me me for saying EXACTLY what you said. I really do think... and this is an honest assessment... not a smartass comment... that your reading comprehension and/or your tunnel vision towards theists are the problem here.

OK, fair point about my/our English capabilities.

But that's entirely separate from our views on theists. I grew up as a Catholic. My sister and her family are JWs.

That's life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: