Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
Creationist better get Evolution banned/book burnt real soon before more transitional fossils are dug up.

for evolution to be true there would have to be ridiculous feathered dinosaurs, then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 12:41 PM)David111 Wrote:  I know there have been calls for the unedited footage to be released but I am pretty sure that the same impass will be reached but just in an extended form.
Why would RC refuse to release it ? The claim is that he made a mockery of what these guys actually said, which should be easy to refute by simply releasing the footage. What's there to lose for him ?

Quote:For me it seems logical that micro evolution and evolution are not the same as new information would of necessity need to have been created to progress from a single cell to an elephant, or otherwise the first organisms would have needed to have all information already.
Information is created - genes are not static, they change from generation to generation through mutation and selection, and survival chooses which genes reproduce and are passed on to the next generation.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(19-10-2013 11:11 AM)David111 Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 07:32 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Ray Comfort is a grade A douche.

Intelligent reply

I think you mean "intelligently designed" reply. Cause, you know, you probably have enough evidence to make that claim in this case... Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
21-10-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 01:09 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 12:41 PM)David111 Wrote:  So please feel free to enlighten my understanding. If modern science does not see a conflict here then either my undstanding of the terms and processes is incorrect or there is a logical way to bridge the conflict which I may need to be shown.









There are plenty of books you could read that would educate you further, however I'd be willing to bet that you're not the type who would pay attention to any evidence that might go against what you would like to believe.

Hello even heathen

Sorry to be blunt but you are generalizing. Tell me the books and I will try get hold of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(21-10-2013 11:53 AM)David111 Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 01:09 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  







There are plenty of books you could read that would educate you further, however I'd be willing to bet that you're not the type who would pay attention to any evidence that might go against what you would like to believe.

Hello even heathen

Sorry to be blunt but you are generalizing. Tell me the books and I will try get hold of them.

Oops,didn't leave my signature
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(20-10-2013 01:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 12:41 PM)David111 Wrote:  Hi there even heathen

First of all, my apologies for the sarcastic comment.

I suppose I was just fishing for a response.

Anyway, here is my point.

I don't see what the problem is with the god v evolution movie and Ray Comfort. The movie is just pointing out that even esteemed academics find it difficult to produce evidence to make the jump between variations within a species and the kind of changes that would be required for evolution to be a proven fact,at least observable evidence in any case. I know there have been calls for the unedited footage to be released but I am pretty sure that the same impass will be reached but just in an extended form.

Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding of evolution is as follows. All life on earth as we know it today is as a result of small variations over time which have occurred since the first (probably single cell) organisms appeared resulting in what we see today. Granted its a laymans understanding which I have, and it's possibly not 100% accurate( feel free to correct).
Micro evolution,as I understand it, is variations within a species which occur but do not occur because of any new information created. For instance, if you were to have a certain type of moth with both lighter and darker varieties, and because of the surrounding environment, possibly lighter varietes are better camouflaged, then you would be able to observe that the population was becoming lighter over time( darker ones eaten). Again, correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding.
For me it seems logical that micro evolution and evolution are not the same as new information would of necessity need to have been created to progress from a single cell to an elephant, or otherwise the first organisms would have needed to have all information already.
The problem which Ray Comfort has, and which I have as well, is that if the only evidence that can be put forward to support evolution is evidence for micro evolution, then one process for which evidence can be observed is being used to prove another completely different theoretical process.
I know there is controversy about what Ray comfort means when he says that evidence is not being shown for changes in kinds, but as far as I can tell, he is saying that the evidence put forward is not showing that life possesses the ability to create new information( ie, Darwin's finches showed observable evidence of changes in beaks but that the information was already there and that at the end of the day, if you go Galapagos, you will still find that the finches are finches).

So please feel free to enlighten my understanding. If modern science does not see a conflict here then either my undstanding of the terms and processes is incorrect or there is a logical way to bridge the conflict which I may need to be shown.

Look forward to comments.

You are missing a few crucial factors that without which change the actual science into fantasy.

First off Evolution begins before cellular life, it started as soon as self replication began. The cell wall is actually an evolved feature.

Secondly the way evolution through natural selection works. There are 3 necessary components 1 replication errors 2 time (immense amounts) 3 competition for limited resources.

Replication errors are vital for evolution. Without something to select (ie: random beneficial mutation) there is nothing for the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) to work upon. The quick and dirty version of this is best shown in cell division, when a cell divides the vast majority of the time the process ends in 2 identical cells but every once in a great while 1 or both of the resulting cells are slightly different from the parent cell and each other. This random error could prove to be either beneficial (this is the rarest of the 3) benign (causing neither harm nor help) or harmful (the most likely result of replication error). Now selection can occur once there is a difference to select. In the harmful case the selection pressure would eliminate the change (if it was a bad enough change) in the benign it would not effect the selection process but in the beneficial case if the change increases the likelihood that this cell survives longer or can reproduce easier then it has a better chance of passing on this benefit to it's own offspring.



There is no difference between what has been labeled micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just the accumulated changes that have added up to change a T-rex into a chicken. The accusation of no "transitional fossils" was true in Darwin's day but now we have a huge amount of them and are discovering more all the time.

As to Ray Comfort's movie, it is the worst kind of gotcha editing. Ambushing someone and asking them to explain a complicated subject and then using unfair editing (there are calls for the unedited tapes that Mr Comfort refuses to answer) to make it seem as though they have no answer. Add to that the fact that the version of evolution that Ray Comfort is arguing against is a strawman of his own making and has no bearing on the actual science.


Hello
Thanks for responding
Ok, I hope you don't mind me asking, I am just going to ask questions as this is obviously how one begins to understand another's position.

1. Are beneficial modifications theorized or have they been observed and can you give examples.
2. Is there an information source on the Internet which is documenting these transitional fossils. By what method can one declare that a fossil is transitional.

Look forward to discussing further
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
Define information, David111. Consider how it is biologically encoded. Then explain how it cannot be 'created' or how it is 'already present'. Your understanding of evolution is woefully inadequate. But ignorance is curable - if the will is there!

Let us consider evolution as a process. Note - evolution was theorized a century before DNA was discovered. Heredity was an obvious phenomenon (you may recognize its having been used for millenia in a process we call farming), but the mechanism was unknown.

There are three observations which lead to the inevitable evolutionary conclusion.
A) there is variation among individuals in a population
B) said variation affects an individual's likelihood of reproducing
C) said variations are hereditary (and influenced by both parents where reproduction is sexual)

The combination of A, B, and C leads to the conclusion: the makeup of a population changes over time. If selection pressure is convergent the population is stable. If selection pressure is uniform then the population shifts as a whole. If selection pressures are divergent then speciation results.

Which of these fundamental observations do you disagree with?

But let us also consider change at a genetic level. A strand of DNA is composed of sequences of four bases - A, C, T, and G. An organism's DNA is billions of pairs long, but let us consider a short starting sequence - GATTACA - as an example.

Whatever 'information' the sequence contains is just it, itself - GATTACA. That is a series of values in a specific order. Let us call it a 'gene'.

There are several types of mutation which may occur. Local mutations can be either substitutions, insertions, or deletions.

Substitution is a change from GATTACA to GATTACG (where an 'A' is replaced by 'G'). This produces a new sequence. This constitutes 'new' information, in that the genome now contains a sequence it did not previously contain.

Insertion is the addition of more base pairs (usually, but not necessarily, through duplication). Consider GATTACA to GATTACACA (where an extra 'AC' has been inserted). This produces a new sequence. This constitutes 'new' information, in that the genome now contains a sequence it did not previously contain.

Deletion is the removal of base pairs. Consider GATTACA to GATTA (where the original 'CA' has been lost). This produces a new sequence. This constitutes 'new' information, in that the genome now contains a sequence it did not previously contain.

Many mutations are harmful. Many more do nothing (many amino acids are represented by more than one codon; many sequences of DNA have no clear purpose). Some are beneficial. This accounts for the aforementioned variation, and its source and scope. Its consequences (which is to say evolution) are already enumerated.

PS: speciation.
(16-08-2013 09:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Here, I'll do your work for you.
(12-06-2013 09:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Speciation: evidence for, speculation on, and discussion of.
Some
examples
from
the
past
year.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2013 12:53 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(21-10-2013 12:16 PM)David111 Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 01:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are missing a few crucial factors that without which change the actual science into fantasy.

First off Evolution begins before cellular life, it started as soon as self replication began. The cell wall is actually an evolved feature.

Secondly the way evolution through natural selection works. There are 3 necessary components 1 replication errors 2 time (immense amounts) 3 competition for limited resources.

Replication errors are vital for evolution. Without something to select (ie: random beneficial mutation) there is nothing for the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) to work upon. The quick and dirty version of this is best shown in cell division, when a cell divides the vast majority of the time the process ends in 2 identical cells but every once in a great while 1 or both of the resulting cells are slightly different from the parent cell and each other. This random error could prove to be either beneficial (this is the rarest of the 3) benign (causing neither harm nor help) or harmful (the most likely result of replication error). Now selection can occur once there is a difference to select. In the harmful case the selection pressure would eliminate the change (if it was a bad enough change) in the benign it would not effect the selection process but in the beneficial case if the change increases the likelihood that this cell survives longer or can reproduce easier then it has a better chance of passing on this benefit to it's own offspring.



There is no difference between what has been labeled micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just the accumulated changes that have added up to change a T-rex into a chicken. The accusation of no "transitional fossils" was true in Darwin's day but now we have a huge amount of them and are discovering more all the time.

As to Ray Comfort's movie, it is the worst kind of gotcha editing. Ambushing someone and asking them to explain a complicated subject and then using unfair editing (there are calls for the unedited tapes that Mr Comfort refuses to answer) to make it seem as though they have no answer. Add to that the fact that the version of evolution that Ray Comfort is arguing against is a strawman of his own making and has no bearing on the actual science.


Hello
Thanks for responding
Ok, I hope you don't mind me asking, I am just going to ask questions as this is obviously how one begins to understand another's position.

1. Are beneficial modifications theorized or have they been observed and can you give examples.
2. Is there an information source on the Internet which is documenting these transitional fossils. By what method can one declare that a fossil is transitional.

Look forward to discussing further

cjlr posted probably the best summary of the topic in the above post.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(21-10-2013 11:53 AM)David111 Wrote:  Sorry to be blunt but you are generalizing. Tell me the books and I will try get hold of them.

Yeah, I did generalize a bit. Sorry bout that, but your initial generalization about evolution prompted me to do so. I'm actually no expert on evolution myself, I understand it as a layman but am doing what I can when I can to educate myself further. Good to know you're willing to do the same. Thumbsup

I'll let others here who know more than me do the technical explanations.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2013 01:05 PM by Jeffasaurus.)
RE: Ray Comfort gets called out on his douchebaggery.
(21-10-2013 12:16 PM)David111 Wrote:  2. Is there an information source on the Internet which is documenting these transitional fossils. By what method can one declare that a fossil is transitional.

Look forward to discussing further

You can start at wikipedia. Try looking up tiktaalik, ambulocetus, archeopteryx, panderichthys, or even Lucy. These pages should provide links to additional transitional species that precede and follow them.

A species can only be declared transitional after enough time has passed to allow us to see different species before and after their existence. Every species alive today could be considered transitional, however that can't be determined for millions of years from now. For example, look at a walking catfish. It could be transitional; its species could evolve to be completely land-dwelling, but this determination can only be done in hindsight. However, it could also simply go extinct and be a dead end.

Bear in mind that even the declaration of a species becoming a different species is a blurred line and is only out of the human necessity to categorize and pigeon-hole. At no point has a single offspring ever been a different species than its parents. It's only after many, many generations that one can say that this species is a different one than its ancient ancestor.

Everything evolves: language, technology, cities... Look at the city where you live, it's indistinguishable from what it was 5 years ago or 5 years from now. But it bears no resemblance to the tiny settlement that it once was, nor to the megatropolis that it could be in a couple centuries.

Microevolution is just a term coined by creationists to concede that evolution is real, but can only see short-term due to being myopic and afraid.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jeffasaurus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: