Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I note the lack of actual objection. What definition of "intelligent design" are you using that makes it compatible with evolution by natural selection?

The definition of "intelligent design" that states that all life/species originated from a supernatural being of power and intellect that is able to do things that a mindless and blind process (nature) isn't able to do.

Ah. So the alternate possibility that I laid out immediately after that, then. So long as we're clear, as this is not intelligent discussion as the term is widely used.

Your issue is likely more with the theory of abiogenesis than that of evolution. Evolution does not care how life originated. It is strictly concerned with how it behaves once it is already in place.

(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No.

Then you don't have a scientific theory.

I don't think you understand what "scientific" means.

We have never been on Mars. We still know what it is like there.

(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But, as this is not what the theory of evolution states will happen, this is rather irrelevant.

Science is based on OBSERVATION. You've never observed any of the phenomena you believe occurred.

You do not know what phenomena the theory of evolution says have occurred. You do not have even a basic grasp of the principles. You are arguing against a caricature made up from whole cloth by creationists.

We observe mutation and natural selection in effect every day. Because this is all evolution is, we therefore know that evolution occurs. We also know that there is no arbitrary limit in place which will stop these mutations from occurring past a certain level of difference. Given sufficient time, these changes can add up until a given organism is barely recognizable as having descended from its originator.

Creationists are the ones positing the existence of some sort of arbitrary limit on this. They are also the ones who have utterly failed to provide any sort of support for their claims.

(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Geez. It just never fails. Now, since my tenure on here, I've had at least 7-8 (probably 10) different "sets" of discussions on evolution. Each time the subject is discussed, I always get accused on being ignorant of "what the theory of evolution actually says".

Perhaps you should read up on it, then, rather than repeating the same nonsense over and over.

(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  For the sake of discussion, you might want to take a moment to lay out what your understanding of the theory of evolution is, along with the definition of intelligent design that you are working with. It would make things much easier all around.

My understanding of evolution is simple. You believe that reptiles evolved into birds, correct? Yes or no.

This is not an answer. Do not attempt to dodge the question. It is exceptionally simple and straightforward, and if you do actually understand the theory, it should not take long.

Do not waste my time with pointless gotcha games.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 02:03 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2016 02:10 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah, and the difference is also the fact that we can observe one scale (micro), we can't observe the other (macro).

Except that we can. Your proposed distinction is just one of time. The fact that no human lives long enough to see changes of such magnitude as you are discussing in person is, while true, trivial and irrelevant; we still know that it occurs, both because there is still no actual mechanism that distinguishes between the two and because of other evidence that we have collected, such as the fossil record.

Your argument is akin to suggesting that, because the McNaught Comet has an orbital period of over ninety thousand years and thus no human can have been present throughout its full orbit, we cannot really know that it exists.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Macro evolution, we can't observe...

The fossil record.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and we cant predict.

False. The fossil record, again, along with other predictions regarding phenomena such as ring species.

The theory of evolution makes concrete predictions daily. Thus far, they tend to pan out.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. You don't know if that fossil had any offspring

Irrelevant. Individual reproduction is of little concern to the theory; beyond the most basic principle of "genetics get passed down from parent to child", evolution deals largely with populations, not individuals. It is a statistical model, not a forensic one.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and you certainly don't know if that fossil had DIFFERENT offspring.

Unless you are claiming that it is not only possible but common to give birth to a genetic clone of yourself, this is also irrelevant.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Those "string of chemicals" are information-rich.

So is a rock, and a canister of air, and any number of other things. Again, "information" is not a magic word that you can wave around, and it certainly doesn't mandate the existence of a controlling intelligence in order to exist. Information is contained in everything, because information is, again, a mathematical value derived from the number of possible states of a given entity versus its actual state.

A clump of dirt is information-rich. A piece of rubber is information-rich. A string of random chemicals is information-rich.

That doesn't mean anything.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Where did the information come from? A book is just a bunch of letters...but in a specified pattern, those letters form WORDS...and those words form SENTENCES, and those sentences form information.

Again, you are using terms that you do not understand. The word you are looking for is "meaning", which is information that has been encoded - that is, information that has been consciously represented in a different, symbolic format for ease of representation.

DNA is not encoded. It is, again, just a string of chemicals reacting with one another. Human models of DNA are often represented through encoding, but this is not the same thing.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Actually, it does have meaning. Scientists aren't the only one that can apply terms to concepts.

MTO ELVOS YMRA <-----Means nothing
TOM LOVES MARY <-----Means something

What is the difference? One sentence has information. The other sentence doesn't.

Again, they both do. You do not understand the definitions of the terms you are attempting to use.

The difference between the two sentences is not that one does not contain information. The difference is that only one of the sentences is coherently encoded using the visual medium of written English.

And none of this, in any way, changes the fact that DNA is just chemicals. If you disagree, show me something about DNA that does not occur as a result of chemical processes.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  DNA is specified information, or "specifed complexity". Why? Because if you take just one teeny tiny human cell, all of the information in that one cell is equivilent to 4,000 pages of printed information. And that is just the information in ONE cell.

...And?

No, really. And? It's complicated. So what?

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Actual information is a mathematical value dealing with the number of possible states of a given entity, and is not dependent on intelligence.

Makes no sense. That is the worse piss-poor definition of information that I've ever seen.

It is the actual definition. This is why information content is measured in bits; a bit has only two possible states, 0 or 1, and whichever state it is in, you have one bit's worth of information. One bit serves to differentiate between two possible states.

You may find these videos interesting.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Every fossil is a transitional fossil, if you actually understand the term
PHP Code:


Nonsense. Dawin himself was asking the question of "why in the hell, if my theory is true, don't we not see transitional forms everywhere?"

Yes. And we now know more than Darwin did. Believe it or not, the theory of evolution has done quite a lot of growing since his day.

All species - and therefore all fossils - are transitional, because evolution never stops (barring an extinction event of some sort, but that's rather beside the point). Even putting that point aside, we now understand much more about the processes of fossilization than Darwin did, and know why we will likely never have a complete fossil record - not everything gets fossilized. DNA is a much better means of tracking descent.

And, again, we do have the kind of transitional fossils that you're claiming don't exist. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away (and I did notice the blatant dodge regarding the crocoduck).

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am just asking for ONE...just ONE complete record.

Again, this is my point. You demand completeness, but this comes with goalposts pre-moved; no record is ever complete, because we don't have literally every fossil in the family tree, and you can always use that as a dodge despite the overwhelming evidence. "Complete" is a weasel word, used to crowbar in doubt where there is none.

If you are actually interested, though, you may want to start with the horse.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then tell me how infinite regression is possible

I didn't say it was.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then tell me how infinite regression is possible

Wail_of_the_Child meet Zeno. Zeno meet Wail_of_the_Child. Be forewarned, he don't grok delta-epsilon proofs.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
17-02-2016, 03:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But, as this is not what the theory of evolution states will happen, this is rather irrelevant.

Science is based on OBSERVATION. You've never observed any of the phenomena you believe occurred. So it isn't the science that is motivating your beliefs, it is the presuppositions.

And there is yet another term that you do not understand. Observation is not synonymous with witnessing.
We observe how things are structured and how they function. From that we deduce what can happen and what must happen.

Quote:
(16-02-2016 11:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Quite wrong.
You don't seem to understand how this whole "evidence" thing actually works, or even what it is that the theory of evolution actually says.

Geez. It just never fails. Now, since my tenure on here, I've had at least 7-8 (probably 10) different "sets" of discussions on evolution. Each time the subject is discussed, I always get accused on being ignorant of "what the theory of evolution actually says".

That is because you are ignorant of what the theory is. What is pitiable is that you are willfully ignorant.

Quote:This happens all the time in debate, not just with me, but with practically anyone that doesn't believe in the theory. We get accused of being ignorant, as if the evolutionists are so smart, and we are so dumb Laugh out load

Well, why do you think that is? It is because you consistently demonstrate your ignorance.

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
17-02-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 12:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Science is based on OBSERVATION. You've never observed any of the phenomena you believe occurred. So it isn't the science that is motivating your beliefs, it is the presuppositions.

And there is yet another term that you do not understand. Observation is not synonymous with witnessing.
We observe how things are structured and how they function. From that we deduce what can happen and what must happen.

Quote:Geez. It just never fails. Now, since my tenure on here, I've had at least 7-8 (probably 10) different "sets" of discussions on evolution. Each time the subject is discussed, I always get accused on being ignorant of "what the theory of evolution actually says".

That is because you are ignorant of what the theory is. What is pitiable is that you are willfully ignorant.

Quote:This happens all the time in debate, not just with me, but with practically anyone that doesn't believe in the theory. We get accused of being ignorant, as if the evolutionists are so smart, and we are so dumb Laugh out load

Well, why do you think that is? It is because you consistently demonstrate your ignorance.

It also demonstrates his lack of understanding what "ignorant" means because yes. They and him are constantly demonstrating ignorance especially on evolution.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 06:56 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ah. So the alternate possibility that I laid out immediately after that, then. So long as we're clear, as this is not intelligent discussion as the term is widely used.

Your issue is likely more with the theory of abiogenesis than that of evolution. Evolution does not care how life originated. It is strictly concerned with how it behaves once it is already in place.

No, see, you are jumping the gun. This is the typical cart-before-the-horse fallacy that evolutionists commit over, and over, and over again.

Until you can prove or in any way demonstrate how life can come from nonlife (on your naturalistic view), there is no way evolution can be possible. If you don't know how, or can explain how life could have originated naturally...then it just may be the case that abiogensis is simply beyond the scope of nature. It just may be the case that abiogenesis is a false concept/premise.

If that is even remotely possible, then evolution can't possibly be true, because the notion of "evolution is true, but abiogenesis may be false" is a self defeating concept.

No way around it.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I don't think you understand what "scientific" means.

Observation, repeated experiment, predictions. Now tell me what part of macro evolution falls into any one of those categories.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We have never been on Mars. We still know what it is like there.

And how do we know this?

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not know what phenomena the theory of evolution says have occurred.

Reptile-birds.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not have even a basic grasp of the principles. You are arguing against a caricature made up from whole cloth by creationists.

Um, reptiles evolved into birds, correct? Either that is what evolution says, or it isn't. If it is, then this is not some "caricature made up from whole cloth by creationists"...if it isn't, then you people should shut the hell up about archaeopteryx, shouldn't you?

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We observe mutation and natural selection in effect every day.

What we observe is animals producing there own kind...different varieties of their own kind...that is what we observe. That is why there have been many different varieties of dogs over the eons, many different varieties of cats over the eons, etc. That is what we see. No one can/is denying that. In fact, that is EXACTLY what Genesis 1 says during the creation of the animals "And they shall bring forth after their kind".

That was said repeatedly after every animal was created, whether it be the sea animals, land animals, or flying animals. "They shall bring forth after their kind".

Fast forward, 2016...and what do we see? ANIMALS PRODUCING AFTER THEIR KIND. Dogs are producing dogs, cats are producing cats, etc. It is a repeated process that has never failed. Never one single exception to this.

And as far as mutation and natural selection is concerned, anything concerning mutation and natural selection is limited to the "kind" of animal that is producing it.

That is science. That is observation. Anything beyond that is speculation. Faith. Assumptions.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because this is all evolution is, we therefore know that evolution occurs. We also know that there is no arbitrary limit in place which will stop these mutations from occurring past a certain level of difference.

No arbitrary limit? You don't know whether there is a limit, or whether there isn't a limit. You just don't know. That goes back to the whole "prediction" stuff I mention at the end of "observation, repeated experiment". You don't know what will occur, or what won't occur...and you don't know what "did" occur. You are speaking out of ignorance.

Sure, we can believe that a lion will eventually over the course of a billion years begin to develop wings with a single tusk coming out of its nose. We can BELIEVE anything we want to believe. The question is, what is the evidence in FAVOR of this actually happening? None.

You can BELIEVE what you want, but don't call it science, because you cannot observe, experiment, or make any predictions regarding anything related to macro evolution.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Given sufficient time, these changes can add up until a given organism is barely recognizable as having descended from its originator.

Sure, that is true...according to the unproven theory. That is like me saying "Given enough time, eventually, Big Foot will be seen again and recorded for all to see".

That is assuming there was ever a Big Foot in the first place as opposed to some guys running around the forest in gorilla suits.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Creationists are the ones positing the existence of some sort of arbitrary limit on this.

We (Creationists) have no reasons to believe that there is more than what meets the eye. We see animals produce what they are, not what they aren't. We have no reasons to believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today haven't been observed to do.

As mentioned previously, the theory of evolution in no way negates my theistic beliefs. There are Christians out there that believe in evolution, and I will have the same debate with them that I am having with you.

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  They are also the ones who have utterly failed to provide any sort of support for their claims.

Yeah, and your side has provided support for yours?

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Perhaps you should read up on it, then, rather than repeating the same nonsense over and over.

If it aint broke..

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not an answer. Do not attempt to dodge the question. It is exceptionally simple and straightforward, and if you do actually understand the theory, it should not take long.

Do not waste my time with pointless gotcha games.

Ok, so evolutionists believe that every single organisms shares an original common ancestor. Correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 07:01 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  And there is yet another term that you do not understand. Observation is not synonymous with witnessing.

We observe how things are structured and how they function. From that we deduce what can happen and what must happen.

Creationists (that don't believe in evolution) are also "observing how things are structured and how they function"...and we DON'T draw the same conclusions that you do.

So it isn't about the data, it is the INTERPRETATION of the data, isn't it? The difference is, I can interpret the data the SAME way you do, and still hold on to my theistic beliefs. But you CAN'T interpret the data the same way I do, and hold on to your beliefs.

I don't mean to laugh, but Laugh out load

I don't even think your cat believes in evolution, Chas. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 07:25 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Until you can prove or in any way demonstrate how life can come from nonlife (on your naturalistic view), there is no way evolution can be possible.

Non sequitur.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories. Neither is dependent on the other.

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Observation, repeated experiment, predictions. Now tell me what part of macro evolution falls into any one of those categories.

Literally all of it. Read the rest of my post.

The theory of evolution is entirely based upon the observed evidence. It makes concrete, testable predictions - predictions which work, as in the case of ring species and many others.

Denying this does not change it.

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We observe mutation and natural selection in effect every day.

What we observe is animals producing there own kind.

With variation. As evolution predicts.

Again, the only difference is one of scale. There is no arbitrary force that keeps any more changes from happening once a certain level of variance from the original is reached.

If you wish to argue that there is, present your evidence.

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And as far as mutation and natural selection is concerned, anything concerning mutation and natural selection is limited to the "kind" of animal that is producing it.

"Kind" is another nonsense, non-functional term made up by creationists. It has no value whatsoever in a scientific context, and breaks down utterly whenever anyone attempts to apply it to actual situations.

Again, ring species exist. This alone destroys the creationist concept of "kind".

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is science. That is observation. Anything beyond that is speculation. Faith. Assumptions.

Chas has already addressed your failure to understand what the term "observation" means in a scientific context. Ignoring this will not make it go away.

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No arbitrary limit? You don't know whether there is a limit, or whether there isn't a limit.

Yes, we do. There isn't one, because life is just chemicals, and chemicals don't just stop reacting after some magical, undefined limit of "too different from where we started, guys, whoops, back it up a bit" is reached. Beyond that complete lack of anything which would keep it from happening, we have conclusive evidence that it can, has, and does happen in the form of the fossil record and DNA analysis.

If you wish to argue that such a force exists, present your evidence.

And, once again, ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  As mentioned previously, the theory of evolution in no way negates my theistic beliefs.

I never said that it did.

You seem to have a problem with making assumptions about your opponent's position.

(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not an answer. Do not attempt to dodge the question. It is exceptionally simple and straightforward, and if you do actually understand the theory, it should not take long.

Do not waste my time with pointless gotcha games.

Ok, so evolutionists believe that every single organisms shares an original common ancestor. Correct?

(17-02-2016 01:29 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not an answer. Do not attempt to dodge the question. It is exceptionally simple and straightforward, and if you do actually understand the theory, it should not take long.

Do not waste my time with pointless gotcha games.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
17-02-2016, 07:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 07:01 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Creationists (that don't believe in evolution) are also "observing how things are structured and how they function"...and we DON'T draw the same conclusions that you do.

Yes. But that is because you tend to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "na na na na na I can't heeeeaaar you" when confronted with anything that violates your preconceived beliefs, rather than because you have a valid alternative interpretation.

If you want to be irrational, go ahead and be irrational. I couldn't care less.

But don't try to act as though the creationist "interpretation" is worth so much as an iota of consideration for anyone who actually cares about being rational.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
17-02-2016, 09:56 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(17-02-2016 06:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No, see, you are jumping the gun. This is the typical cart-before-the-horse fallacy that evolutionists commit over, and over, and over again.

Until you can prove or in any way demonstrate how life can come from nonlife (on your naturalistic view), there is no way evolution can be possible. If you don't know how, or can explain how life could have originated naturally...then it just may be the case that abiogensis is simply beyond the scope of nature. It just may be the case that abiogenesis is a false concept/premise.

Nope. Another false assertion from the fool behind the apologetics door.
Abigenesis and Evolution are not necessarily related, and you have done NOTHING to make the connection, other than make am empty ignorant assertion.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: