Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 10:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  And I've never witnessed Neptune in a complete orbit of the sun, yet through observation and science I know that it will do so in 165 years.

You can conduct an experiment and predict when the next time it will occur, tho. That is science. You can't do the same with macro evolution.

False dichotomy.

Depends on what you consider "witness" because you for some reason refuse to equate and accept scientific classifican termilogy while various sources shift what type of classifcation a "kind" is despite you saying it you think it fits to one. Other religious folks don't say that.

There have been depending on your meaning of this not clear undefined term like "kind" and "marco" evolution it has still be witnessed. Seeing varied studies of Skink species having changed over the centuries to a live-birth producing group of animals and seeing shifts of whole genetic variation where you see the split of a significant dividing line.

"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
19-02-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Nothing. Nada.

I don't recall saying that it did Dodgy

Well you keep bringing it up as if somehow if the TOE is proved false, it somehow means your alternative explanation is true, but this is a false dichotomy.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is simply a theory to explain the diversity of life that we observe on Earth.

So does Genesis 1.

No, Genesis is a story, a myth. A scientific theory has to be based on some objective evidence (based in fact). The story in the OT can not be the evidence for its own truth. If we pick up a pebble on the beach, there is no objective evidence that it was created by an act of conscious will.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The primacy of existence absolutely proves that the claims of theism are false and it does so at the their root.

Dude, will you SHUT UP about the primacy of existence. J/K. Laugh out load

No. See below.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And yes I will continue to "gnaw on that bone" even though you'd like to take the discussion away from the fundamental level. That bone is resplendent with what a mind needs to be able to identify and integrate the facts of reality. I've given you a perfectly valid and sound argument. I even broke it down into three steps to make it simpler to understand. You have not once interacted with any of it. You've not shown that the arguments commit any logical errors, you've not shown that a single premise is untrue. You've admitted that you don't understand the arguments and their premises, therefore you have rejected them not on any rational basis, but on an emotional one. I'll continue to use the argument from primacy even though and precisely because you don't like it. I know that you want to move the conversation away from essential principles to evolution or the big bang or something else that is far removed from the fundamentals and I know exactly why. Theism can't stand for one second on a rational examination of its fundamentals.

Dude, I said that if the POE is true, that would mean my First Cause argument is false. They can't both be true, right? One has to be true, and the other false. So if the POE is true, that would make my FC argument false. Yet, my FC argument remains true.
And I've demonstrated that it relies on an arbitrary definition of the universe. It renders the concept conceptually reducible. It assumes that there is more out there that exists and this other realm is arbitrarily left out of the definition of Universe. This leaves us in the dark about the conceptually irreducible starting point underlying the concept universe. You call it the supernatural or God but neither of these is conceptually irreducible and so neither can be more fundamental that the concept of existence. On a proper definition of "universe" as the sum total of what exists, this argument commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. On the arbitrary definition of all matter, energy, space and time, It commits the fallacy of stipulation by contrived definition. Either way if fails.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Something isn't right, here. Consider
And how! The first cause argument is invalid.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Since the God of theism is said to be a conscious being, then the relationship between it as subject and any and all of its objects is not only relevant, it is front and center. It is the heart of the issue.

I still don't get it, bruh. And it is sad. As I told you before, no one is explaining it in a way to make me understand it.

And that is not a problem for my argument. "I don't understand" is not a valid refutation. My arguments stand unrefuted.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I really want to understand it because it isn't often I get to demolish arguments AGAINST God's existence. And my lack of understanding the argument prevents me from doing such. But, what more can I do *shrugs*.
Educate yourself. I've already given you some suggestions where to start. I would not recommend any of the youtube videos though. I've seen every one and they all get it wrong. For instance the Ozzy videos, they guy confuses the primacy of existence with the axiom of existence and also with the secondary objectivity of consciousness. He hasn't done his homework.
(19-02-2016 11:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 11:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence principle. I've demonstrated that. You've not refuted it and in fact conceded the point. Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness, the principle antithetical to the primacy of existence and therefore to truth. I've demonstrated that (see step two) and you've not refuted any of it. Therefore theism is false in principle and at its most fundamental level. Whether evolution is a valid theory does not change that. It's just a red herring.

Edit: The theory does have something to do with the origin of the supernatural. It explains how we evolved the capacity to imagine. Imagination is the faculty of Human beings to rearrange the contents of the mind, ultimately gathered through perception, and to add fantastical powers and attributes to these imagined beings that are not found and do not exist in reality. That's precisely what the origins of the "supernatural" are, the imagination.

Undecided

Well. can you tell us how we can reliably distinguish what you call God from something you are merely imagining?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 11:11 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Depends on what you consider "witness" because you for some reason refuse to equate and accept scientific classifican termilogy while various sources shift what type of classifcation a "kind" is despite you saying it you think it fits to one. Other religious folks don't say that.

I will put it to you this way, Clyde; We've never witnessed, observed, seen (or any other synonym you'd like to use) an animal produce something different than what it is. Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't.

Now, I understand animal classification/taxonomy can get a bit shaky, but even on the most simple, fundamental level, the large scale transformation such as reptile-bird...we've just never seen nor do we have any reasons to believe.

(19-02-2016 11:11 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There have been depending on your meaning of this not clear undefined term like "kind" and "marco" evolution it has still be witnessed. Seeing varied studies of Skink species having changed over the centuries to a live-birth producing group of animals and seeing shifts of whole genetic variation where you see the split of a significant dividing line.

Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Wait a minute, you started off saying we can, then in the mid-latter part of the paragraph you are justifying why we can't? Makes no sense.

You are still failing to appreciate the difference between observing and witnessing, as Chas has pointed out.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah but there are certain mathematical formula's/equations you can use to determine when the next orbit/eclipse will take place without seeing it. You see, that is what I mean by "PREDICTIONS". You can use the tool of mathematics to make those predictions. You can't do such things with evolution..that is something you simply have to accept by faith.

Yes, actually. You can. This has been pointed out repeatedly, with ring species being one of the primary examples. I have been over this before.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, "species" is not a clearly defined term in biology. It is common for the evolutionist to question me when I use the term "kind", yet, they want to throw around the term "species" as if the term is clearly defined in biology.

The difference is that the term "species" is acknowledged as being slightly nebulous. It usually denotes that individual members of different species cannot interbreed, but often distinctions between species are based on morphology, DNA, and various ecological specifications. This is also why certain strains of animals are often labeled as subspecies. The species label is more useful for classification than for prediction, and is acknowledged as such.

Creationist "kinds", however, are supposedly hard-and-fast limitations upon the breeding and mutational capabilities of animals. And again, the concept completely fails upon actual application, as the various members of ring species are of the same "kind", yet fail to interbreed.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am not sure who gets to decide what is a species and what isn't, but nothing about the concept proves anything regarding macro evolution. Nothing. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me as to how "ring species" is evidence for macro evolution.

Have you even bothered to look up what they are?

I will assume not. "Ring species" is a term applied to a series of species, usually located in geographically-adjacent but environmentally-different locations, such as up the sides of a mountain, or around the shore of a large lake.

I will use the lake example here.

Begin with a population of, say, birds located at the north side of the lake. There is a marsh here. These birds are adapted to the marsh. If a subpopulation migrates to the eastern shore, however, they find plains, and over time, become adapted to the plains. Then another subpopulation moves to the southern shore, where they find mountains, and adapt to those, and so on until you have a full circle - a ring - around the lake, all descended from the original population.

The result is that you have a series of bird populations, all capable of interbreeding with the ones directly next to them. The northern birds can breed with the eastern birds, who can breed with the southern birds, and so on - except in the north, where the two ends of the ring meet. At this point, the two populations have grown so genetically different from one another that this is no longer possible.

This is perfectly in line with the theory of evolution's idea of accumulative change, but violates the creationist idea of "kind", as these birds are explicitly of the same kind - because they all came from the same original population - but have now grown so far apart that they can no longer interbreed.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, I am talking about fossils and your idea of fossils being used as evidence for macro evolution. The question is, how does a fossil prove macro evolution?

That was not the question. Your question was how we can base the idea of evolution on fossils if we don't know that a given fossilized animal ever reproduced. I explained how.

And your dodge-question is the wrong thing to ask regardless. No single fossil proves evolution. It is when the fossil record is examined as a whole that it becomes undeniable.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  For example, the infamous archeopteryx; that is supposed to be the missing link...transitonal fossil (reptile-bird). Sure, that is one over-the-top interpretation...but why can't it the fully, final, form of a prehistoric bird that had teeth.

Because that interpretation would require ignoring every other piece of the evidence available in favor of the hypothesis that an organism existed, in exactly the time and with exactly the characteristics expected, without any link to other organisms past or present.

This is called "willful ignorance".

It is a bad thing.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What is making you choose one explanation over the other? Ohh, I get it, because "birds don't have teeth", right? Well, maybe...just freakin' MAYBE...they did have teeth, back in the day? Ever think about that??

I'm sorry. I thought that you were arguing against evolution.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am saying I have no reasons to believe a reptile ever evolved into a bird. I am not sure how it is even genetically possible.

Your personal incredulity and lack of understanding is not an argument.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you are claiming that it is possible, then please tell me what experiment have you conducted that allows for such thing to occur.

Please re-read literally every post Chas and I have made in this thread. You continue to utterly fail at understanding the idea of observation and prediction as it applies to evolution.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. DNA contains SPECIFIED information.

You still have utterly failed to provide a coherent definition for this term.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It contains actual instructions.

Only in the sense that any given chemical reaction contains instructions, or a given Game of Life arrangement does. They are chemicals doing what chemicals do. It just happens that, in this instance, they are doing something quite complicated and intricate.

You can talk about how much information is in there all you like, but you aren't getting around the fact that it is just chemicals doing what chemicals do.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yet, Bill Gates once said "DNA is like a computer program that is far, far, more advanced than any software ever created."

Bill Gates is not a biologist, sound bites are not an argument, and information still does not require intelligence.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No one is denying the chemical processes on its own, but that doesn't answer the question of where did the encoded information come from.

You have not established that it needs to come from anywhere.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If every fossil is transitional, there really isn't much left to "understand". The game is over.

Well, yes. It has been for a while now.

Creationists lost.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If we all share a common ancestor, that would make all of this DNA shit a dead issue, wouldn't it?

No.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Is it complete?

What was it I said about weasel words?

At this point, the evolution of the modern horse is so thoroughly understood that there isn't really any way to argue against it. If you are going to look at one or two blank spots and say "well then I refuse to accept it", even though literally everything matches exactly what the theory of evolution predicts... well. I point you to my earlier comment regarding willful ignorance.

(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Are you conceding the point that it isn't?

It isn't a concession if I never argued it in the first place.

You really ought to stop trying to assume you understand what anyone's position is.

(19-02-2016 12:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will put it to you this way, Clyde; We've never witnessed, observed, seen (or any other synonym you'd like to use) an animal produce something different than what it is. Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't.

You seem to be operating - still - under the erroneous assumption that the theory of evolution says something different.

What do you think that the theory of evolution says, Call? What is your understanding of the theory?

"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
19-02-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well you keep bringing it up as if somehow if the TOE is proved false, it somehow means your alternative explanation is true, but this is a false dichotomy.

If nature didn't do it, what other explanation do we have besides the "G" word?

Consider

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  No, Genesis is a story, a myth. A scientific theory has to be based on some objective evidence (based in fact).

Thats the point, the Genesis story is not a scientific theory. That is the wholeeee point right there.

And as mythical as you believe the Genesis account is, just know that in my (and many Christians) eyes, your worldview (evolution) isn't any more credible and doesn't have any more virtue than ANY other religion.

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The story in the OT can not be the evidence for its own truth.

And who is using the OT as evidence for its own truth? My point is simple; I am saying that based on observation, we see animals producing their kind, and it just so happens that an ancient book also predicts the same thing...and what is significant about the Genesis creation account is the fact that from the very BEGINNING, it states that animals were producing their own kind.

What does that mean? That means that from the very beginning animals were producing their own kinds and that entire concept is nothing but a carry-over to modern day...because what do we see? Animals producing their own kind.

It was that way from the very beginning, and it remains that way as of 2016.

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If we pick up a pebble on the beach, there is no objective evidence that it was created by an act of conscious will.

And there was no evidence that it was resting on the beach from eternity past, either. And there is also no evidence that it popped in to being, uncaused out of nothing.

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And I've demonstrated that it relies on an arbitrary definition of the universe. It renders the concept conceptually reducible. It assumes that there is more out there that exists and this other realm is arbitrarily left out of the definition of Universe. This leaves us in the dark about the conceptually irreducible starting point underlying the concept universe. You call it the supernatural or God but neither of these is conceptually irreducible and so neither can be more fundamental that the concept of existence. On a proper definition of "universe" as the sum total of what exists, this argument commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. On the arbitrary definition of all matter, energy, space and time, It commits the fallacy of stipulation by contrived definition. Either way if fails.

Huh With all due respect to scotsman, if anyone can explain his argument better than him, please do so.

As I continue to stress, it isn't just his explaining...I've watched videos on the argument and read articles on it...and NO ONE is explaining it in a way that I can understand.

Any help will be....helpful.

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And how! The first cause argument is invalid.

Please explain how infinite regression is possible, sir.

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And that is not a problem for my argument. "I don't understand" is not a valid refutation. My arguments stand unrefuted.

Laugh out load

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Educate yourself. I've already given you some suggestions where to start. I would not recommend any of the youtube videos though. I've seen every one and they all get it wrong. For instance the Ozzy videos, they guy confuses the primacy of existence with the axiom of existence and also with the secondary objectivity of consciousness. He hasn't done his homework.

Can I get a refutation of my argument, first?

(19-02-2016 11:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well. can you tell us how we can reliably distinguish what you call God from something you are merely imagining?

I fail to see the relevance, sir.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 01:26 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2016 01:30 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 12:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 11:11 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Depends on what you consider "witness" because you for some reason refuse to equate and accept scientific classifican termilogy while various sources shift what type of classifcation a "kind" is despite you saying it you think it fits to one. Other religious folks don't say that.

I will put it to you this way, Clyde; We've never witnessed, observed, seen (or any other synonym you'd like to use) an animal produce something different than what it is. Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't.

Now, I understand animal classification/taxonomy can get a bit shaky, but even on the most simple, fundamental level, the large scale transformation such as reptile-bird...we've just never seen nor do we have any reasons to believe.

(19-02-2016 11:11 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There have been depending on your meaning of this not clear undefined term like "kind" and "marco" evolution it has still be witnessed. Seeing varied studies of Skink species having changed over the centuries to a live-birth producing group of animals and seeing shifts of whole genetic variation where you see the split of a significant dividing line.

Huh

Except that is literally what you're saying we've never witnessed.

I guess when you just think, oh that's confusing about these concepts or deny it can seem to you that we never have seen it. Except it's been something after a short couple generations of scientific lives dedicated to watching, that has been seen now in several cases ongoing these days. It just shows ones level of understanding when that is all they can muster. Seeing these Skins shift inland and be a new type of species that uses livebirth opposed to egg birth are parts of these evolved processor that become entirely different subsets of animals and are now something their ancestors which we do see still on the same islands closer to shores of these areas.

"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
19-02-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 10:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 02:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

Yeah but there are certain mathematical formula's/equations you can use to determine when the next orbit/eclipse will take place without seeing it. You see, that is what I mean by "PREDICTIONS". You can use the tool of mathematics to make those predictions. You can't do such things with evolution..that is something you simply have to accept by faith.

It is actually a false dichotomy, actually.

Your ignorance is yet again on display. Mathematics is used in biology, especially evolutionary biology.

Stable strategies.

Game theory.

And more.


Now, go ahead and make your usual lazy, ignorant post about not following links.
Yes, please display your moronic willful 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
19-02-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 10:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 09:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  And I've never witnessed Neptune in a complete orbit of the sun, yet through observation and science I know that it will do so in 165 years.

You can conduct an experiment and predict when the next time it will occur, tho. That is science. You can't do the same with macro evolution.

False dichotomy.

It is neither a dichotomy nor false. You don't appear to know what that term means.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions, that is one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory.

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
19-02-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You are still failing to appreciate the difference between observing and witnessing, as Chas has pointed out.

And as I pointed out, we've neither witnessed nor observed the phenomena that allegedly took place.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, actually. You can. This has been pointed out repeatedly, with ring species being one of the primary examples. I have been over this before.

I've addressed this already, next.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The difference is that the term "species" is acknowledged as being slightly nebulous. It usually denotes that individual members of different species cannot interbreed, but often distinctions between species are based on morphology, DNA, and various ecological specifications. This is also why certain strains of animals are often labeled as subspecies. The species label is more useful for classification than for prediction, and is acknowledged as such.

My argument against macro evolution is independent of how "species" is defined, actually.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Creationist "kinds", however, are supposedly hard-and-fast limitations upon the breeding and mutational capabilities of animals. And again, the concept completely fails upon actual application, as the various members of ring species are of the same "kind", yet fail to interbreed.

I don't know how certain animals can be of the same "kind", and yet fail to interbreed. But what I do know is that a cheetah is the same "kind" of animal as any other animal within the feline class/family (or whatever). They are all obviously the same kind of animal. Obviously.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Have you even bothered to look up what they are?

Is it going to give me any example of the type of reptile-bird kind of transformation you believe occurred? If not, then it is irrelevant.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I will assume not. "Ring species" is a term applied to a series of species, usually located in geographically-adjacent but environmentally-different locations, such as up the sides of a mountain, or around the shore of a large lake.

Still waiting on the example...

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I will use the lake example here.

Begin with a population of, say, birds located at the north side of the lake. There is a marsh here. These birds are adapted to the marsh. If a subpopulation migrates to the eastern shore, however, they find plains, and over time, become adapted to the plains. Then another subpopulation moves to the southern shore, where they find mountains, and adapt to those, and so on until you have a full circle - a ring - around the lake, all descended from the original population.

Ok. They are all "birds". "Birds" that are adapting to their environment. No problems here.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The result is that you have a series of bird populations, all capable of interbreeding with the ones directly next to them. The northern birds can breed with the eastern birds, who can breed with the southern birds, and so on - except in the north, where the two ends of the ring meet. At this point, the two populations have grown so genetically different from one another that this is no longer possible.

Um, again...they are all birds. Birds are copulating with birds, and are producing..birds. That is science. That is an example of birds bringing forth their "kind". No issues there. Next.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is perfectly in line with the theory of evolution's idea of accumulative change, but violates the creationist idea of "kind", as these birds are explicitly of the same kind - because they all came from the same original population - but have now grown so far apart that they can no longer interbreed.

So far, you described a scenario at which birds got together, reproduced, and produced bird offspring as an end result. You do realize that, right?

So birds produce birds, even in your scenario. Thanks for proving my point.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That was not the question. Your question was how we can base the idea of evolution on fossils if we don't know that a given fossilized animal ever reproduced. I explained how.

That was a sub-question.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And your dodge-question is the wrong thing to ask regardless. No single fossil proves evolution. It is when the fossil record is examined as a whole that it becomes undeniable.

"As a whole" would mean a complete fossil record, which you admittedly don't have.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because that interpretation would require ignoring every other piece of the evidence available in favor of the hypothesis that an organism existed, in exactly the time and with exactly the characteristics expected, without any link to other organisms past or present.

Um, I used the evidence that people from YOUR side of the aisle have presented.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm sorry. I thought that you were arguing against evolution.

I am and did.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Please re-read literally every post Chas and I have made in this thread. You continue to utterly fail at understanding the idea of observation and prediction as it applies to evolution.

Chas? Laugh out load

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Only in the sense that any given chemical reaction contains instructions, or a given Game of Life arrangement does. They are chemicals doing what chemicals do. It just happens that, in this instance, they are doing something quite complicated and intricate.

"Complicated and intricate".......a mindless process giving instructions on how to create human traits...calling this "complicated and intricate" is about as an understatement you can make.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You can talk about how much information is in there all you like, but you aren't getting around the fact that it is just chemicals doing what chemicals do.

It isn't just information...it is "encoded" information, you know, the thing that you claimed DNA wasn't?

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Bill Gates is not a biologist, sound bites are not an argument, and information still does not require intelligence.

Um, ok...well, guess what...Richard Dawkins IS a biologist, and not only that, but he is an atheist, and he said in this short 2:52 video (at the 1:26 mark) that "genes are information, CODED information; it even LOOKS like computer information. A chromosome is a great long computer tape..." and he goes on and on and on about it. He appreciates DNA so much that you'd think he was an advocate of intelligent design if you didn't actually know about the guy.

And it is funny because you said "Bill Gates is not a biologist", yet a biologist (Dawkins) said that DNA even looks like a computer and ( Bill Gates is a computer programmer) Laugh out load

So put two and two together Cool





(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have not established that it needs to come from anywhere.

So the instructions for a brand new computer didn't "need to come from anywhere".

Got it.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  At this point, the evolution of the modern horse is so thoroughly understood that there isn't really any way to argue against it. If you are going to look at one or two blank spots and say "well then I refuse to accept it", even though literally everything matches exactly what the theory of evolution predicts... well. I point you to my earlier comment regarding willful ignorance.

I am actually asking what was it before it became a full-bodied animal that we call a "horse".

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It isn't a concession if I never argued it in the first place.

I am asking you for clarity on your position regarding the issue (the possibility of infinite regression). Please provide an answer.

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You really ought to stop trying to assume you understand what anyone's position is.

Well, the fact of the matter is simple; if you don't believe in God (a First Cause), then by default, you believe in infinite regression. I was just going through the motions of setting the foundation for a discussion on it.

I already know how it will end Cool

(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What do you think that the theory of evolution says, Call? What is your understanding of the theory?

I've already answer that question, sir.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 03:12 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 01:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is neither a dichotomy nor false. You don't appear to know what that term means.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions, that is one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory.

Any prediction that evolutionary theory makes are all geared towards micro evolution. Make a prediction regarding macro evolution, you know, reptile-bird stuff. Whatcha got there?

Nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: