to call of the wild
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2015, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2015 06:08 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
to call of the wild
(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Hey, if you are a theist and believe in theistic evolution, I don’t really have a problem with that, per say…because at LEAST you are smart enough to realize that God had to be the orchestrator of such an occasion. Now of course, I will still disagree with you, but that is more of an internal different that we will have among ourselves…Christians don’t agree on everything, obviously.

They point was to show it was no excuse. It ain't an atheist theory


(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You listened to GWG? It all went downhill from there, didn’t it?

I read what you said regarding the definitions, I just didn’t include it here.

Because I have a feeling that they don't go with what you want american.

(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, what does me getting a shot have to do with a reptile changing to a bird or a whale making its way to the ocean after having previously dwelled on land?

Because it has something to do with evolution. All of it does. There is also the fact crocodiles share most of their DNA with birds and both belong to archeosaurs(which includes dinosaurs).
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/reptile...saurs1.htm

http://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html

Let us also go over that dinosaurs have feathers

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...s-science/

and that is just scratching the surface.


(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  This is a prime example of letting your presupposition interpret the observation. When you find a fossil, there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for you to conclude anything regarding evolution. All you know at that point is this once living thing has now died….how it died, when it died, and who its parents were is something you have to BRING IN to the observation, and with that comes a presupposition. That is how it really works.

What is the definition of presupposition let us see

1. To believe or suppose in advance: "In passing moral judgments ... we presuppose that a man's actions, and hence also his being a good or a bad man, are in his power" (Leo Strauss).

2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition: "The term tax relief ... presupposes a conceptual metaphor: Taxes are an affliction" (George Lakoff).
(01-04-2015 02:08 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  First let me say that you don't believe in science you except it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presupposition

So by usage one is the definition you are using.

Now let us define prediction.

1. The act of predicting.
2. Something foretold or predicted; a prophecy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prediction

Now to understand prediction's definition we must define predict

To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge: predicted an active hurricane season because of warmer ocean-surface temperatures.
v.intr.
To foretell something.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predict

Now let us go over if my example it was a presupposition or a prediction.

Q. Did the people that found tiktaalik have special knowledge?

A. Yes they knew the traits of the animals in the era before and after tiktaalik traits where, as it is in between

Q.Did this special knowledge help them know about tiktaalik in advance?

A. Kinda. They knew the date and the idea around what tiktaalik would look like before, but not anything exact.

Q.Did they believe that tiktaalik was going to be found there.

A.No. They may had an idea. They didn't say tiktaalik will most defiantly be in the Devonian and it will most defiantly will have gills and a homologous structure and what not. That never happened.

^ you see what happens when you define word, makes things easier to understand. As a bonus let us go over excuse.

1.
a. To make allowance for; overlook or forgive: Please excuse the interruption.
b. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.

2.
a. To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.
b. To explain (a fault or offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood; try to justify: He arrived late and excused his tardiness by blaming it on the traffic. See Synonyms at forgive.

3. To serve as justification for: Witty talk does not excuse bad manners.

4. To free, as from an obligation or duty; exempt: She was excused from jury duty because she knew the plaintiff.

5. To give permission to leave; release: The child ate quickly and asked to be excused.

n. (ĭk-skyo͞os′)
1. An explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness.

2. A reason or grounds for excusing: Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

3. The act of excusing.

4. A note explaining an absence.

5. Informal An inferior example: a poor excuse for a poet; a sorry excuse for a car.

What I have bolded is what I am using as excuse. You are trying to offer an explanation to why this can't be a prediction, but in the end you just won't obtain forgiveness for being wrong.

(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, what is science? A methodology based on observation, experiment, and prediction. Well, in that case, I shouldn’t accept anything related to nature that can’t be observed, experimented on, and make predictions.

You did good on the definition, but you still don't get it.

First, here are some predictions of evolution.

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-po...usociality

Second let us go over the definition of experiment.

1.
a. A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.
b. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation.

2. An innovative act or procedure: "Democracy is only an experiment in government" (William Ralph Inge).

3. The result of experimentation: "We are not [nature's] only experiment" (R. Buckminster Fuller).
intr.v. (-mĕnt′) ex·per·i·ment·ed, ex·per·i·ment·ing, ex·per·i·ments

1. To conduct an experiment.

2. To try something new, especially in order to gain experience: experiment with new methods of teaching.

As you can see 1a is what science does. So let us take tiktaalik for example. We hypothesize it is a transitional piece in the evolution of lobe-finned fishes to modern tetrapods. Now let us test to see how that can be true.

Fish characteristics:

Scales

Fins

Gills

Tetrapod characteristics:

Neck

Ribs

Flat head

Fin skeleton(homologous structure)

Ear Notches

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html

Based on this experiment it shows that tiktaalik does in fact have traits of both and is more advanced than those before 375MYA and less advance than those after million years as we did in out hypothesis.

(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Those links are from folks that already believe in the theory, bro. What I like to do is just simply watch debates on the subject of evolution, where I can hear BOTH sides of the argument, which is about as fair and balanced as it can get...and of course, I think the con side comes out victorious.

Yeah, the scientist. There are more scientist named Steve that except evolution than those who don't at all. That is not to include the non-steve scientist that do. Also there is not both sides, creationism is inferior. It has no predictions, instead creationism sits and claims and tries to find evidence. When science finds something like ring species creationist try to disprove it. When they realized they can't all of a sudden it was evidence for creationism the whole time. That is dishonest and pathetic.

(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, why are you wasting my time with these links? We’ve never observed macroevolution. Of all of the debates that I’ve seen, the evolutionists never said “Look at all of the TRANSITONAL FOSSILS that we have!!!” No…that has never happened, and I’ve seen a lot.

So you didn't read them. Instead you ignored it in favor of what you want. Also debates aren't evidence. Here is a debate about helicentrism and geocentrism

http://www.debate.org/debates/Geocentrism/2/

Good to get both sides as the bible is proven by geocentrism.

You can see debates don't mean both sides it means either

A. we are trying to find the best compromise

B. An idiot that thinks they are right without having any knowledge challenges someone who does have evidence and knowledge of the subject.

C. Determining what hypothesis is best for a theory(and don't think yours is this one as creationism is not even a scientific idea, let alone a hypothesis)

(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Show me a video of a debate where transitional fossils was used as evidence for evolution, then.

Aron Ra is a personDodgy

(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you have the evidence, then what the hell is there to predict??

What you don't know is that having evidence doesn't mean that is the only evidence out there. Why not have more evidence for a theory or one to modify the theory. This is not just evolution it is science period. It is called falsifiability


(02-04-2015 12:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Gravity and germs only exist in a universe that began to exist. But where did the universe come from? Hmmm?

As evidence shows it was the big bang.

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

And before you start that shit let me say that a pastor named Monseigneur Georges Lemaître was the one who proposed the modern big bang theory. So no the big bang is not a atheist theory nor does it disprove the god concept.

Another thing don't do the whole nothing or creator thing because that goes into an infinite loop. I will let Carl explain:




[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: