PLAY THE EVOLUTIONIST CIRCULAR REASONING GAME: The rules are simple. Start with an original assumption, liberally add more assumptions, introduce an evolutionary psuedo-scientific opinion, add a flawed “scientific dating system” and end the game (a winner every time) concluding that the original assumption is now a “scientific fact”!!
Your conclusion on God's existence
- Thread starter Chronic
- Start date
PLAY THE EVOLUTIONIST CIRCULAR REASONING GAME: The rules are simple. Start with an original assumption, liberally add more assumptions, introduce an evolutionary psuedo-scientific opinion, add a flawed “scientific dating system” and end the game (a winner every time) concluding that the original assumption is now a “scientific fact”!!
Haha, yeah, I'm sure the thermodynamics are clearly explained in the Bible. :laugh:
See, this is what everyone's talking about. Using crooked and out-of-context "scientific" arguments to make your case. I've heard this before, something akin to the law of entropy is said in the Bible and now the Bible is an authoritive work on the science of thermodynamics eh? Brilliant.
Oh, could you point out to me the sections where it says the Earth is round and our solar system is heliocentric? It appears they had some problems finding those sections 400 years ago.
I didn't see any assumptions in that from Glock.
You must be getting desperate.
.... Jesus fuckin christ, not this again. LMAO, I honestly can't even believe you're arguing this. Hahaha, thanks for cheering up my otherwise rather bland morning.
Seriously, "W210", I've seen a lot of retarded religi-fundi's, but you definitely take the cake. If you can't understand the simple principle that some words, regardless of their own incontextual definiton, can actually be used in a different way describing one or more larger processes....if you can't get something like that through your head, then I don't know how you ever matured beyond 16 years old into a fully functioning human being.
You are detrimental to humanity, sir.
See, this is what everyone's talking about. Using crooked and out-of-context "scientific" arguments to make your case. I've heard this before, something akin to the law of entropy is said in the Bible and now the Bible is an authoritive work on the science of thermodynamics eh? Brilliant.
Oh, could you point out to me the sections where it says the Earth is round and our solar system is heliocentric? It appears they had some problems finding those sections 400 years ago.
I didn't see any assumptions in that from Glock.
You must be getting desperate..... Jesus fuckin christ, not this again. LMAO, I honestly can't even believe you're arguing this. Hahaha, thanks for cheering up my otherwise rather bland morning.
Seriously, "W210", I've seen a lot of retarded religi-fundi's, but you definitely take the cake. If you can't understand the simple principle that some words, regardless of their own incontextual definiton, can actually be used in a different way describing one or more larger processes....if you can't get something like that through your head, then I don't know how you ever matured beyond 16 years old into a fully functioning human being.
You are detrimental to humanity, sir.
where are assumptions? Examples of radiocarbon dating giving bad dates have been explained, but creationists don't look them up. YOU'RE the one assuming that since snail shells in a lime-rich lake shows the shell being 12,000 years old it MUST be wrong, but you don't look at how carbon-14 samples are affected by older carbon-14 in the air/water. It is only flawed if the person misunderstands it
PLAY THE CREATIONIST CIRCULAR REASONING GAME: The rules are even MORE simple. Start with the bible, end with the bible. Remember! Logic is not allowed!
PLAY THE CREATIONIST CIRCULAR REASONING GAME: The rules are even MORE simple. Start with the bible, end with the bible. Remember! Logic is not allowed!
you are limited by your experiences. we will never know, it's something we can't explain because it's not relative to anything we have experienced, and so it is impossible for us to understand it.
that still doesn't mean it was a god, and especially not a god like the one described in your holy book.
that still doesn't mean it was a god, and especially not a god like the one described in your holy book.
What crooked out of text scientific arguement, are you saying I made? I didnt say anything scientific. But yea the Bible does mention that the earth is wearing out.
Duke said:
Oh, could you point out to me the sections where it says the Earth is round and our solar system is heliocentric? It appears they had some problems finding those sections 400 years ago.
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
It also says the dawn and dusk are created by the earth spinning around like on a potters wheel.
Duke said:
I didn't see any assumptions in that from Glock. You must be getting desperate.
You must be getting desperate.
The assuptions are made by any evolutionist explaining the origin of the earth.
Words being used in different ways is one thing. Making a bold statement like "Mutation is evolution" is ridiculous. Neither word is being used to describe the other. The problem is in the original statement. OK with you?
I would love to hear your reasoning behind this remark, mixed in with some grade school name calling of course
That could be very well be interpreted as that our solar system is dome shaped, since it's a tent, right?
i.e. open to interpretation. You could see a thousand explanations in that one sentence, It merely depends what you want to see, hm?
If a ship is sailing along on the high seas, and I tell you that "it's moving as it sails" or that "sailing is movement", are you going to hold this same talk again? Surely, "to sail" and "to move" are different words! They can't be used to describe the same thing, used so freely in the same sentence! Who does this blasphemous Euro think he is, using words so easy like that?!
we don't know. you're assuming that god made everything...talk about hypocrite
both words are used to describe each other, heres an example from wikipedia
Entry for Mutation:
Mutations create variation in the gene pool, and then less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate - this is evolution.
Entry for Evolution:
The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.
both words are used to describe each other, heres an example from wikipedia
Entry for Mutation:
Mutations create variation in the gene pool, and then less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate - this is evolution.
Entry for Evolution:
The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.
Another great example of how much you are like me in that we both require faith to believe in what we do. Science cant explain it all.
Do we have any examples of this happening? I know that this "microevolution" has been observed, but the problem for creationists is the macro. When I hear evolution thats what I think of. I dont buy the whole "well see this cell that mutated, that proves evolution".
I can jump a foot, that doesnt prove I can jump to the moon.
L
But it doesn't state explicitly that our solar system is heliocentric or that Earth is round. It doesn't prove anything. The Bible cannot be counted as scientific proof. That said, I don't think it's unfeasible that people at that time knew that the Earth was round or that they were correct on how our solar system works. That's not the point either. I'm against pure literal interpretation of "holy" books and that they are submitted as fullproof evidence, because it's not.
Who said mutation is definite proof of evolution? The concept of mutation in biology is very widespread. A deformed body due to exposure to radiation can be considered mutation. But a species quickly adapting to a new enviroment can also be considered mutation in itself. "Mutation" simply means the act of change, regardless of the reasons and effects.
Basically, animals adapt to their enviroment by mutations in their bodies. This process is generally called evolution.
Who said mutation is definite proof of evolution?
The concept of mutation in biology is very widespread. A deformed body due to exposure to radiation can be considered mutation. But a species quickly adapting to a new enviroment can also be considered mutation in itself. "Mutation" simply means the act of change, regardless of the reasons and effects. Basically, animals adapt to their enviroment by mutations in their bodies. This process is generally called evolution.
So, in other words, you define what evolution is, and not scientists? So what you've been telling us is that you don't believe in your definition of evolution.
It’s true, the evidence for evolution will not live up to your misunderstanding of it. Evolution is not about “improvements,” though that is often one of its results. Life forms don’t become “better;” they become better able to survive the conditions they find themselves in. But if those “better and improved” life-forms suddenly find themselves in conditions that are opposite to what they developed in, they will perish. So better is relative.
But there is no uncertainty about the process of evolution through natural selection. That theory is as well established as any scientific theory we have, and indeed better than most. Not only is evolution itself well established as the framework for the development of life on earth, but we know with confidence a great many details about the evolution of many species, including humans.
Homo sapiens--modern man—belongs to the phylum Vertebrata. So, also, do all the mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, and reptiles that have ever walked, crawled, flown, slithered, or swum in every corner of the Earth. All vertebrates share a common pattern of basic architecture, which has remained unchanged over millions of years despite the superficial, specialized adaptations that on first consideration might seem to divide the countless species we see around us. Though they differ in surface detail, all are variations on the theme of DNA and the 30 million ways by which it propagates itself. Every living organism that exists today is the product of a chain of successive mutations that has continued over millions of years.
Darwin did not set out to prove evolution because it reflected any ideas he might have had about how societies should function, or because he found it emotionally appealing. He ended up proposing it because he found it best explained the facts available to him. (And the concept of evolution was not something new that came with Darwin. Like so many ideas, it can be traced back to ancient Greece. What Darwin did was offer for the first time an explanation of how evolution could work in a way that was free of supernatural underpinnings.)
Evolution does indeed offer a consistent and comprehensive interpretation of the facts accumulated from a whole range of disciplines that include paleontology, geology, zoology, botany, embryology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, anthropology, and behavioral psychology, to name just some. It establishes a common framework within which observations collected from many fields of investigation and tested independently all fit together and have reason for being the way they are. The facts are explained.
What can be said in this respect of creationism? First, it offers no reason why—why the anatomy of different species should show any relatedness at all; why the fossil record should show its progressive accumulation of change; why embryos of different species should be more alike at earlier phases of growth, why isolated populations should diverge….The inevitable rejoinder that “it was made that way” merely acquiesces to the fact; it explains nothing. We could say the same about anything and add not one scrap to our understanding of it. But on the other hand, creationist theory requires the assumption that a creator exists, that a supernatural judge of morals exists who is concerned about the day-to-day affairs of people on this planet, that it communicated its motives to chosen writers of ancient books, that those writers were correct, and honest, in interpreting the source of their inspiration, that later translators were equally infallible…and a long list of similar premises that no scientist would entertain for a moment as a basis for constructing a theory.
A scientific theory explains most and assumes least. Creationism explains nothing and assumes everything.
If you don’t believe in evolutionary theory, do you have another scientific theory to replace it, or are you just setting a model example for us of avoidance and denial?
Keep in mind, any explanation for a process has to be consistent with both the historical and fossil evidence and with our knowledge of the abilities of present-day humans and other species. We should also apply Ockham’s razor, and make our explanations as simple as possible, based on the minimum number of (plausible) assumptions. Provided that we proceed in such a fashion, anyone who thinks we have it wrong will have an obligation to come up with a better explanation—a better fit with the known facts and with Ockham’s razor.
It’s true, the evidence for evolution will not live up to your misunderstanding of it. Evolution is not about “improvements,” though that is often one of its results. Life forms don’t become “better;” they become better able to survive the conditions they find themselves in. But if those “better and improved” life-forms suddenly find themselves in conditions that are opposite to what they developed in, they will perish. So better is relative.
But there is no uncertainty about the process of evolution through natural selection. That theory is as well established as any scientific theory we have, and indeed better than most. Not only is evolution itself well established as the framework for the development of life on earth, but we know with confidence a great many details about the evolution of many species, including humans.
Homo sapiens--modern man—belongs to the phylum Vertebrata. So, also, do all the mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, and reptiles that have ever walked, crawled, flown, slithered, or swum in every corner of the Earth. All vertebrates share a common pattern of basic architecture, which has remained unchanged over millions of years despite the superficial, specialized adaptations that on first consideration might seem to divide the countless species we see around us. Though they differ in surface detail, all are variations on the theme of DNA and the 30 million ways by which it propagates itself. Every living organism that exists today is the product of a chain of successive mutations that has continued over millions of years.
Darwin did not set out to prove evolution because it reflected any ideas he might have had about how societies should function, or because he found it emotionally appealing. He ended up proposing it because he found it best explained the facts available to him. (And the concept of evolution was not something new that came with Darwin. Like so many ideas, it can be traced back to ancient Greece. What Darwin did was offer for the first time an explanation of how evolution could work in a way that was free of supernatural underpinnings.)
Evolution does indeed offer a consistent and comprehensive interpretation of the facts accumulated from a whole range of disciplines that include paleontology, geology, zoology, botany, embryology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, anthropology, and behavioral psychology, to name just some. It establishes a common framework within which observations collected from many fields of investigation and tested independently all fit together and have reason for being the way they are. The facts are explained.
What can be said in this respect of creationism? First, it offers no reason why—why the anatomy of different species should show any relatedness at all; why the fossil record should show its progressive accumulation of change; why embryos of different species should be more alike at earlier phases of growth, why isolated populations should diverge….The inevitable rejoinder that “it was made that way” merely acquiesces to the fact; it explains nothing. We could say the same about anything and add not one scrap to our understanding of it. But on the other hand, creationist theory requires the assumption that a creator exists, that a supernatural judge of morals exists who is concerned about the day-to-day affairs of people on this planet, that it communicated its motives to chosen writers of ancient books, that those writers were correct, and honest, in interpreting the source of their inspiration, that later translators were equally infallible…and a long list of similar premises that no scientist would entertain for a moment as a basis for constructing a theory.
A scientific theory explains most and assumes least. Creationism explains nothing and assumes everything.
If you don’t believe in evolutionary theory, do you have another scientific theory to replace it, or are you just setting a model example for us of avoidance and denial?
Keep in mind, any explanation for a process has to be consistent with both the historical and fossil evidence and with our knowledge of the abilities of present-day humans and other species. We should also apply Ockham’s razor, and make our explanations as simple as possible, based on the minimum number of (plausible) assumptions. Provided that we proceed in such a fashion, anyone who thinks we have it wrong will have an obligation to come up with a better explanation—a better fit with the known facts and with Ockham’s razor.
You have a lot to learn. You can start here. http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
The reason that the anatomy of different species is related is because all life was made by the same creator, same goes for early development of species being similar. And as far as I know the fossil record does more to disprove than support evolution. Yes creation theory requires the "assumption" that a creator exists, but evolution also requires the same faith and assumption, not only that a creator doesnt exist, but that the early earth model they dreamt up is accurate even though there is no support from evidence, and that life can spontaniously create itself, even though we cannot even duplicate this now with all our sophisticated technology.
You need to do some research on both theory's
The reason that the anatomy of different species is related is because all life was made by the same creator, same goes for early development of species being similar. And as far as I know the fossil record does more to disprove than support evolution. Yes creation theory requires the "assumption" that a creator exists, but evolution also requires the same faith and assumption, not only that a creator doesnt exist, but that the early earth model they dreamt up is accurate even though there is no support from evidence, and that life can spontaniously create itself, even though we cannot even duplicate this now with all our sophisticated technology.
You need to do some research on both theory's
It's sad that not only do you get all your information about evolution from a religious, creationist website, but that you think other, more rational people can actually learn from such sites. People who understand the theory of evolution more than you ever will. It's like sending someone to Storm Front to learn about the Holocaust.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.