Evolution?

[Blake]

I not only read the research. I scrutinize the methods involved, the variables, the context, and the data to see whether or not their conclusions can be drawn from their data pool.

Most research is black and white and does not remotely affect the "GOD-question".... The scientific process is terrific when it comes to those matters, the peer review process works effectively and objectively. Emprical equations... theories and new discoveries then follow.

When it comes to the formulation of conclusions that affect the "GOD-question" however, you'd be suprised to know how often the 'scientific community at large' throws out inconvenient observations. How often they jump to conclusions. How often they speak of truth for matters that cannot be ascertained. How often they rely on presuppositions to then formulate their own. Then they suppress dissent by suggesting that the scientific process, which works wonderfully for matters belonging in the former group (or a grand majority of published reports) is mostly flawless. They feel indignant that one would question that process.

It's like a bank syndicate suggesting that because their bankers were honest for 95 out of 100 transactions that they should be considered 'honest'. For that to hold, they would have to sustain the same level of integrity for all 100 transactions.

You go ahead and 'bank' on that syndicate... I'll continue to hold them accountable for those 5 transactions that they were less than honest about.

so do you instead bank on the Bible and all creationist scientists being honest and full of integrity?

How honest is Michael Behe?

It's a figurative allusion to the fact that the athiest writers on that site will convince you of their explanations, no matter what they choose to say.

so I reference a good argument from talkorigins (who in turn sourced their argument) and you think they are my atheist buddies.

Got it.

But leave it to you to cling to that phrase as the only shred of evidence to call me a 'liar'... despite the semantical distinction.

...the "Godless Goggles" phrase just rolled off the tongue...

you saying I am looking through "godless goggles" without a shred of evidence is lying... despite your attempts to change the semantics of your statement after I busted you on it.

Liar.

You can continue to repeat it as many times as you like. One who points out that a pitcher of water is leaking doesn't have to provide you with an alternate pitcher... You just have to recognize that your own pitcher is leaking. It will do you no good to cling it and demand that I give you one of my own - that won't change the fact that your container is faulty. I would demand a pitcher 'recall' from the 'scientific community at large'...

I recognize the theory of evolution has holes. Scientists are constantly researching those holes and new discoveries mean new changes to the theory and more holes getting filled.

I'll continue to repeat the request until you provide it: "Please provide a better theory for why we are here and how you came to validate that theory."

My theory is that you are scared of posting your superior theory or you would have posted it by now.

[DMX7]

Yet you still sit here arguing with me and posting old talkorigins links like I've never seen em before.

Change the topic. Predictable.

[Blake]

Ditto for evolutionists.

No, it's isn't ditto.

Evolutionists see evidence to support their theories. Creationists see flying spaghetti monsters.

[Blake]

The theory is constantly changing to accomodate the facts - only the facts and evidence never conclusively proves the theory and many times, outright contradict it until they are 'reassessed' or thrown out altogether.

what is your theory?

[Phenomanul]

so do you instead bank on the Bible and all creationist scientists being honest and full of integrity?
How honest is Michael Behe?

I'm not the one claiming the "scientific community at large" can't be questioned.

Nice try.

so I reference a good argument from talkorigins (who in turn sourced their argument) and you think they are my atheist buddies.

Got it.

you saying I am looking through "godless goggles" without a shred of evidence is lying... despite your attempts to change the semantics of your statement after I busted you on it.

Liar.

What I get is that you are still fully inept to discuss the actual technical incongruencies... with other than vague phrases such as "the theories of decay are changing"

The fact that you would rather focus your arguments against my objections on tangential irrelevants is quite telling. But keep going. Build your case on the fact that you think I'm a liar. Where it matters, on my understanding of things such as the basic chemistry involved in the degradation of organic material... you've got nothing.

So... keep building strawmen.

I recognize the theory of evolution has holes. Scientists are constantly researching those holes and new discoveries mean new changes to the theory and more holes getting filled.

The basic evolutionary construct has a huge hole... more of a systemic flaw. NONE of the assumptions being used to "connect the dots", those linking taxonomic families to others, have any measurable, or quantifiable data to support them. Just observational guesses. Comparisons of similar structures from one set of bones to another, and the such... They can't even claim for certain that a particular set of bones (the organism they belonged to, rather) ever managed to procreate... How would anyone know? Like I said, evolution hinges their faith on a heap of such guesses... and those in your camp keep yelling that proof for evolution is 'hard science'.

All the measurable data for evolutionary experiments comes from "micro-evolutionary" processes which actually don't reveal anything more than mere adaptation. The incorporation of new genetic material has only been attained from the gentle 'directional prodding' of those conducting the experiments (such as the methods used by those working with the citrate tolerant E.coli.). None of the 'peer' reviews would dare raise that flag on such a monumental experiment however... Why would they? Even then, that team can't prove that the code-segment which brought about the tolerance wasn't a recombination of code already present in the E.coli genome. HUGE. In other words they can't even prove that the mutative processes which drive evolutionary speciation were responsible for the change. Furthermore, since bacteria are asexual organisms conclusions from those experiments cannot be transitively applied to suggest that the same mechanism was at work for sexual organisms. Don't get me wrong... they are still very good experiments; but they don't prove macro-evolution.

I'll continue to repeat the request until you provide it: "Please provide a better theory for why we are here and how you came to validate that theory."

And I'll continue laughing at the redirectional spirit of your request.

My theory is that you are scared of posting your superior theory or you would have posted it by now.

What I believe is irrelevant to the fact that what you believe isn't as full-proof as you claim it to be. ¿Comprende la hormiga?

Have you written the talkorigins staff to write you up an explanation that can justify the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissues? Hurry, I'm sure if you tell them you're a die-hard evolutionist that they'll happily oblige... you might even befriend them and come full-circle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Very well put. It's like global warming in ways - so much of the supposed 'science' is very flawed and inaccurate (read: unusable) because of unproven presuppositions and outright fallacies when collecting the data itself. However, unlike global warming, scientists simply keep assuming evolution is correct because a part of the evidence coincides with it.

The theory is constantly changing to accomodate the facts - only the facts and evidence never conclusively proves the theory and many times, outright contradict it until they are 'reassessed' or thrown out altogether.

Too bad creationists don't base anything on facts. When their assertions and suppositions do not match up with reality typically tales of eternal damnation ensue if not imprisonment persecution or death.

The central thesis of genetic mutation and natural selection hasn't changed. Basically what you are claiming is that because a certain chain of polypeptides couldnt have formed given the acidity levels of prehistoric earth, the whole idea of evolution is debunked. Its called fleshing out a mechanism.

That is just like saying that because certain synaptic routes common within the brain structure are not consistent with a behavioral model that means that the brain doesnt control behavior. Its asinine

There is not question that organisms change over time from generation to generation. ITs evident from observation in human history as well as fossil records. The question comes down to how. If you want to say that Zeus causes it as well as lightning then you go ahead.

To me attributing reality to some singular, anthropocentric, masculine deity detailed to us by various autocrats, priest classes and despots from averaging over a thousand years ago is as arrogant as it is stupid.

If thinking that you get your own planet when you die if youre good during life, that certain people that can survive in a furnace turned up full blast for extended periods of time or that some diety that happens to look just like us created everything for us in 6 days or on the back of a turtle or out of a ball of clay or whatever makes you feel better than go for it.

Personally I refuse to be naive, stupid or intellectually lazy.

[Blake]

I'm not the one claiming the "scientific community at large" can't be questioned.

Nice try.

I'm not either.

Nice try.

What I get is that you are still fully inept to discuss the actual technical incongruencies... with other than vague phrases such as "the theories of decay are changing"

......Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”.....



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz0frTHNcIm

I doubt you have done any hands on research of this magnitude.

What I get is that you are an idiot.

The fact that you would rather focus your arguments against my objections on tangential irrelevants is quite telling. But keep going. Build your case on the fact that you think I'm a liar. Where it matters, on my understanding of things such as the basic chemistry involved in the degradation of organic material... you've got nothing.

So... keep building strawmen.

I know you are a liar. I have proof.

Apparently you really don't know much about the current studies regarding the 70 million year old dinosaur tissue. You are lying that you have an understanding of it.

The basic evolutionary construct has a huge hole... more of a systemic flaw. NONE of the assumptions being used to "connect the dots", those linking taxonomic families to others, have any measurable, or quantifiable data to support them. Just observational guesses. Comparisons of similar structures from one set of bones to another, and the such... They can't even claim for certain that a particular set of bones (the organism they belonged to, rather) ever managed to procreate... How would anyone know? Like I said, evolution hinges their faith on a heap of such guesses... and those in your camp keep yelling that proof for evolution is 'hard science'.

All the measurable data for evolutionary experiments comes from "micro-evolutionary" processes which actually don't reveal anything more than mere adaptation. The incorporation of new genetic material has only been attained from the gentle 'directional prodding' of those conducting the experiments (such as the methods used by those working with the citrate tolerant E.coli.). None of the 'peer' reviews would dare raise that flag on such a monumental experiment however... Why would they? Even then, that team can't prove that the code-segment which brought about the tolerance wasn't a recombination of code already present in the E.coli genome. HUGE. In other words they can't even prove that the mutative processes which drive evolutionary speciation were responsible for the change. Furthermore, since bacteria are asexual organisms conclusions from those experiments cannot be transitively applied to suggest that the same mechanism was at work for sexual organisms. Don't get me wrong... they are still very good experiments; but they don't prove macro-evolution.

you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.

And I'll continue laughing at the redirectional spirit of your request.

so you'll continue to laugh at what the scientific community considers as fact while coming forth with no valid theory of your own

What I believe is irrelevant to the fact that what you believe isn't as full-proof as you claim it to be. ¿Comprende la hormiga?

Very little in science can shown as being a full-proof fact.

What I believe is that you are too scared to give us your theory on origins.

Have you written the talkorigins staff to write you up an explanation that can justify the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissues? Hurry, I'm sure if you tell them you're a die-hard evolutionist that they'll happily oblige... you might even befriend them and come full-circle.

Nobody has figured out how soft tissue has lasted that long yet.

Have you written Mary Schweitzer at NCState and told her how TRexs could not have existed 68 million years ago?

Hurry before she discovers how the tissue lasted so long.

I'm sure if you tell her your a die hard young earth creationist and that she's done well at proving your point that she'll love you for it.

[Blake]

Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil

November 5, 2009 (PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil. The discovery by researchers from University College Dublin, the UK and Spain, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known.

http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.html

[DMX7]

you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.

Bingo!!!

And funny how he doesn't apply that same level of criticism to his pseudoscience.

[Blake]

Bingo!!!

And funny how he doesn't apply that same level of criticism to his pseudoscience.

he's not here to present his pseudoscientific theory.

He's only here to bash evolution........because it conflicts with his pseudoscientific theory......whatever theory that may be.....

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (4 members and 1 guests)
Blake, DMX7, Phenomanul, rold50

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.

Im curious at how long it will take him to come up with more bigworded asstalking.

[DMX7]

Clearly, he was not intelligently designed. Point Evolution.

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (5 members and 2 guests)
Blake, DMX7, z0sa, Phenomanul, rold50

yay

[Phenomanul]

I'm not either.

Nice try.



I doubt you have done any hands on research of this magnitude.

What I get is that you are an idiot.



I know you are a liar. I have proof.

Apparently you really don't know much about the current studies regarding the 70 million year old dinosaur tissue. You are lying that you have an understanding of it.



you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.




so you'll continue to laugh at what the scientific community considers as fact while coming forth with no valid theory of your own








Very little in science can shown as being a full-proof fact.

What I believe is that you are too scared to give us your theory on origins.



Nobody has figured out how soft tissue has lasted that long yet.

Have you written Mary Schweitzer at NCState and told her how TRexs could not have existed 68 million years ago?

Hurry before she discovers how the tissue lasted so long.

I'm sure if you tell her your a die hard young earth creationist and that she's done well at proving your point that she'll love you for it.

The data isn't conclusive either way. Incongruencies stick out like a sore thumbs for both viewpoints. Actually, I find it quite funny that you would think I'm a young earth creationist.





(copy that one too... apparently you think it makes your arguements more full proof... All it does is masquerade your own inability to formulate counterarguments of your own, you literally feel compeled to piggy back on others' prosaic structure... annoying and lame ).

I'll address the rest tomorrow.

Just know this... I've actually spoken to Mary Schweitzer; something I bet you weren't counting on... ant...

[Phenomanul]

Im curious at how long it will take him to come up with more bigworded asstalking.

The fact that you use this as criteria for whether or not your belief in evolution is justified is also lame.

It's no wonder people would rather ignore you.

[DMX7]

The data isn't conclusive either way.

No, it's pretty conclusive.

Actually, I find it quite funny that you would think I'm a young earth creationist.

Sure you do.

[Blake]

The data isn't conclusive either way. Incongruencies stick out like a sore thumbs for both viewpoints.

what data are you specifically referring to.

Actually, I find it quite funny that you would think I'm a young earth creationist.

Actually it was funny when you said I was looking through godless goggles and how you don't believe that dinosaurs couldn't have been around 70 million years ago.

What exactly do you think is the origin of our species?

(copy that one too... apparently you think it makes your arguements more full proof... All it does is masquerade your own inability to formulate counterarguments of your own, you literally feel compeled to piggy back on others' prosaic structure... annoying and lame ).

By not showing any research, sources or any real substance in any of your posts, all you are doing is masquerading your lack of knowledge.

Lame, but entertaining.

I'll address the rest tomorrow.

I'm sure you will do more masquerading tomorrow.

Just know this... I've actually spoken to Mary Schweitzer; something I bet you weren't counting on... ant...

Just know this... nobody cares about your name dropping.

I bet Mary Schweitzer pwned you.

[Blake]

The fact that you use this as criteria for whether or not your belief in evolution is justified is also lame.

my belief in evolution has nothing to do with how long it takes you to post a response.

your believing that's the case is funny yet strange, even for you.

It's no wonder people would rather ignore you.

Why do you respond to my side posts, but refuse to answer my serious questions like: "what is your theory of the origin of our species?"

I believe you are full of .

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (3 members and 2 guests)
Blake, DMX7, Phenomanul

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 AM.

I'll address the rest tomorrow.

I guess technically it's tomorrow.

[sabar]

Why do you respond to my side posts, but refuse to answer my serious questions like: "what is your theory of the origin of our species?"

I believe you are full of .

He is avoiding a trap, obviously. You cannot argue religion when it comes to a theory on where living things come from. It is unsustainable, and moreso, it makes the HUGE assumption that your religion is the right one out of the thousands of religions out there. Not only that, but his religion throws out so much pseudoscience that it is a bad stance to take without even saying a word.

He's attacking the actual theory, which is the scientific way to do things. Finding an alternative theory is a monumental task. One that pokes a hole in a complex system needs not make a subs ute for that system. I can easily point out why Newtonian physics is flawed on large scales, but it would be absurd to require me to state my own model or even explain the accepted one.

Phenomanul is correct on a major point: evolution is not based on pure science, but on a lot of speculation and connecting the dots. There is no hard data. I worked on some research projects on the last year and there is no way my conclusions would of been acceptable if I just made assumptions when doing my tests.

Science is based on the scientific method. It must be testable! It must be repeatable! Natural selection clearly has this down pat. Evolution? No way. We need thousands of years of data as a species to be able to make a conclusion. As an alternative, we need a flawless computer simulation so we can simulate a small biosphere and see if things evolve. We have done neither.

Now, in my opinion, I think that if you connect the dots it is clear that evolution is the only thing that is possible. But you can't state it as fact quite yet. We need a clearer fossil record or faster computers or just plain time. All we have is anecdotal evidence. This is a lot like climate change, where scientists are trying to fit a very small sample size to trend a very large system over a very large amount of time.

It's just bad science. Is the conclusion wrong? Probably not, but the theory is still quite attackable from a scientific view.

I suggest you guys continue to debate the scientific points instead of preparing ad-hominem attacks based on your personal viewpoints.

The validity of the premise is NOT related to the validity of the person or their personal beliefs.

[Obstructed_View]

2 monkeys, 1 lion. Lion run after monkeys. Slower monkey get eaten. Faster monkey go make love to girl monkeys, have fast baby monkeys.

^evolution.

[DMX7]

Science is based on the scientific method. It must be testable! It must be repeatable! Natural selection clearly has this down pat. Evolution? No way.

Wow, this is a mind blowing contradiction.

[z0sa]

Wow, this is a mind blowing contradiction.

Can you prove macroevolution occurs?

[admiralsnackbar]

Can you prove macroevolution occurs?

Can you prove it doesn't occur in the same way what you call "microevolution" does? If so, can you offer a better explanation?

[Blake]

He's attacking the actual theory, which is the scientific way to do things. Finding an alternative theory is a monumental task. One that pokes a hole in a complex system needs not make a subs ute for that system. I can easily point out why Newtonian physics is flawed on large scales, but it would be absurd to require me to state my own model or even explain the accepted one.

He's not just attacking a few holes. He is dismissing the entire theory, while mentioning a Creator and saying I am simply looking at things through my godless goggles:

It's a shame that you have to admit that YOU can't handle defense of your own beliefs. Cut&Paste jobs are still lame, considering you can't back up what they're saying anymore than you'd allow yourself to believe that what I was saying was actually true or even plausible. Fact of the matter is that those glasses you're wearing predetermine and bias what you perceive as truth... that convenient filtration however, in no way invalidates absolute TRUTH. And what is that exactly? Reality as perceived by the Creator. You can't change that reality no matter how hard you scream and kick in the process.

....Keep wearing your Godless Goggles blake! No one's stopping you.

-Peace

since this is the case, it is not unfair to ask what his theory of the origin of our species is.