Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Audie]

And of course if you count 13.8 billion years and all the water in the observable universe and a 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe you just have to wonder how many atoms and molecules have been interacting with each other and keep doing it... one must be extraordinarily brave to declare that nowhere in the observable universe could so many atoms and molecules have self assembled that they acquired the properties we require to call the assemblies alive. Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe - ExtremeTech

Oh now you are just going to say you do not have enough faith to be
an a-abiogenesisist.

 

[cladking]

Demonstrate one thing that is not, and you will get a Nobel. Knock yourself out.

How about the simple fact that all observable changes to life are sudden...

You are proposing small changes in species over millions of years.

 

[Audie]

Can you admit you used the dictionary wrong?

Or will you compound the error with a semantical argument.

This is kind of weird. I cut and paste from the dictionary, and that is using it wrong?

You make up a definition and that is correct?

What am I supposed to "admit"? SHEEESH!!

 

[Audie]

How about the simple fact that all observable changes to life are sudden...

You are proposing small changes in species over millions of years.

This thing about all observable change are sudden appears to be something you just made up, but hey, lets see you demonstrate it, I may be wrong.

Go ahead.

Not to get all "semantical" but what do you mean by a "change"?

If we come up with a new variety of chicken that is sudden? Fish to amphibian is sudden? Prease exprain.

 

[cladking]

This is kind of weird. I cut and paste from the dictionary, and that is using it wrong?

You make up a definition and that is correct?

What am I supposed to "admit"? SHEEESH!!

Refusing to use the same definition of a word is a semantical argument be definition.

If you want to use one of the other definitions then we could argue that. I am using the one that says science is by definition "observation AND experiment.

 

[cladking]

This thing about all observable change are sudden appears to be something you just made up, but hey, lets see you demonstrate it, I may be wrong.

I said every single observable change to all life is always sudden.

Why don't you show me a chicken that turned into a fish or whatever?

 

[Audie]

Refusing to use the same definition of a word is a semantical argument be definition.

If you want to use one of the other definitions then we could argue that. I am using the one that says science is by definition "observation AND experiment.

I am not about to use the same definition as you. IE the one in italics below that you concocted on your own, no dictionary involved.

But! You finally got it. Yes! Observation and experiment.

That is not some "other" definition, unless you are counting one you made up.


Earlier I had the hardest time getting you to include "observation"

this is what you said earlier.

All science by definition is founded in experiment

Science is merely the definitions, axioms, and experiments that comprise human knowledge. "Experiment" is simply fundamental to modern science. What isn't founded in experiment is opinion or extrapolation. It is a model and not science.

Not a peep about observation. In fact, you make quite the point of excluding the possibility that "observation" might somehow be a included in any definition.

Then try to put the error on me. Ridiculous.

 

[Audie]

I said every single observable change to all life is always sudden.

Why don't you show me a chicken that turned into a fish or whatever?

I know you said that, but it is not true, and you must have made it up.

This thing about chicken and fish is some sort of hallucination, but it would
be like one of the (really) sudden changes YOU say are the norm.

So I guess you ought to be the one showing. Dont make things up anymore tho, oK?

 

[cladking]

It is fundamental to science to understand that all is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. You somehow do not know that?

No absolutes, no certainties, no special abilities conferred by "god" no "truth"
and no "faith". ( your equivocation game with the word "faith" is silly and tiresome
"faith" is for people with no data, ie, the goddists.)

Yet you seem very sure there is no God and that the theory of evolution supports this hypothesis.

Even though cosmologists now imagine an infinite number of earths you seem sure none of them was created by God.

Even though no experiment can disprove God at this time and no experiment supports most of the ToE people still seem to have the answers.

So... ...what is your estimate of the odds that a Creator exists? How many earths do we need to find before finding the one that was created?

 

[cladking]

I am not about to use the same definition as you. IE the one in italics below that you concocted on your own, no dictionary involved.

But! You finally got it. Yes! Observation and experiment.

That is not some "other" definition, unless you are counting one you made up.


Earlier I had the hardest time getting you to include "observation"

this is what you said earlier.

All science by definition is founded in experiment

Science is merely the definitions, axioms, and experiments that comprise human knowledge. "Experiment" is simply fundamental to modern science. What isn't founded in experiment is opinion or extrapolation. It is a model and not science.

Not a peep about observation. In fact, you make quite the point of excluding the possibility that "observation" might somehow be a included in any definition.

Then try to put the error on me. Ridiculous.

Semantics again. A lot of science is written on paper and I didn't mention that either. Science is communicated in language that I failed to mention. Most real science occurs in the lab which I didn't mention.

I'm a metaphysician so I think I know some of the role played by observation in science. Ancient science is best summed up as observation and logic and modern science as observation and experiment. And you want to circumvent experiment altogether and propose gradual changes in species. This is not science. Semantics are irrelevant.

 

[cladking]

If we come up with a new variety of chicken that is sudden? Fish to amphibian is sudden? Prease exprain.

OK, I'm wrong. You actually proposed fish to amphibian.

 

[cladking]

I know you said that, but it is not true, and you must have made it up.

This thing about chicken and fish is some sort of hallucination, but it would
be like one of the (really) sudden changes YOU say are the norm.

So I guess you ought to be the one showing. Dont make things up anymore tho, oK?

And you're still ignoring my arguments and using semantics.

Where is your experiment that shows evolutionary change and why does every single OBSERVATION say changes in life are sudden?

 

[Audie]

Yet you seem very sure there is no God and that the theory of evolution supports this hypothesis.

Even though cosmologists now imagine an infinite number of earths you seem sure none of them was created by God.

Even though no experiment can disprove God at this time and no experiment supports most of the ToE people still seem to have the answers.

So... ...what is your estimate of the odds that a Creator exists? How many earths do we need to find before finding the one that was created?

I see you have ducked out of your mistakes, changed the subject, and yet again are making things up.

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. How could you possibly get confused on that?

There is a great body of data that indicates that god-poof as per genesis is not literally correct. There are a lot of ways of reading the bible; that one has no data for it and a lot against. It says nothing about whether there ia a god. Zero. Capiche?

So no, you just made up something about me, and it makes no sense.

Likewise you made up that thing about infinite earths and what I am sure of. You dont know me. How could I be sure of that?

"Disprove god" is such a childish thing to talk about.
So would be trying to disprove a claim that I have an alien spaceport in my closet. Incredibly basic stuff, yet you get them wrong, then trot them out like gotcha.

You've nothing substantive to say, or you would not need to make things up, and talk childish nonsense.

IOW you are in over your head trying to talk about science, not being ready even for the kiddie pool.

 

[metis]

Yet you seem very sure there is no God and that the theory of evolution supports this hypothesis.

The ToE does not state nor deny there being a creator-god(s).

 

[Audie]

And you're still ignoring my arguments and using semantics.

Where is your experiment that shows evolutionary change and why does every single OBSERVATION say changes in life are sudden?

Why do you keep repeating this ignorant piece of nonsense?

As noted above, you are not ready for the kiddie pool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you keep repeating this ignorant piece of nonsense?

As noted above, you are not ready for the kiddie pool.

The only way to attack the theory of evolution is with strawman arguments at best today. I do get a bit tired of waiting for an argument that has not already been refuted at times.

 

[metis]

Where is your experiment that shows evolutionary change and why does every single OBSERVATION say changes in life are sudden?

And where do you see that? Aren't you aware that all life forms that you see are in reality "transitional forms" if they reproduce?

As far as we can tell, all material objects change over time, and genes are material objects. If evolution didn't happen, that would be highly unusual based on what we're observing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

“In transition”, as in “half-formed.

This is still very unclear to me what you might mean.
No such thing exists, or is thought to have existed, so I do not know why you speak of it.

Any organism is going to be fully what it is. The auroch
ancestor of the dairy cow was fully formed. So is the cow.

What, do you think a fish fin evolves into an appendage with digits, in one generation?

No, though I do hear creationists complain about supposed "jumps" in evolution, Still, no sensible person with a little education would think such a thing. The fish-ancestors of the early amphibians, btw, had the basic bone structure in place, complete with "digits". Look up some Sarcopterygian
fish, the modern Coelacanth being one of them. The rest are all long extinct.

The intermediate forms would lose function while transitioning from a water environment to living on land

A curious idea. It does not seem to bother the muskrat
or the frog,nor yet the walking catfish or mudskipper
to move back and forth, land to water and back no loss of function involved.

I wonder why you even say that? What would be an example?

Natural selection would stop selecting for ‘loss of function’!

huh? what does that even mean?

the organism would simultaneously have to transition from breathing water, to air.

There is a whole series of intermediate steps involved,
not just one sudden leap. The trout and the carp
can be seen to gulp air. There are lungfish, that live
in water, but can only breathe air, into, yes, lungs.

There is the mudskipper, which will drown if kept in water.

What problem are you envisioning?


Are you even aware of all the mutations required, in order for the following generations to evolve from one form to another?

Better, perhaps, for me to ask you if you are even aware of-well,no, you have shown you are not aware of
how easily and well your stump-a-chump questions
about gills-to-lungs, or fins-to-legs have been worked out, generations ago.

May I recommend Romer's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy.

“you have shown you are not aware...”

Ditto.

I guess I’m just not as gullible as you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“you have shown you are not aware...”

Ditto.

I guess I’m just not as gullible as you.

You used a poorly formed in irrational argument. Trying to claim that someone else is gullible after making such a gross error is rather hypocritical. You should have admitted your error and moved on.

 

[Audie]

You used a poorly formed in irrational argument. Trying to claim that someone else is gullible after making such a gross error is rather hypocritical. You should have admitted your error and moved on.

Its ok. A toe in the kiddie pool is too deep for him.