Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

What I find interesting is how they take their being shown flat out wrong at every turn as proof they are right.

Denial at its finest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I find interesting is how they take their being shown flat out wrong at every turn as proof they are right.

Creationist arguments are all variations of gap arguments in a sense. Even when they have to manufacture false gaps for support.

Since there is no means to formally and fully educate a person in science on this forum, a creationist feels justified in denying recognition of that as failure of the scientific argument.

Because no one can provide the one million references accumulated over the last 150 years, then they feel that unrealistic demand fulfills their claims. Even when a significant body of evidence is presenred, they label it failed without review.

They open the gap of scientific dissent based on debate in science over details and new discoveries and the creationist fills that gap with garbage. Intelligent design or a false failure of consensus.

Their denial rides on a heard of fallacies and false information in a desperate effort to cut reasonable explanations off at the gap.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I appreciate the time you took in responding to my post and the thought you employed in your response here. Unfortunately, all up have rendered here only serves to support my claim of the anti-intellectual position of creationism. Examples of failed support of belief with, weak and poor evidence, contrived analogies, legends, beliefs and meaningless speculation in place of methodical observation, considered and logical review of evidence followed by rational conclusions is not support of intellectual pursuit.

The evidence you offered in support of the flood in Genesis was soundly refuted and in no way approached addressing existing evidence that demonstrates there was no flood.

Stories of Gilgamesh have been discovered. They have been determined to be older than Genesis. That some later authors adopted that tale as the basis of the story of Noah is obvious. That there are changes in details of the boat reflect on the knowledge of a writer and do not elevate the claims of the story to fact. This was previously explained to you, but I see you have chosen to disregard that.s

Ghost stories? The only thing that can be said is that people claim to have seen things. People claim to have witnessed many things that remain unexplained. That some want this to be explained in a specific way reflects on their belief and not on any evidence that what they believe is correct. Maybe they are not spirits of the dead or demons, but images from other dimensions. It is no less an explanation and with equal evidence to support it. The most intellectual thing that can be said is that the stories are interesting, but there is nothing available to determine anything about what they are or what they mean.

I am not sure why you think this supports an intellectual position for believers, when it is the opposite.

What you have succeeded in doing here is to reaffirm my position that literalist deny intelligent evaluation of evidence based on established principles and prior work in favor of dogma, belief and the unsupported declarations of religious doctrines.

It would be no issue if you were simply stating this is what you believe and leave it at that. But believers are not happy with their belief and demand everyone believe it too. Coming out and claiming that what you believe is really the facts of life and what has been determined in science and successfully applied is all lies, requires more than repetition and buttercups.

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?

...claiming that what you believe is .... what has been determined in science and successfully applied is all lies

I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For dad, he cannot demand evidence under dad rule number one, but that does not stop people for providing him with evidence:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

It will take you a few hours to even begin to read and check that evidence.

Will he review this? Will he understand it? Even if the answer to both is yes, will it be objectively reviewed? Will it be weighed against what he knows and believes critically and without bias?

It will be denied outright without examination and the lie that no evidence is presented will be repeated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?



I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

Let us deal with whether creationism is anti-intellectual. I will not be distracted from that question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?



I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

I do not recall you making that statement. If you have than you accept evolution. All Your other objection must rest on subservience to church doctrine then.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?



I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

So your intellectual response is that arguments over the details refutes theory and all evidence that supports theory. You are taking the anti-intellectual position that even trivial doubt is enough to overturn knowledge and can be replaced by paradigms that are all doubt. Don't ask questions, just accept, is the pinnacle of creationist intellect.

If you want to support your case, then stop challenging here and question your church leaders in why they make the demands they are making and why it is evil to disagree with them using reason and evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?



I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

Is throwing out a body of science based on the doctrine a church, an example in support of intellectual pursuits?

Is believing you know something greater than actually knowing something?

Is suppressing rational inquiry anti-intellectual?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?



I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

If your church tells you not to concern yourself with any of this, it is all garbage that can be dismissed, will you discard it?

 

[dad]

We know that there was no flood.

Delusional.

Does this make any sense to anyone? Why do you think that we cannot get a good idea of life over the aeons by the fossils left behind?

It was already explained that if man and most animals could not leave remains, the fossil record would be useless almost.

What? Babel existed 200 million years ago? Are you sure of that?

Nothing existed then on earth. Why do you ask?

Actually the fact that you are related to flatworms and bananas (thank you for picking such an appropriate fruit) has everything to do with our discussion.

Your declaration is noted. Touching.

Try to remember your quest here, stop pretending you have evidence when you have none at all. No matter how hopeless it seems, remember.

 

[dad]

dad, I have never insulted scripture. That was your sin. Being realistic is not insulting scripture. Insisting that the obvious myths of the Bible are true insults the Christian God.

Claiming the mother of Jesus did not fulfill prophesy and got pregnant some other way is insulting God.

 

[dad]

...I'm a blasphemer and will continue to be one.

OK.

 

[dad]

When did God say that?
How about bringing him out here so we can ask him?

Jesus verified Scripture is from God and His word. He was here.

It doesn't really matter if you agree. You do not seem to understand the nature of evidence to begin with.

To be clear then, what is your opinion of evidence. or what it is or is not?

Science isn't a person with personal opinions. It's a method and a tool used to glean information about the world around us.

Gleaning stuff from a method based only on beliefs is a tool of those with no sound mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Buttercups”? Do I detect some sarcasm?

Very well, let’s deal with the science end of evolution, which seems to be the course of this dialogue:

“Methodical observation”? Much is based on inference...
Regarding observation, a quote from one of your respected sources:

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

(That is what is ‘observed’.)

— The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

(I could present these quotes forever, that - unwittingly? - reveal the thoughts of Darwinists on their observations that weaken the CD argument, and the disagreements between them. Who should you believe?)

Is there any wonder that some see the need for a New Synthesis?



I’ve never said that, that is a straw man.

I’ve stated, many times, that evolution occurs, even up to within family taxa.

Don’t misrepresent what I say, please.

Did you read this paper? Really? It is not rejecting common descent, but expanding on it and explaining observations based on that expansion. Under this model, we still share a common ancestry with the other apes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is a reason they call Satan the dad of lies.

 

[dad]

Except the scripture is not what is insulted.
It is you who is insulted.
Your sad attempt at transferring your feelings into inanimate objects is a you problem.

Receiving Jesus doe not mean calling His mother a ho.

 

[McBell]

Claiming the mother of Jesus did not fulfill prophesy and got pregnant some other way is insulting God.

And yet you are much more upset over this alleged insult than God...

 

[McBell]

Receiving Jesus doe not mean calling His mother a ho.

Completely irrelevnt to the point at hand.

 

[dad]

He left Christian values behind long ago, if he ever really had them.

He is a belief-based thinker that picked a religion or more likely went with the local choice. From there he has added to it. He is not here because he has some valid objection to scientific conclusions or sees flaws in interpretations. Clearly he does not understand science. He just recognizes that a rational evaluation of the evidence destroys his personal, dogmatic perception of reality and is responding aggressively to defend that crumbled mess. Only he and those like him demand that reality should be rejected in order to believe in God. That is not in the Bible and not a demand for belief.

A rational view of God's word is that it is true. A rational view of the TOE shows it is belief based. A rational view of nominal bible believers is that they actually do not believe the bible.

 

[dad]

And yet you are much more upset over this alleged insult than God...

? You know what God thinks?