Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 6 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF LIFE - Question 10 - How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged?
6 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 12:40PM #51
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 1, 2012 -- 9:21AM, 57 wrote:


Can you show me instances where information has been gained, that is, become more complex? Added upon several times?


If not  it is you who is lying.




Human beings are arguably more complex and contain more information than the shrew-like mammal that was our distant ancestor. This includes phyisical structures and mental abilities.


Of course, you can always argue that man = small shrewlike mammal, if you like, but all I have to do is go back to an early enough ancestor and your argument clearly falls apart.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 12:43PM #52
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 1, 2012 -- 9:22AM, 57 wrote:


Evolutionism is based upon CIRCULAR reasoning.




Of course it is. It works like this:


Creationist defines 'evolutionism' as a rhetorical straw man, designed to be incorrect and easily attacked, and therefore obviously wrong.


Creationist points to 'evolutionism' and says that it doesn't make sense because it is incorrect and easily attacked, and obviously wrong.




"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 9:02PM #53
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Apr 1, 2012 -- 9:22AM, 57 wrote:

Evolutionism is based upon CIRCULAR reasoning.


So the compelling and overwhelming empirical evidence confirming evolution science drives you in circles of rage.  Yes, I do belief that is so.  A bit of education if you are open to new information would go a long to untwist your brain.  I seriously doubt you would entertain any notion.  You're quite happy with an uninformed science rage. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 1:23AM #54
iamachildofhis
Posts: 11,927

Apr 1, 2012 -- 8:31AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:



iama: ......What scientists garner, today, as scientific facts, are not long-ages-historical facts, because those highly desired facts, are NOT available to scientists, today.....


Sparky_Spotty: So you realize Iama, that then, according to your logic, 'creation' is also speculation since no one has actually witnessed it.



iama: Yes!  You are correct!


I have posted that fact several times. 


Both the evolution and creation paradigms are speculations, and are not science based, because they can't be tested via the scientific method of investigation.


But both can be engaged in scientific research on what does, currently, exist.


So, which paradigm best fits the scientifically gathered data?


.

http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=N0RDR6y_QBc

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 1:26AM #55
iamachildofhis
Posts: 11,927

Apr 1, 2012 -- 5:24AM, d_p_m wrote:



iama: So, what evolution-presuppositioned scientist do is, based upon their legitimately garnered science facts, speculate, as d_p_m has (let the cat out of the bag, so to speak), entered into a "logical reasoning from facts"-speculation, which, if you read their journals, are stated such that all the evolutionists, posting here, believe that there are "scientifically garnered facts" evidencing evolution.  In reality each and every statement is a leap / a speculation, un-evidenced according to the scientific method of investigation / there are no evidenced-observations!


Take a trip through a biology journal some time and realize for yourself how you have been deceived.


d_p_m: Speculation and reasoning from known facts are two entirely different processes. That you cannot tell them apart is symptomatic of the difficulty that creationists seem to have with science, where every part of the process is misunderstood and mishandled by creationist who do not understand science; it seems that they do not want to.


An example: I have mentioned before the problem that creatioists have with uniformitarian issues. Somehow, they manage to consistently and without fail, apply uniformitarian assumptions to non uniform processes, and non-uniformitarian assumptions to uniform processes. Even randomly flipping a coin to choose and approach would be much better at getting it right than these folks.


It's like they've trained themselves to fail, because successful analysis of scientific issues will give them answers they don't want to know about.


Similarly, they confuse basic scientific definitions, all the time, and seem incapable of learning the correct ones.



iama: With that barrage of statements, are you speculating, or do you have scientifically gathered data to back up your statements?


Or, did you just let loose and vent  your spleen?


.

http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=N0RDR6y_QBc

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 1:27AM #56
steven_guy
Posts: 11,879

Apr 2, 2012 -- 1:23AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Apr 1, 2012 -- 8:31AM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:



iama: ......What scientists garner, today, as scientific facts, are not long-ages-historical facts, because those highly desired facts, are NOT available to scientists, today.....


Sparky_Spotty: So you realize Iama, that then, according to your logic, 'creation' is also speculation since no one has actually witnessed it.



iama: Yes!  You are correct!


I have posted that fact several times. 


Both the evolution and creation paradigms are speculations, and are not science based, because they can't be tested via the scientific method of investigation.


But both can be engaged in scientific research on what does, currently, exist.


So, which paradigm best fits the scientifically gathered data?


.




Evolution is based on science. Creationism is based on nothing.




Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 3:33AM #57
iamachildofhis
Posts: 11,927

Apr 2, 2012 -- 1:27AM, steven_guy wrote:



iama: ......What scientists garner, today, as scientific facts, are not long-ages-historical facts, because those highly desired facts, are NOT available to scientists, today.....


Sparky_Spotty: So you realize Iama, that then, according to your logic, 'creation' is also speculation since no one has actually witnessed it.


iama: Yes!  You are correct!


I have posted that fact several times. 


Both the evolution and creation paradigms are speculations, and are not science based, because they can't be tested via the scientific method of investigation.


But both can be engaged in scientific research on what does, currently, exist.


So, which paradigm best fits the scientifically gathered data?


steven_guy: Evolution is based on science. Creationism is based on nothing.



iama: Good morning, steven_guy!  It is morning, here, too - after midnight, that is - so I shouldn't still be up.


Biology, excluding the evolution speculation, is science - Yes!


Biology, excluding the evolution speculation, is science - Yes - and that biology belongs to the Creation paradigm, too, because biology, excluding the evolution speculation, is the human activity of discovering what our Creator-God created regarding all life-forms.


The Creation is beyond the reach of human scientists - Yes! But Creation Science is on par with all other legitimate sciences, because Creation Science is, like in biology, the human activity of discovering what our Creator-God created regarding Space, Time, Matter - all that was created "In the beginning God created..."


I thoroughly reading Oncomintrain's linked-to article on the domestication of wild foxes.  That human activity was science investigation according to the scientific method of investigation.  The human beings who conducted that experiment could have been Creation Scientists taking their speculations regarding the domestication of wolves to dogs. They devised an experiment to test their hypothesis and 40 years later they are reporting their observations.  Did you note that they would like to test to understand further questions that they have?


You came on to Beliefnet looking for answers - legitimate answers - and you are still seeking those answers, but you have sided in with the ones who don't have the answers, and have taken up their mantra and derision. 


The Creation as per The Bible is a historical reality, and the books of The Bible which follow Genesis gradually reveal the most wonderful LOVE story which can ever be told. 


.

http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=N0RDR6y_QBc

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 12:40PM #58
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 2, 2012 -- 1:26AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Apr 1, 2012 -- 5:24AM, d_p_m wrote:

iama: So, what evolution-presuppositioned scientist do is, based upon their legitimately garnered science facts, speculate, as d_p_m has (let the cat out of the bag, so to speak), entered into a "logical reasoning from facts"-speculation, which, if you read their journals, are stated such that all the evolutionists, posting here, believe that there are "scientifically garnered facts" evidencing evolution.  In reality each and every statement is a leap / a speculation, un-evidenced according to the scientific method of investigation / there are no evidenced-observations!


Take a trip through a biology journal some time and realize for yourself how you have been deceived.


d_p_m: Speculation and reasoning from known facts are two entirely different processes. That you cannot tell them apart is symptomatic of the difficulty that creationists seem to have with science, where every part of the process is misunderstood and mishandled by creationist who do not understand science; it seems that they do not want to.


An example: I have mentioned before the problem that creatioists have with uniformitarian issues. Somehow, they manage to consistently and without fail, apply uniformitarian assumptions to non uniform processes, and non-uniformitarian assumptions to uniform processes. Even randomly flipping a coin to choose and approach would be much better at getting it right than these folks.


It's like they've trained themselves to fail, because successful analysis of scientific issues will give them answers they don't want to know about.


Similarly, they confuse basic scientific definitions, all the time, and seem incapable of learning the correct ones.



iama: With that barrage of statements, are you speculating, or do you have scientifically gathered data to back up your statements?


Or, did you just let loose and vent  your spleen?




Those are scientific observations.


I've actually studied the fuzzier, softer sciences as well - psychology, sociology, anthropology, which is where this sort of observation belongs. Indeed, my 'qualifications equivalent to a degree course for which I could not actually get a second degree' lie in that realm (my granted degree being in the 'hard' sciences).




"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 1:21PM #59
Ken
Posts: 33,858

Apr 2, 2012 -- 3:33AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Apr 2, 2012 -- 1:27AM, steven_guy wrote:

Evolution is based on science. Creationism is based on nothing.



Biology, excluding the evolution speculation, is science - Yes!


Biology, excluding the evolution speculation, is science - Yes - and that biology belongs to the Creation paradigm, too, because biology, excluding the evolution speculation, is the human activity of discovering what our Creator-God created regarding all life-forms.


The Creation is beyond the reach of human scientists - Yes! But Creation Science is on par with all other legitimate sciences, because Creation Science is, like in biology, the human activity of discovering what our Creator-God created regarding Space, Time, Matter - all that was created "In the beginning God created..."


Then why aren't there any first-rate biologists working in "creation science" and why don't "creation scientists" engage in actual research?


Apr 2, 2012 -- 3:33AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

You came on to Beliefnet looking for answers - legitimate answers - and you are still seeking those answers, but you have sided in with the ones who don't have the answers, and have taken up their mantra and derision.



Where did you get the odd idea that Steven came to Beliefnet looking for answers? If one is looking for answers in the natural sciences, one attends institutions of higher learning and reads books and papers by qualified experts. One does not waste one's time with the pseudo-scientific fantasies of flatearthers, geocentrists, young-earth creationists, Velikovskyists, and the proponents of Hans Hörbiger's World Ice theory.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 1:44PM #60
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 2, 2012 -- 3:33AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


You came on to Beliefnet looking for answers - legitimate answers - and you are still seeking those answers, but you have sided in with the ones who don't have the answers, and have taken up their mantra and derision.




I am reasonably sure that I know why Steven is here, and it is not to 'look for answers' but rather to help people who are confused and ignorant about science, history, and evolution... and he's doing a fine job. We still see unfortunate people here who don't want to be helped, don't want to learn, don't want to critically examine the issues and embrace logic and reality.


Still, Steven, OncominTrain, Ken, Amcolph, F1Fan, Blu, MMarcoe, Wohali, Slipnish, Midutch, rsielin, Sigmund, Abner1, Ozero, EarthScientist, udcstb, mcatheist, sparky_spotty, namchuck, mysticwanderer, and too many others to mention, keep trying to help people to understand the reality of our world, rather than blindly following the literal translation of old tribal myths.


Really, collectively, they form a tremendous resource of knowledge and experience. If you ask them for suggestions for books and sites where you can learn about the real theory of evolution and the mountains of evidence for it, I'm sure many of them will point you in the right direction. Some of them are educated and interested laymen (like myself, the equivalent of two undergraduate science degrees and working in a rigorously technical but non-scientific field does not make me a scientist), and some of them are actual working scientists. You could learn a lot from them - I have.




"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook