[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?[/quote]
You are supposed to find it as fossils in different strata. That is, if you accept that your everyday notion of cause and effect spans across aeons. I could add God as a cause, but I would have to know what I mean by it. What god? You are convinced about the Abrahamic God, and the evidence is in the Bible, take it, as you do, or leave it. Personal revelations help, without a doubt.[/quote]
Using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is the classic example of circular reasoning known as begging the question. You assume that evolution is true, then interpret the fossils thru that lens and then claim that it proves that evolution is true!!
Of course if that reasoning is allowed then you must also accept the following. You assume that YEC is true, then interpret the fossils thru that lens and then claim that it proves that YEC is true!!
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet.
This is fascinating. Of course not in the way you think. This is actually a falsification of the predictions made by evolutionary theory. Not that you’ll see them focus on that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.
[/quote]
This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, and it is a huge one, is THAT type of evolution has NEVER been observed and therefore exits the realm of the scientific method and enters that of mere speculation.
THAT type of evolution requires an increase in genetic information - an implausible scenario, scientifically speaking, that requires…faith.
Only adaptation and limited speciation - without much deviation from the basic “kinds” - qualifies as “scientific.”
This is indisputable and some of the most brilliant minds in the world of evolutionary thought concede this. You would do well not buck the tide or you might find yourself contradicting some of those “serious scientists” you mentioned earlier.[/quote]
Again
[/quote]
More circular reasoning. You are assuming that evolution is the reason for the similarities. You can’t then turn around and claim it as proof of evolution because you have assumed the very thing that you are setting out to prove.
[/quote]
Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.
[/quote]
This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]
What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of taking the time to read links this one was interesting to me and reminded me of the discussion we had on GAL a few months ago when Jewbacca (I think) posted a particularly fascinating theory in that regard. Does anyone here recall what I’m talking about and which thread it was?
Not sure what to make of that post push. I asked you to provide a source you find reputable for common design as I was only getting hits regarding fashion.
What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]
Don’t mean to answer for the Kiwi proponent of creation, but Matty, we ALL believe in the use of the scientific method.
We differ on our fundamental beginning assumptions. Do you not get that?[/quote]
Science is the go to tool for discovering natural phenomena. Religion is just a poor tool for it. It’s like trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer and drive a nail in.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of taking the time to read links this one was interesting to me and reminded me of the discussion we had on GAL a few months ago when Jewbacca (I think) posted a particularly fascinating theory in that regard. Does anyone here recall what I’m talking about and which thread it was?
You’re not reading the links I provide, bud. Did you not plead with me to do such?[/quote]
I did read it, it’s 12 pages, and comes to the conclusion that God did it without providing proper evidence for God.
The references are pretty interesting too:
Journal of Creation 21(2):61â??70 http://creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity
Creation
Sorry push, creation science is not science, and the references for your literature are riddled with them. When you start throwing supernatural entities manipulating the natural world it is no longer science. Nice try.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In regards to the original post about Bill Nye, the Darwinism-is-a-Fact-Dammit guy:
Read my link, Matty. Unless you don’t want to see Bill Nye, the Falsehood Guy’s rant completely dismantled, shredded and thoroughly perforated. [/quote]
Jesus Christ push, did you even read it?
Not true, most of the scientists in the US (95% according to the gallop poll in the link) believe in evolution.
True statement. Example, stem cells. Look at how many people have been unable to get care and progress to be made in this sort of therapy. One word: selfish.
Intelligent design is not science, this has been established by the scientific community.
No one said Carl Sagan is an authority, and at best if Carl Sagan were still alive, he would say something along the lines “I’m an expert in _______, not an authority”
Whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong, intelligent design nor creationism are science because they violate the methodological naturalism axiom of science. That’s not to say the supernatural doesn’t exist, but only that to be science the axiom cannot be violated.