[quote]pushharder wrote:
I warned you, Will R… The lights flashed and the alarm sounded.
"The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism – often expressed in Ernst Haeckel’s phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"â??is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.”
[/quote]
What does recapitulation theory have to do with anything? The only tenuous connection I can see is mention of the biologist Haeckel. This has got nothing to do with recapitulation theory.
Ah, no I never mentioned “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” nor does the author. That’s a strawman. Read the rest of your Wikipedia article:
The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct. However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures.
“Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce - an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development.”
The fact that you ascribe this stuff to religion itself betrays a complete incomprehension of the history of man. ALL civilisations massacred each other CONTINUALLY and INCESSANTLY. It has nothing to do with the nature of religion and everything to do with the nature of man. Man is essentially evil. It doesn’t matter if he’s killing in the name of religion or political ideology - that’s just pretence. He kills because he is evil. History is the history of conflict. The brief post-war respite that the Western world has enjoyed under the Pax Americana is an ANOMALY.
[/quote]
Yep.
The problem for you, SM, is you have to now acknowledge that evolved primates (men) are capable of “evil.” There’s no such thing as evil if we are no more than animals.
You have now “painted yourself into a corner,” my friend.
[/quote]
Where did I say men are just animals? I said nothing of the sort. You’re also missing the point that, just because I say such and such is observable doesn’t mean I’m saying such and such is a full and accurate representation of reality.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…I don’t have “faith” in science.
Faith has no place in science just as science has no place in faith.
[/quote]
If you firmly believe this you need to get dafuck outta the faith in presuppositions and unobservable events bizness. This will necessitate some backtracking on your part which may cause a blow to your ego.
We’ll see which one wins, your ego or your intellectual honesty.
I’ll be right here waiting.
[/quote]
I’m not relying on faith in unobservable scientific phenomenon at all. We just disagree on what is observable.
If “the animal kingdom” had a history, it would be of conflict. We are not unique in that respect. But we don’t call the two bucks fighting over a doe ‘EVIL’, do we? How about two rams colliding? How about elephant seals maiming each other? ALL animals compete for resources… That’s not “evil”. So why is it “evil” when humans do it? Because we “know better”? LMAO That is obviously not the case.
[/quote]
Animals don’t behave like men. You don’t see spite, malice, revenge etc. from animals. It’s a nonsense comparison.
You’ve yet to produce for your position what you’ve incessantly demanded from your opponents.
[/quote]
No, you have not. You have demanded proof. If, on the other hand, you will accept, as I requested, evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind – simple reason to subscribe – then you will have it tomorrow.[/quote]
What a completely disingenuous statement. Your seemingly innocuous phrase, “evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind,” predetermines that if anyone rejects your purported evidence they aren’t unbiased and reasonable.
So no one can disagree with anything you put up.
Get outta here.[/quote]
I used those terms because they have been central to my challenge throughout the entirety of this debate and, in case you somehow did not understand this, I was posting in such a way as to demand that your challenge be parallel to mine. Is it, or is it not? Or do you really think that we should not have reasonable minds in our sights when we present our evidence (I admit that this would serve your position and tactics well). Note that I’m asking you a yes or no answer. No gimmicky evasion tactics are required. Are you, or are you not requesting of me exactly what I’ve been requesting of you all this time?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I warned you, Will R… The lights flashed and the alarm sounded.
"The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism – often expressed in Ernst Haeckel’s phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.”
[/quote]
What does recapitulation theory have to do with anything? The only tenuous connection I can see is mention of the biologist Haeckel. This has got nothing to do with recapitulation theory.
Ah, no I never mentioned “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” nor does the author. That’s a strawman. Read the rest of your Wikipedia article:
The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct. However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures.
“Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce - an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development.”[/quote]
You’ve done it (and this is exactly the process that I came into this thread with a mind to try out, which I did with cwill’s quotation of Futuyma):
You made a claim
Push appealed to an authority in refutation of that claim
You explored Push’s authority and discovered that lo! it describes the Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory as defunct but concludes its discussion of evolution with a paragraph the first sentence of which is: “Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed.”
[Because everything in this debate seems to be said 2 or three times, I repeat: Embryos do reflect the course of evolution…according to an authority to which Push appealed.]
Now, Push has two choices, both of which entail his defeat: He can accept his own authority’s testimony and lose, or he can attack his own authority’s testimony, thereby impugning its credibility and his own argument – which, you will remember, began with an appeal to the very authority now threatening to maim him – along with it.
So he can sit down and admit defeat, or he can chew his own legs off. The fascinating thing, which I’ve only come to realize lately, is that just about every creationist argument ends exactly here, in a logical Gordian knot into which they tie themselves. Now witness Push move to execute the Alexandrian solution by sawing his own argument in half.
Is the fact that the emergence of one “kind”–I don’t want to say “species,” because I believe that bears(e.g. Brown and Polar) that are obviously the same kind/species/whatever have been classified(by humans) as different species–from another has never been observed not “any reason” to doubt the belief that Earth was once inhabited by only single-celled organisms that have, by random chance, evolved to become humans, bears, and elephants? That is the only type of evidence that can be presented in favor of creationism. I have no idea how one would present something that could be classified as material evidence of creation.
[/quote]
No.
It is not about what has been “observed.” A child of 5 or 6 could be made to understand that a process thought to encompass millions of years cannot have been observed in the time since its development less than two centuries ago. The more you talk about observation, the more you sink. If, on the other hand, you mean that “there is no fossil evidence of”–note that evidence is not proof–then you are simply wrong, and you are a single search away from the materials of your edification. (Have you ever explored a scientific journal? I am sincerely asking: have you ever read a scientific paper, a real one and a current one, on a subject of evolutionary concern, or have you only approached this through ansersingenesis?).
Even if you were right, it would have nothing to do with Gen 2:7. That is the worldview in competition here – that is Push’s parallel to evolution. No alleged or perceived weakness in the evolutionist’s armor stands as specific and direct evidence of Gen 2:7 (the part with the god and the mud and the breathing), and even if evolution were disproved unequivocally on this very day, the default position would be “we have no idea whence we came,” not “well then it must be the guy blowing on the mud.” The latter hypothesis is a claim, a highly specific claim, and it requires commensurately specific evidence. It is to be entirely ignored until its proponents come up with a single shred of a reason that it might, in its particulars, be plausible.
An illustrative analogy: All the cookies have been eaten despite the fact that nobody was home all day. I say that the cookies were eaten slowly by ants; you say that a hirsute goblin climbed down the chimney and abstracted them from the cookie jar. Say we somehow disprove my theory. Do you think, in any possible universe, that your goblin theory has now suddenly been evidenced?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
2. Even if you were right, it would have nothing to do with Gen 2:7. That is the worldview in competition here – that is Push’s parallel to evolution. No alleged or perceived weakness in the evolutionist’s armor stands as specific and direct evidence of Gen 2:7 (the part with the god and the mud and the breathing), and even if evolution were disproved unequivocally on this very day, the default position would be “we have no idea whence we came,” not “well then it must be the guy blowing on the mud.”
[/quote]
Only a faithful fool would believe this. You, my young friend, are a faithful fool.
Even your simplistic denigration, “well then it must be the guy blowing on the mud,” betrays your antipathy for submitting yourself to your Creator at any and all costs.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
Bookmark this discussion somewhere and somehow so that 30 - 50 years from now you can revisit it and be reminded of where your hubris took you in this life. And the next. I strongly encourage you to do this. If you’re brave enough.[/quote]
You still haven’t provided any evidence. You keep saying things that just seem empty.
You’ve yet to produce for your position what you’ve incessantly demanded from your opponents.
[/quote]
No, you have not. You have demanded proof. If, on the other hand, you will accept, as I requested, evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind – simple reason to subscribe – then you will have it tomorrow.[/quote]
What a completely disingenuous statement. Your seemingly innocuous phrase, “evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind,” predetermines that if anyone rejects your purported evidence they aren’t unbiased and reasonable.
So no one can disagree with anything you put up.
Get outta here.[/quote]
I used those terms because that has been central to the challenge throughout this whole debate and, in case you somehow did not understand this, I was posting in such a way as to demand that your challenge be parallel to mine. Is it, or is it not? Or do you really think that we should not have reasonable minds in our sights when we present our evidence (I admit that this would serve your position and tactics well). Note that I’m asking you a yes or no answer. No gimmicky evasion tactics are required. Are you, or are you not requesting of me exactly what I’ve been requesting of you all this time?[/quote]
Put up or shut up.
You simply won’t do yourself what you’ve demanded from others.
This is the last time I’m going back and forth with you on this.[/quote]
And as I said, I am happy to – if you acknowledge that I am endeavoring to provide what I have asked of others and not something else. Do you, or do you not?