Challenge/Offer To Bob B...

[JustinFoldsFive]

Hello Bob, how are you doing? Since you always seem intent to point out the supposed "fatal flaws" in evolutionary theory, and endlessly challenge atheists/agnostics (whom you seem to expect to be evolutionary experts, simply by their lack of religious belief) to refute your arguments, why don't you raise your objections to working scientists who have actually worked in the fields of evolutionary biology, archaeology, etc.? If you really would like to raise your objections to the scientific community, I think you might find more of a challenge/informed debate over at www.iidb.org Click on the link, create an account, enter the Evolution/Creation sub-forum, and let the debates and discussions ensue. However, if you would rather raise your objections at a Christian message board, that speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments. Will you accept the offer/challenge, Bob B?

 

[supersport]

Hello Bob, how are you doing? Since you always seem intent to point out the supposed "fatal flaws" in evolutionary theory, and endlessly challenge atheists/agnostics (whom you seem to expect to be evolutionary experts, simply by their lack of religious belief) to refute your arguments, why don't you raise your objections to working scientists who have actually worked in the fields of evolutionary biology, archaeology, etc.? If you really would like to raise your objections to the scientific community, I think you might find more of a challenge/informed debate over at www.iidb.org Click on the link, create an account, enter the Evolution/Creation sub-forum, and let the debates and discussions ensue. However, if you would rather raise your objections at a Christian message board, that speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments. Will you accept the offer/challenge, Bob B?

they'll just curse him out -- then they'll ban him. What's the point?

 

[Evoken]

they'll just curse him out -- then they'll ban him. What's the point?

If he follows the rules of the forum and is respectful in his posts, then he will have no problem. From what I have read of Bob B, I think he is a good person and doesn't engages in ad homiens or flaming when debating.


Valz

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

I agree with Valz, which is why I am encouraging Bob B to present his arguments at IIDB.

 

[bob b]

Hello Bob, how are you doing? Since you always seem intent to point out the supposed "fatal flaws" in evolutionary theory, and endlessly challenge atheists/agnostics (whom you seem to expect to be evolutionary experts, simply by their lack of religious belief) to refute your arguments, why don't you raise your objections to working scientists who have actually worked in the fields of evolutionary biology, archaeology, etc.? If you really would like to raise your objections to the scientific community, I think you might find more of a challenge/informed debate over at www.iidb.org Click on the link, create an account, enter the Evolution/Creation sub-forum, and let the debates and discussions ensue. However, if you would rather raise your objections at a Christian message board, that speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments. Will you accept the offer/challenge, Bob B?

Been there done that (at talk.origins)

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

So you have basically given up on engaging the scientific community in direct debate/discussion?

 

[bob b]

So you have basically given up on engaging the scientific community in direct debate/discussion?

Of course. The scientific community only discusses science with their peers. Others receive only lectures which are expected to be believed.

That is why there have to be discussion forums like this one.

 

[supersport]

Of course. The scientific community only discusses science with their peers. Others receive only lectures which are expected to be believed.

That is why there have to be discussion forums like this one.

The internet will destroy ToE.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

The scientific community only discusses science with their peers.

Actually, there are numerous scientists at IIDB who are willing to discuss scientific issues with anyone and everyone, and they do so on a regular basis. All you need to do is introduce your argument and provide the supporting evidence. Come on, Bob, are your arguments really that weak?

 

[bob b]

Actually, there are numerous scientists at IIDB who are willing to discuss scientific issues with anyone and everyone, and they do so on a regular basis. All you need to do is introduce your argument and provide the supporting evidence. Come on, Bob, are your arguments really that weak?

What arguments did you have in mind?

I presented one argument here that should allow even an untrained person to understand why macroevolution will not work. It is neither proof nor a scientific argument: it is an analogy with languages.

It is simple yet very powerful.

I have presented this analogy to non-scientists who are openminded on the subject of evolution, and some were able to immediately see the point of the analogy and see why it would apply to genes, and thus why it would not be possible to make major transformations but why "small changes around a given theme" might work.

No evolutionist, including some who are professionals "got it".

It wasn't science, it was a concept, so it was never seriously considered. It was rejected for a number of reasons, none of which had anything at all to do with the point of the analogy.

The analogy was presented in a thread called METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL.

Take a look. Then ask what the fate of this would be if it were posted to your suggested forum. I would think it would experience a fate similar to what happened here.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25740

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Bob, you posted your analogy here, at a predominantly Christian forum. And, to be honest, if that is the best argument you can conjure, I can see why you refuse to create an account at IIDB.

P.S. "Small transformations around a given theme" create divergent evolutionary paths, i.e., common descent. As these new individual paths continue to make "small transformations around their given theme", more new individual paths are formed. This process continually repeats, and given enough time, the "end result" of one of the individual paths bears little resemblence to the original organism. Given the incredibly long period of time evolution has taken place on Earth (800 million+ years), it is perfectly reasonable to expect a wide variety of life forms. Well, unless you put stock in ancient Bronze Age mythology...

 

[Jukia]

No guts, no glory bob b. But I suspect he would not be able to stand the criticism provided by those at IIDB. And sooner or later someone there would lose patience with his clear lack of understanding, or more appropriately, his clear lack of desire to understand and unload on him. His feelings would be hurt but he would come back here and report how he won over there anyway. Waste of time for all of us.

 

[BillyBob]

If he follows the rules of the forum and is respectful in his posts, then he will have no problem. From what I have read of Bob B, I think he is a good person and doesn't engages in ad homiens or flaming when debating.


Valz

Bob b is known to resort to false allegations and lies when he is losing a debate, he just does it politely.

 

[Jukia]

Bob b is known to resort to false allegations and lies when he is losing a debate, he just does it politely.

Yes, it is that Christian politeness that does the trick all the time.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Bob b is known to resort to false allegations and lies when he is losing a debate, he just does it politely.

Yep, right on. He's passive aggressive.

 

[JoyfulRook]

Bob b is known to resort to false allegations and lies when he is losing a debate, he just does it politely.

:nono: I"m sorry BillyBob, but since you don't even engage in the Religious side of things, you have no room to talk from personal experience.

 

[bob b]

Justin,

Let me assume for a moment that you actually read the thread, METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL. As you may have concluded, as many on the thread did after a number of false starts, that the analogy was one of language, the English language on one hand and the language of life (DNA) on the other.

Concentrating on the English language analogy (parable) portion for a moment, do you believe that starting with the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, one can get to a different meaningful sentence by a series of steps, each step consisting of changing a single letter but each step restricted to yielding a meaningful intermediate sentence?

Further, considering that in most texts, including the one from which the sentence mentioned was extracted, do not consist of sentences selected and arranged at random, but instead contain information that is intended to be read sequentially in a larger context such as a paragraph, page and chapter, do you believe that the step by step process described above to morph one sentence to another while still maintaining meaning in the overall context of paragraph, page and chapter is at all feasible, regardless of how much time and how many steps would be allocated to the process?

I would appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Concentrating on the English language analogy (parable) portion for a moment, do you believe that starting with the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, one can get to a different meaningful sentence by a series of steps, each step consisting of changing a single letter but each step restricted to yielding a meaningful intermediate sentence?

Your analogy is flawed. Using your analogy, one must know what constitutes a "meaningful sentence" prior to the point at which you change a letter. There is no such prior knowledge requirement when it comes to evolution. With evolutionary theory, the result of the mutation (letter change) is a meaningful intermediate sequence, so long as the organism survives. If the mutation is not beneficial (or even harmful), the organism will die, and will not constitute a meaningful intermediate sequence.

 

[Vern Reed]

Justin,

Let me assume for a moment that you actually read the thread, METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL. As you may have concluded, as many on the thread did after a number of false starts, that the analogy was one of language, the English language on one hand and the language of life (DNA) on the other.

Concentrating on the English language analogy (parable) portion for a moment, do you believe that starting with the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, one can get to a different meaningful sentence by a series of steps, each step consisting of changing a single letter but each step restricted to yielding a meaningful intermediate sentence?

Further, considering that in most texts, including the one from which the sentence mentioned was extracted, do not consist of sentences selected and arranged at random, but instead contain information that is intended to be read sequentially in a larger context such as a paragraph, page and chapter, do you believe that the step by step process described above to morph one sentence to another while still maintaining meaning in the overall context of paragraph, page and chapter is at all feasible, regardless of how much time and how many steps would be allocated to the process?

I would appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.

Bob, he's asking you to go and speak about it to someone else! Stop bringing your stoat up all the time :hammer:

 

[bob b]

Your analogy is flawed. Using your analogy, one must know what constitutes a "meaningful sentence" prior to the point at which you change a letter. There is no such prior knowledge requirement when it comes to evolution. With evolutionary theory, the result of the mutation (letter change) is a meaningful intermediate sequence, so long as the organism survives. If the mutation is not beneficial (or even harmful), the organism will die, and will not constitute a meaningful intermediate sequence.

Note that you did not answer my question. I specifically asked you to concentrate on the English sentence portion of the analogy and forget the analogy itself for a moment.

I would have bet money that you would be incapable of answering the question yes or no.

I am really a very bad person and should be ashamed of myself.

I get such evil delight in the responses from dogmatic evolutionists like yourself to such elementary questions. :banana: