toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Alate_One]

No. I said they desire the same things as everyone else. To wit, the pursuit of money and/or power and/or fame. The scope of money/power/fame was never mentioned. But since your logic mechanism seems to be busted, let me fix your statement based on what I said and see if you can follow it to the conclusion: "Wait, wait . . . you think *scientists and everyone else* is rich, powerful and famous?"

My statement still stands. They get neither money, power nor riches from supporting evolution. Actually, scientists could probably get far more personal gain by supporting creationists. There's almost no end of donors that would love to pay a "turncoat" scientist.

The "follow the money" adage simply does not work in this situation.

 

[nicholsmom]

I understand that; i just dont understand how anyone thinks it is reasonable.

Its like if we had no words that Reagan actually said, or Kennedy; just remembered the spirit of it, and tried to reconstruct it years later.

nobody wrote that stuff down as it was spoken by Jesus!

Why do you think that? Have you ever heard of Q? The existence of a common book of the sayings of Jesus is the most likely explanation for the duplication of the wording when quoting Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In addition to this, we have the fact that the gospels were all written and "published" while there were hundreds of witnesses to the teachings of Christ still living who could and would have denounced incorrect accountings of those teachings. Plus we have much of what Christ talked about were the Scriptures (OT prophets, etc) and explaining what those Scriptures really meant deep down in the spirit of the message - dividing the letter of the law from its spirit. Having those Scriptures already written out and near at hand, they could easily be reminded of Christs words concerning those Scriptures.

Add to all of this the stuff that you would find incredible - the guiding of the Holy Spirit who recalled to their minds the exact words of Christ, God's ability to preserve His Word without corruption, and the fact of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in each and every Christian, so that we recognize the words of the Son as True.

With all of that, and loads more, in favor of the reliability of the faithful recording of the words of Jesus, it is totally reasonable and rational to believe those words as recorded.

 

[nicholsmom]

A list of moldy pratts is all you have there. it would be news of the first magnitude if any of those happened to be true.

As for your unjust and uncalled for insult to my intellectual integrity, shame on you.

Awww... I'm disappointed on two fronts here:
1) I want to see counter evidence for at least a few of these, and
2) Disrespect shown to that man who A, hosts this party, and B is engaging you in a respectful tone and with rational questions.

Ok, that last one is more dismay than disappointment bc you tend toward rudeness on this subject (except, it would seem, when discussing it with me...).

 

[Stripe]

The "explanation" is incorrect in many places. I chose one as an example.

You've never taken any time to appreciate the explanation and your one example was incomplete, but presented as if that was all there was. You are ever deceitful when it comes to discussing these matters.

Oh yes you "follow" that guy that you posted the videos from? The one that thinks DNA magically changes itself and comes pre-programmed to change itself for every possible situation? That "evolutionist"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Regardless, I read the blog of an evolutionist who has an idea that I find quite intriguing. His work is a little difficult to appreciate, but the implications of it seem terminal to several oft-cited evolutionary ideas.

Stripe, get a mirror out, look in it think about what you are saying here and then wonder if it applies to you.

Engage in the discussion, Alate. Take some time to appreciate the arguments against you and address them honestly. You do not do this.

I can make predictions and test them using available evidence. You do no tests at all, you just believe whatever Walt Brown says no matter what the evidence tells you OR what the Bible actually says. His "liquefaction" crap can be tested on a small scale very easily. Why haven't you done that test?

I have. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

:idunno: What do you think is the single strongest argument against evolution?

Take an original painting that you like, copy it 10 times. Choose the best copy and copy that 10 times. Repeat a million times and the final product will be a gray haze.

Errors only ever degrade information. That is the strongest argument against evolution.

 

[nicholsmom]

Regarding whether it is a "proper" theory, or falsifiable, it is considered by the world scientific community as one of the great unifying theories in science, and is accepted by virtually the entire educated population of the world as such.

See, this sort of argument is one that I've heard from kids wanting to go to a big party or wear immodest clothing - "everyone else is going!" or "everybody wears this - you don't want me to look like a moron do you?" Meh. Geocentricity, spontaneous generation, and mercury and "bleeding" in medicine are only a few scientific consensuses that have bitten the dust after generations of solid support from the scientific community.

How would you explain that you know so much more than people who dedicate their lives to science?

Sometimes distance gives perspective.

 

[Alate_One]

You've never taken any time to appreciate the explanation and your one example was incomplete, but presented as if that was all there was. You are ever deceitful when it comes to discussing these matters.

I've spent more than enough time looking at it. Liquefaction does not explain fossil organization, period.

Regardless, I read the blog of an evolutionist who has an idea that I find quite intriguing. His work is a little difficult to appreciate, but the implications of it seem terminal to several oft-cited evolutionary ideas.

Okay . . .link said blog then.

I have. :idunno:

You have? Other than in your head? Where's the paper? Where's the video that documents what you did?

 

[nicholsmom]

Welcome. I wonder what I said about radiometric dating that you dont agree.... I didnt say much.

Radiometric dating relies on certain assumptions, like all measuring instruments. I wonder if deep time went the way of geocentricity, wouldn't we first check on those assumptions before ditching atomic theory? It seems like that would be the first step rather than tossing out the baby with the bath water. Don't you think so?

 

[Alate_One]

Meh. Geocentricity, spontaneous generation, and mercury and "bleeding" in medicine are only a few scientific consensuses that have bitten the dust after generations of solid support from the scientific community.

Oh please. Most of these had no actual *science* to support them and they are quite far back in time. Name us a scientific theory from the past 200 years that was completely thrown out.

 

[The Barbarian]

Take an original painting that you like, copy it 10 times. Choose the best copy and copy that 10 times. Repeat a million times and the final product will be a gray haze.

Errors only ever degrade information. That is the strongest argument against evolution.

Let's test that assumption.

Take fifty pennies and put them in a row, without looking at the side that's up. Then take down the order of heads and tails. Then flip each one of them, with these rules:

If the penny number is 1-25, and it comes up heads, don't change what is was originally. If it comes up tails, leave it tails.

If the penny number is 26-50, and it comes up tails, don't change what it was originally. If it comes up heads, leave it heads.

Do another check and record the distribution of heads and tails.

Repeat.

Surprise.

 

[nicholsmom]

What would be your explanation for why only a few creationists seem aware of this, and the world scientific community considers this stuff to be a groaner?

Why hasnt someone gotten a nobel and become the greatest scientist of all time with these amazing revelations?

Revolutionary ideas that challenge prevailing science are very often seen as groaners by the scientific community at large, aren't they? I mean, look at how hard a handful of scientists had to work to overcome spontaneous generation before it gained support even in the scientific community. They actually had to develop a model for scientific method to prove their point.

Now consider a new revolution wherein the supernatural is no longer dismissed as the microscopic once was dismissed... :think:

 

[Stripe]

I've spent more than enough time looking at it. Liquefaction does not explain fossil organization, period.

You're a liar. You've done nothing more than glance at the material.

Let's test that assumption.

What assumption? It's a fact.

Take fifty pennies and put them in a row, without looking at the side that's up. Then take down the order of heads and tails. Then flip each one of them, with these rules: If the penny number is 1-25, and it comes up heads, don't change what is was originally. If it comes up tails, leave it tails. If the penny number is 26-50, and it comes up tails, don't change what it was originally. If it comes up heads, leave it heads. Do another check and record the distribution of heads and tails. Repeat. Surprise.

:rotfl:

 

[nicholsmom]

Oh please. Most of these had no actual *science* to support them and they are quite far back in time. Name us a scientific theory from the past 200 years that was completely thrown out.

We've done this before Alate. Spontaneous generation was the consensus until the mid 1800s - so that's less than 200 years. Caloric theory comes to mind. How about a more contemporary one: Thimerosal in vaccines causes or triggers Autism. In spite of several peer-reviewed studies to show no causal link, many, including doctors, still believe that there is a link. Perhaps more vigorous study will prove that one out.

How about Freudian phychotherapy (everything is sexual...)?

Consider this, Alate, every time we have a scientific break-through, we are debunking earlier theories - okay, not every time, but much of the time.

 

[Alate_One]

We've done this before Alate. Spontaneous generation was the consensus until the mid 1800s - so that's less than 200 years.

200 years ago was really the great "flowering" of scientific knowledge. The last vestiges of unscientific ancient ideas were overturned then. Spontaneous generation and geocentrism were ancient greek ideas, not ideas that were scientifically tested. Spontaneous generation had already been undermined back in 1668 by Francesco Redi. Yes we have done this before, and I still find it ridiculous that you think ancient ideas that were never scientifically tested are equivalent to modern evolutionary theory which is rigorously tested constantly.

Caloric theory comes to mind.

Caloric theory was never "overturned" in a sense, kinetic theory is simply a clearer more accurate explanation.

How about a more contemporary one: Thimerosal in vaccines causes or triggers Autism. In spite of several peer-reviewed studies to show no causal link, many, including doctors, still believe that there is a link. Perhaps more vigorous study will prove that one out.

. . . .this is absolutely FALSE and it was NEVER a scientific consensus!!!

There was one paper that was fraudulent. The researcher in charge simply made up data. The fact that PEOPLE still believe vaccinations cause autism isn't the fault of the science. People believe all sorts of things that do not reflect scientific knowledge like . . . believing the earth is 6000 years old.

How about Freudian phychotherapy (everything is sexual...)?

That ain't science and it sure as heck was never a consensus.

Consider this, Alate, every time we have a scientific break-through, we are debunking earlier theories - okay, not every time, but much of the time.

No we are never debunking earlier theories. Give me something actually *recent* that was overturned if you think scientific breakthroughs are overturning theories.

 

[Alate_One]

Just to be clear, nm scientific THEORIES in biology (other than evolution) include:

Germ Theory of disease

Cell Theory

Gene Theory

Theory of Heredity

Look at the rest of the list, which one has been overturned recently?

 

[Alate_One]

You're a liar. You've done nothing more than glance at the material.

It doesn't take much looking to figure out it is ridiculous.

You claimed to have tested it. Where's your experimental design? Where is your data?

I'm tempted to test it myself just to show how stupid it is.

1. Get a container with a mixture of soil, sand rocks etc.
2. Fill the container with water (could put a hose spurting up from the bottom for added "realism").
3. Add varying types of dead animals (fish, bird, mammal etc.)
4. Shake violently
5. See if the soil and/or animals sort in any pattern

 

[Stripe]

It doesn't take much looking to figure out it is ridiculous.

See what I mean? You've no interest in honest appraisal and no interest in investigation. You're a liar. And you're no scientist.

I'm tempted to test it myself just to show how stupid it is.

All you'll show is how stupid you are.

1. Get a container with a mixture of soil, sand rocks etc. 2. Fill the container with water (could put a hose spurting up from the bottom for added "realism"). 3. Add varying types of dead animals (fish, bird, mammal etc.) 4. Shake violently 5. See if the soil and/or animals sort in any pattern

See? You have zero understanding of what is proposed and rely upon a cartoon version you've made up. Is there one honest bone in your body?

 

[Alate_One]

See? You have zero understanding of what is proposed and rely upon a cartoon version you've made up. Is there one honest bone in your body?

Okay then YOU tell me how to design the experiment, if I'm so wrong.

 

[Stripe]

Okay then YOU tell me how to design the experiment, if I'm so wrong.

Or how about you show some integrity, do what you said you had, read the literature you've been pointed to and present accurately and honestly the ideas offered with any reasonable challenges.

Quit being a liar for evolution.

 

[No Sheep Here]

The ignorance in this thread is depressing

Voltaire makes a mockery of his name and should change it ASAP. Stripe is a hopeless arrogant fundamentalist goon who has problems with reality and admitting when he is wrong. Avatar is just a str8 idiot. Csuguy admits he hasn’t really read up in detail on TOE, and then asserts that it is not a proper scientific theory. I don't see why anyone is even taking Nicholsmom serious enough to reply to her silly posts. I was reading through an old thread and discovered a post where she ignorantly said that A.D. stands for After Death. lain: Traditio says that it's not hard to see how things change over time. He appeared to be defending evolution, but then he makes another post just to make it clear to all that he is another creationist goon, just in case we had him confused with a thinking man. Oh yea, and Lighthouse is a dishonest idiot.