[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[lordkalvan]

Did sauropoda evolve into me and you via the zoo - in your creation myth?

As far as I am aware, there is no evolutionary evidence that leads to the conclusion that the Sauropoda are ancestral to the Mammalia. Are you familiar with any such evidence? Also, when you are reduced to sloganeering, I guess that just about says it all about the rigour and quality of the arguments you can deploy.

Repetitive as noted.

But not nearly as significant as your continued evasiveness. You may have registered that others have taken note of this as well, so you may want to reflect on what this indicates.

And yet still no evidence based on a scientific method to prove your boast. Are you at least working on it or is that about it?

I'm going to be repetitive again: provide those requested explanations concerning your prejudged assertions as to what evidence is unacceptable to you and I will provide the best answers I can in terms of evidence that is acceptable to you. Why are you so afraid to provide these explanations, because I can think of nothing other than fear that lies behind your obvious reluctance?

 

[zeke]

I'm going to be repetitive again...

Yes - and that's what you have been reduced to - repetition. And still no evidence based on a scientific method to prove your boasting. You are not working on it - are you? You have no evidence. Typical of Darwinians - fold and walk...

 

[Sparkey]

Let me preface this post with my statement that I do not believe or endorse the conclusions (that all life shares a common ancestor) but do find the discoveries and "proof" or "evidence" to be very powerful especially for those who take the "I'm from Missouri, show me," position. Pretty much, I ignore the introductory commentary and my attention is caught around filemark 052/449, when the video changes to narrator voice.

It is especially interesting to see that the gene for eyes in a mouse also works to produce eyes in flies. Again I don't buy into the "inescapable conclusion" the video talks about but, well... I believe that God is literally pouring out knowledge upon the face of the earth and very much enjoy finding out more and more about His creative genius (understatement) -- there's probably better ways to say it, but you get the idea.

[video=youtube;LFG-aLidT8s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFG-aLidT8s[/video]

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes - and that's what you have been reduced to - repetition. And still no evidence based on a scientific method to prove your boasting. You are not working on it - are you? You have no evidence. Typical of Darwinians - fold and walk...

If you hope to get a rise out of me with these playground tauntings, then you are going to be disappointed. The more you avoid the substance of posts that ask reasonable questions about your understanding, the more it seems that there is very little understanding there at all. Do you imagine no one has noticed?

 

[lordkalvan]

Does the branch of biology known as "morphology" in the life sciences qualify (by your terms and definitions) as evidence? You've asked for evidence that complies with the scientific method, presumably meaning observation, and I wondered if you would rule this entire branch of science out or not.

[EDIT]: I have a class assignment that I need to get ready and attend, pardon me if I drop out and check back later to see your response.

Another question that we seem unlikely to get an answer to. For general information, apart from early snakes exhibiting tiny hind legs (Eupodophis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eupodophis), perhaps the most persuasive evidence that snakes evolved from ancestors with limbs comes from developmental embryology: as embryos snakes have tiny hindlimbs and pelvises that either shrink or vanish:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/fig_tab/399474a0_F3.html

 

[zeke]

If you hope to get a rise out of me with these playground tauntings, then you are going to be disappointed. The more you avoid the substance of posts that ask reasonable questions about your understanding, the more it seems that there is very little understanding there at all. Do you imagine no one has noticed?

You have been reduced to repetition with no evidence based on a scientific method to prove your boasting. But no one is surprised - except you.

 

[lordkalvan]

You have been reduced to repetition with no evidence based on a scientific method to prove your boasting. But no one is surprised - except you.

Maybe you would like to comment on the video Sparrow posted? Can you point out what aspects of it amount to Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, fallacious rhetoric and pseudoscience, and why this might be the case?

 

[zeke]

Maybe you would like to comment on the video Sparrow posted? Can you point out what aspects of it amount to Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, fallacious rhetoric and pseudoscience, and why this might be the case?

Folks - I think you can easily see what happens when Darwinians are restricted from presenting mythology as science and are required to actually present real evidence based on a scientific method. They are reduced to watching chimp movies. If kalvan had any real evidence to present he would have presented it by now. He has run his course and come up empty-handed. It's been fun...

 

[pHghost]

Why should we not accept Darwinism - in your mind?

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm not even saying you should. I'm asking you to observe and consider the facts.

But I have been very clear - where do you remain confused?

I have not, and I am not alone, seen a description from your side, telling us which parts of Darwin's work you agree with, and which parts you don't. That is, for the kind of questions you want us to answer, lack of clarity.

Every time anyone asks you this question, your evasion tactics kick in and you try to shift attention somewhere else, for example by asking a different question yourself.

Provide us with an answer, which should be very straightforward -- I'm only asking for the parts, not an explanation why those specific parts. If you aren't willing to do this, I really doubt you want this discussion to move forward. Is it because you are afraid of what it might reveal. I don't know, but that certainly is the vibe I get from you. You have a chance to prove me wrong -- by the simple act of giving a straightforward answer to this straightforward question.

 

[lordkalvan]

Folks - I think you can easily see what happens when Darwinians are restricted from presenting mythology as science and are required to actually present real evidence based on a scientific method. They are reduced to watching chimp movies. If kalvan had any real evidence to present he would have presented it by now. He has run his course and come up empty-handed. It's been fun...

When you explain what is the difference between Darwinian mythology on the one hand and biological evolution on the other, and what constitutes pseudoscience, bedtime stories and fallacious reasoning (remembering the previously provided definition of what constitutes an explanation), it may be worthwhile presenting evidence that is acceptable to you - but until then the suspicion remains that anything that goes against what appear to be your theologically-derived assumptions will simply be handwaved away and dismissed as 'Darwinian mythology, pseudoscience, fallacious rhetoric and bedtime stories', without any explanation of why this is the case, and that any effort put into this would be simply the equivalent of casting pearls before swine. Let us know when you are prepared to uphold your end of the intellectual responsibility involved in a discussion.

Here's a question that may help advance that discussion. Do you understand that monkey species are evolutionarily related to one another or is it your case that each of the 250+ extant monkey species (plus the several extinct monkey species) is a special creation and shares no evolutionary relationship with any other monkey species? Can you explain your understanding of the evidence that supports your conclusion?

 

[Sparkey]

Maybe you would like to comment on the video Sparrow posted? Can you point out what aspects of it amount to Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, fallacious rhetoric and pseudoscience, and why this might be the case?

LK, would you care to comment? I'm expanding my thinking about evolution but I can't buy the whole concept.

I follow along with the idea that it is exciting to look at embryology and to consider that if evolution happens, it happens here. I can also see that there have been many discoveries including what the video calls the "recipe" for evolution. But they took a "mouse gene" (something that turns on the 'make an eye' switch) and put it into a fly and a fly's compound eye was produced, not the eye of a mouse (which would have been really surprising).

So it seems to me that although we do know more and more (and I imagine that knowledge comes from the various DNA and Genome studies) we still have a lot to learn.

 

[zeke]

Let me preface this post with my statement that I do not believe or endorse the conclusions (that all life shares a common ancestor) but do find the discoveries and "proof" or "evidence" to be very powerful especially for those who take the "I'm from Missouri, show me," position.

Questions for you SH – does your referenced Darwinian clip “assume†naturalism via Darwinian evolution? Does your clip exclude common design out of hand? Do evolutionary scientists (most of whom are atheist/agnostic) ever consider “common design� Do evolutionists whose worldview is “evolutionism†routinely “incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution “? Can the similarities in DNA sequences noted in the propaganda clip support common design as well as it does common ancestry? Is it possible that God could have used successful DNA sequences over and over again in all “created kinds� After watching your clip did you come to the conclusion that naturalistic Darwinism is how life ‘evolved’ on this planet? Be honest.

In the June 2009 Acts & Facts, an article was published by the author that showed how this approach has been used in an attempt to demonstrate an evolutionary relationship between humans and chimpanzees. The article showed that scientists incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution, when in fact the DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms.

In reality, there is a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another. All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms…

The genetic picture that is beginning to emerge is one of incredible networked and regulatory complexity combined with an extremely high level of efficiency in code usage--certainly nothing that could have evolved on its own through chance random evolutionary processes. As is easily seen, trying to use common genes related to common processes as proof of evolution quickly falls apart in light of the bigger genomic picture. In fact, it really speaks of smart coding by the ultimate bio-systems programmer--God Himself... Source​

 

[Sparkey]

You don't seem to be able to understand me or maybe you're just not trying. Convince me that my words are not going to be wasted on your ears before asking more questions. Frankly, I don't like your style and begin to see that replies are a wasted effort. It isn't "my" clip for one. Somebody else posted it on YouTube, not me. Further, I don't pretend to have any expertise in these matters because, as God has said, I was not there when He set the foundations of the world; He has not given me any personal revelations about it.

Your habit of trying to reword statements into questions and then demanding answers is frankly annoying.




My intrepretation of your rhetoric -- You state (in question form) that:

• The clip excludes common design out of hand.
• Evolutionary scientists (most of whom are atheist/agnostic) [don't] ever consider “common design”.
• Evolutionists whose worldview is “evolutionism” routinely “incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution “.
• The similarities in DNA sequences noted in the propaganda clip support common design as well as it does common ancestry.
• It possible that God could have used successful DNA sequences over and over again in all “created kinds”.

You then go on to state (ask?) "After watching your clip did you come to the conclusion that naturalistic Darwinism is how life ‘evolved’ on this planet? Be honest."

My advice: Try speaking in a forthright manner to me if you would indeed like to have a conversation.

 

[zeke]

You don't seem to be able to understand me or maybe you're just not trying.

Oh, I understand you quite well my friend. The propaganda clip presented was 'your clip' in that you introduced it to this forum.

Now in a "forthright manner": Does your referenced Darwinian clip “assume” naturalism via Darwinian evolution? Does your clip exclude common design out of hand? Do evolutionary scientists (most of whom are atheist/agnostic) ever consider “common design”? Do evolutionists whose worldview is “evolutionism” routinely “incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution “? Can the similarities in DNA sequences noted in the propaganda clip support common design as well as it does common ancestry? Is it possible that God could have used successful DNA sequences over and over again in all “created kinds”? After watching your clip did you come to the conclusion that naturalistic Darwinism is how life ‘evolved’ on this planet?

Be honest. ;)

 

[Sparkey]

Repeating your rhetorical questions does nothing to convince that you understand me, in fact, it confirms that you do not.
cf. Prov 16:16, Ez 28:4 and Job 28:28

If knowledge can be compared to silver
If wisdom can be be compared to gold...
What is understanding?

 

[zeke]

Repeating your rhetorical questions does nothing to convince that you understand me, in fact, it confirms that you do not.

As noted - I understand you quite well. Are the questions too hard for you or do you simply not want to go there for the obvious reasons? Call or fold...

 

[lordkalvan]

LK, would you care to comment? I'm expanding my thinking about evolution but I can't buy the whole concept.

I follow along with the idea that it is exciting to look at embryology and to consider that if evolution happens, it happens here. I can also see that there have been many discoveries including what the video calls the "recipe" for evolution. But they took a "mouse gene" (something that turns on the 'make an eye' switch) and put it into a fly and a fly's compound eye was produced, not the eye of a mouse (which would have been really surprising).

So it seems to me that although we do know more and more (and I imagine that knowledge comes from the various DNA and Genome studies) we still have a lot to learn.

I need to review the video again on my desktop computer as the iPad I am using at the moment isn't displaying it. I will comment as soon as I can.

 

[zeke]

I need to review the video again on my desktop computer as the iPad I am using at the moment isn't displaying it. I will comment as soon as I can.

See it you can also find that elusive and yet still missing "real evidence" based on a scientific method to support your boast. It doesn't exist - does it?

 

[lordkalvan]

See it you can also find that elusive and yet still missing "real evidence" based on a scientific method to support your boast. It doesn't exist - does it?

You mean rather like the answers to all those questions you claim to have given, you just won't tell us where?

 

[zeke]

You mean rather like the answers to all those questions you claim to have given, you just won't tell us where?

Is that your latest and final admission that you have no "real evidence" based on a scientific method to support your notion. Very Good. Is that about it?