[_ Old Earth _] Evolution does not belong to Darwin

[Bryan]

The ignorance here is starting to hurt me mentally. I feel with so much being posted by fellow evolution supporters that the Creationists would at least try and refute it.

We've seen your type through here before. We've read all of your so called evidence many times. We feel no need to further refute it. Your entire agument has been systematically dismantled enough times that we are content to know we are right and you are wrong.

You're the one who came here to try to make waves, the onus is on you.

 

[Admiral Valdemar]

The ignorance here is starting to hurt me mentally. I feel with so much being posted by fellow evolution supporters that the Creationists would at least try and refute it.

We've seen your type through here before. We've read all of your so called evidence many times. We feel no need to further refute it. Your entire agument has been systematically dismantled enough times that we are content to know we are right and you are wrong.

You're the one who came here to try to make waves, the onus is on you.

I see. So, you'd rather you didn't have evolutionists come here and actually contend with your Creationist doctrine. You'd rather have a hollow victory, knowing full well that you are indeed right because anyone that even attempts to question your "logic" and ideals is a raving idiot just using this funny thing called "evidence" to back his claims up.

And how about you try giving some proof that Creationism is correct? Assume you have (somehow) shown evolution is wrong. Because your mind is stuck in the false dichotomy loop, you automatically assume Creationism is wrong.

Look up the word fallacy in the dictionary. Get back to me when you have done so.

 

[Admiral Valdemar]

Also, I call your bluff, Bryan.

Show me your arguments that have oh so discredited evolutionary theory and I'll back down. You've used them often enough to win such arguments in the past that this is a simple exercise to carry out.

If you cannot, then you're simply talking out of your arse.

Refute our arguments or simply admit you're too ignorant to be discussing such complex issues.

 

[Bryan]

You must be a first year University student. Philosophy 101? What text on Logic are you reading? My personal favorite is Johnson and Blair's "Logical Self-Defense"

In order for me to be making a false dichotomy, I need to be claiming that there is only one conclusion, even though many may exist. I never said that, I only laughed at your conclusion. If anything, evolution is a false dichotomy, because it takes all types of disperate sources of info and forces them all to conform to the predetermined conclusion.

 

[Admiral Valdemar]

You must be a first year University student. Philosophy 101? What text on Logic are you reading? My personal favorite is Johnson and Blair's "Logical Self-Defense"

Second year BSc. (Hons) Biological Sciences. Philosophy is about as useful as an art degree in the real world.

In order for me to be making a false dichotomy, I need to be claiming that there is only one conclusion, even though many may exist. I never said that, I only laughed at your conclusion. If anything, evolution is a false dichotomy, because it takes all types of disperate sources of info and forces them all to conform to the predetermined conclusion.

Evolution is the sum of all the studies done into how we came into being and is tied with other nice little parts of the puzzle like abiogenesis and genetic engineering in some form or the other.

Now, you still haven't answered my first question regarding the whole falseness of evolution which you so flagrantly go on about. Perhaps you aren't a Creationist, perhaps I did jump the gun since this is a Christian board and a Creationist forum, but even so, where do you stand? Because you either believe something akin to evolution with no designer or something where design takes place, hence the two choices (the key choices, Intelligent Design (a misnomer if ever there was one) is simply a rehash of Creationism and should be seen as the first choice updated for the newer generation of gullible fools).

 

[CrimsonTide]

The point still stands Bryan, we have provided evidence in support of evolution throughout this thread You have yet to refute, or even try to refute, any of it, while we have refuted the single creationist article in this thread.

You have three choices. Conceed that you cannot defend your position, Back up your position with a rebuttal and offer an argument of your own, or you can shut up. If you do not have anything to offer to the conversation but logical fallacies and empty rhetoric, dont even bother posting.

 

[JM]

The point still stands Bryan, we have provided evidence in support of evolution throughout this thread You have yet to refute, or even try to refute, any of it, while we have refuted the single creationist article in this thread.

You have three choices. Conceed that you cannot defend your position, Back up your position with a rebuttal and offer an argument of your own, or you can shut up. If you do not have anything to offer to the conversation but logical fallacies and empty rhetoric, dont even bother posting.

You have not proved evolution but simple adaptations. We agree that adaptations can happen...

 

[Bryan]

Second year BSc. (Hons) Biological Sciences. Philosophy is about as useful as an art degree in the real world.

True, maybe even less so!

Now, you still haven't answered my first question regarding the whole falseness of evolution which you so flagrantly go on about. Perhaps you aren't a Creationist, perhaps I did jump the gun since this is a Christian board and a Creationist forum, but even so, where do you stand? Because you either believe something akin to evolution with no designer or something where design takes place, hence the two choices (the key choices, Intelligent Design (a misnomer if ever there was one) is simply a rehash of Creationism and should be seen as the first choice updated for the newer generation of gullible fools).

Again you assume there are only two choices, and that everyone must have made up their mind.

Evolution MAY be true. But it is just a theory that cannot be proven. You all seem to be missing that point. Drawings and bone fragments do not prove that any current animal used to exist in a completely different form millions of years ago. All they prove is that there are a lot of extinct animals. You can theorize that this means, but you cannot claim it as fact because it cannot be observed or verified.

There is no way to even prove that the earth even existed for millions/billions of years, because there is no gold standard to test the various dating methods against. The entirety of recorded verifiable history goes back less than ten thousand years. Faith in the unknowable is paramount to attach any theory that goes back further than that exponentially.

 

[JM]

We should be able to find a ton of fossils in transitory state. We can not. This fact alone should make you question evolution...

 

[CrimsonTide]

We should be able to find a ton of fossils in transitory state. We can not. This fact alone should make you question evolution...

I posted the evolutionary transitionals for whales a couple ages agoe, but you conveniently ignore them.

 

[CrimsonTide]

Evolution MAY be true. But it is just a theory that cannot be proven.

You confuse the scientific definition of the theory with the laymans definition.

In scientific terms, a theory is an explanation regarding the mechanism of an observation.

Here is a brief rundown of the scientific method for those of you who obviosly dont know what it is...
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixE.html
. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The results of multiple interralated tests, can be called a theory. In science, nothing can be "proven" there is always the chance of a theory being falsified thrugh additional experiments.

 

[JM]

We should be able to find a ton of fossils in transitory state. We can not. This fact alone should make you question evolution...

I posted the evolutionary transitionals for whales a couple ages agoe, but you conveniently ignore them.

I did read those posts and looked at the pic’s you posted but you didn’t show evolution. Let me explain a little. You showed a group of pictures and claim they are the same animal without show every transitory link. Science requires prove and you have ‘missed’ many links within the evolutionary scaled. Your proof isn’t there. It can not be found because it doesn't exist. Your pictures show a group of similar looking animals.

A quote from one who believes as you do.

It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds men’s minds. … The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith.

and

evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

 

[CrimsonTide]

There is no way to even prove that the earth even existed for millions/billions of years, because there is no gold standard to test the various dating methods against.

You dont need one. Not when you are dealing with universal constants. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is set.

 

[Bryan]

There is no way to even prove that the earth even existed for millions/billions of years, because there is no gold standard to test the various dating methods against.

You dont need one. Not when you are dealing with universal constants. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is set.

You don't know that. It is an assumption. It simply cannot be proven.

 

[JM]

You dont need one. Not when you are dealing with universal constants. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is set.

WOW, your sooooo smart!

 

[JM]

Evolution is based on faith, I see that now. Thanks guys.

 

[M82A1]

Evolution is based on faith, I see that now. Thanks guys.

And science. :wink:

 

[Admiral Valdemar]

We should be able to find a ton of fossils in transitory state. We can not. This fact alone should make you question evolution...

Likely because we will never have all the fossils due to simple environmental factors like erosion.

The fact of the matter is, you seem to think something is either one thing or the other, not inbetween the two forms.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Eocoelia_big16.gif

That is a transitional form. Archaeopteryx is a transitional form and by the very definition, we're all transitional since evolution has no end goal. Please, name me a species which is not transitional. I think your not accepting what we're showing you is down to a misunderstanding perpetuated by Creationist thinking, much like the ludicrous "evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics" argument.

 

[Admiral Valdemar]

There is no way to even prove that the earth even existed for millions/billions of years, because there is no gold standard to test the various dating methods against.

You dont need one. Not when you are dealing with universal constants. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is set.

You don't know that. It is an assumption. It simply cannot be proven.

Like the speed of light and gravity.

Whoops! There I go, using that stupid logic thing again.

 

[CrimsonTide]

There is no way to even prove that the earth even existed for millions/billions of years, because there is no gold standard to test the various dating methods against.

You dont need one. Not when you are dealing with universal constants. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is set.

You don't know that. It is an assumption. It simply cannot be proven.

That "assumption" fits every observation. Not only that, but if decay rates were not constant, then the properties of all matter would be changed, and life simply could not exist.