Total Posts:218|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creation vs. Evolutionism

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 2:16:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The last word for word copy of "Dr" Kent Hovind I've heard of was Venom on YouTube; it's been a long time! :D

In any case, if we haven't observed elements been changed, explain nuclear fusion, please. I explain it using this (if you want an Internet source):

http://www-pub.iaea.org...

Also, since we're talking about terminology, where did you get yours from? Sounds like you've just made it up! If it's from Kent, where did he get it from? He just made it up, too? Lol.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 2:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.

true but does the intelligence that created life on earth have to be godly
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 2:46:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 1:27:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yawn. Stick to braking legs. You're no good at this "thinking" stuff.

No thinking needed to realize that a fish isn't going to become a horse someday. Remember, we're talking about evolutionism here, rational thought seems out of place. All one needs is imagination, and you guys definitely have plenty of that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:06:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 2:16:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
The last word for word copy of "Dr" Kent Hovind I've heard of was Venom on YouTube; it's been a long time! :D

In any case, if we haven't observed elements been changed, explain nuclear fusion, please. I explain it using this (if you want an Internet source):

http://www-pub.iaea.org...

Also, since we're talking about terminology, where did you get yours from? Sounds like you've just made it up! If it's from Kent, where did he get it from? He just made it up, too? Lol.

Haters gonna hate. Yeah I'm a fan of Hovind so if you're just gonna be hatin', instead of refuting his arguments, then just go back to your members-only thread. You wiki geniuses wouldn't make a good pimple on one of Hovind's butt cheeks so all you do is talk smack.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:14:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 3:06:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:16:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
The last word for word copy of "Dr" Kent Hovind I've heard of was Venom on YouTube; it's been a long time! :D

In any case, if we haven't observed elements been changed, explain nuclear fusion, please. I explain it using this (if you want an Internet source):

http://www-pub.iaea.org...

Also, since we're talking about terminology, where did you get yours from? Sounds like you've just made it up! If it's from Kent, where did he get it from? He just made it up, too? Lol.

Haters gonna hate. Yeah I'm a fan of Hovind so if you're just gonna be hatin', instead of refuting his arguments, then just go back to your members-only thread. You wiki geniuses wouldn't make a good pimple on one of Hovind's butt cheeks so all you do is talk smack.

Hey man, I'm not trying to start something here. But please answer the questions, don't evade. Play the game!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 2:33:30 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.

true but does the intelligence that created life on earth have to be godly

Earth could have been seeded by extra-terrestrial life, but that just pushes the question back one step. How did that life originate?? In order to avoid an infinite regress in a finite universe, at some point we have to say that there is an uncaused cause, that is outside the bounds of time and space.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

How many types of birds are there? It's impossible to demonstrate macroevolution unless this question can be answered.

How is "type" different from "kind" as defined as "species existing at the time of creation?"
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:25:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 3:20:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:33:30 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.

true but does the intelligence that created life on earth have to be godly

Earth could have been seeded by extra-terrestrial life, but that just pushes the question back one step. How did that life originate?? In order to avoid an infinite regress in a finite universe, at some point we have to say that there is an uncaused cause, that is outside the bounds of time and space.

and then if you factor in multiverse theory things get really complicated
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh man. Where to start? Hovind is a total joke. Even other creationists think he's a lying buffoon. And he's currently languishing in prison, where he belongs.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 3:14:00 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/13/2013 3:06:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:16:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
The last word for word copy of "Dr" Kent Hovind I've heard of was Venom on YouTube; it's been a long time! :D

In any case, if we haven't observed elements been changed, explain nuclear fusion, please. I explain it using this (if you want an Internet source):

http://www-pub.iaea.org...

Also, since we're talking about terminology, where did you get yours from? Sounds like you've just made it up! If it's from Kent, where did he get it from? He just made it up, too? Lol.

Haters gonna hate. Yeah I'm a fan of Hovind so if you're just gonna be hatin', instead of refuting his arguments, then just go back to your members-only thread. You wiki geniuses wouldn't make a good pimple on one of Hovind's butt cheeks so all you do is talk smack.

Hey man, I'm not trying to start something here. But please answer the questions, don't evade. Play the game!

I'm not starting anything, just messing with you.

What was the question??
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 4:23:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 2:46:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 1:27:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yawn. Stick to braking legs. You're no good at this "thinking" stuff.

No thinking needed to realize that a fish isn't going to become a horse someday.

No scientific theory suggests otherwise. Moving on.

Remember, we're talking about evolutionism here, rational thought seems out of place. All one needs is imagination, and you guys definitely have plenty of that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 5:06:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 3:25:57 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 3:20:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:33:30 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.

true but does the intelligence that created life on earth have to be godly

Earth could have been seeded by extra-terrestrial life, but that just pushes the question back one step. How did that life originate?? In order to avoid an infinite regress in a finite universe, at some point we have to say that there is an uncaused cause, that is outside the bounds of time and space.

and then if you factor in multiverse theory things get really complicated

Problem is that neither extra-terrestrial life or the multi-verse theory have any evidence to support them so you're just needlessly multiplying entities in an attempt to explain our origins.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 5:08:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 5:06:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 3:25:57 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 3:20:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:33:30 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.

true but does the intelligence that created life on earth have to be godly

Earth could have been seeded by extra-terrestrial life, but that just pushes the question back one step. How did that life originate?? In order to avoid an infinite regress in a finite universe, at some point we have to say that there is an uncaused cause, that is outside the bounds of time and space.

and then if you factor in multiverse theory things get really complicated

Problem is that neither extra-terrestrial life or the multi-verse theory have any evidence to support them so you're just needlessly multiplying entities in an attempt to explain our origins.

multiverse theory ties in with wormholes aka bridge dimensions, and there has been various quantum occasions where such a thing was detected so thats debatable
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 7:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 3:24:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

How many types of birds are there? It's impossible to demonstrate macroevolution unless this question can be answered.

You're still straining on that gnat while swallowing a camel. Bird to bird "evolution", so to speak, is not what we're arguing about anyway. Can you show a bird producing something that isn't a bird, or coming from something that wasn't a bird?? That is the question, and it doesn't require knowing how many types of birds there are.

How is "type" different from "kind" as defined as "species existing at the time of creation?"

The term species is not applicable to any Biblical claim, so it doesn't really fit if you're meaning it in a strict sense. Type is simply a more general term and I used it specifically to try and avoid the kind of nitpicky argument that I figured you'd make. I guess my plan failed.

Look, we already are aware that the Bible doesn't tell us what the original created kinds are. You're not showing us anything that we didn't already know. A bird will bring forth a bird, always, so just show it producing something that is not a bird. That has to happen at some point if your claim of macro/UCA is true. You're not going to convince anyone of macro-evolution by showing anything at the species level (unless it's making a change at a higher level at the same time) anyway, so why tunnel on that??
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 7:49:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 7:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.

The term species is not applicable to any Biblical claim, so it doesn't really fit if you're meaning it in a strict sense. Type is simply a more general term and I used it specifically to try and avoid the kind of nitpicky argument that I figured you'd make. I guess my plan failed.

Translation: I don't like explicitly defined terms because then I can't change them on a whim to give the false appearance that you can't answer the questions.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 7:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position.

Fvck the Creationist position. You want to talk about the claims of science? Use the terms in the context science is using.

He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 8:42:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 4:23:57 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:46:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 1:27:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yawn. Stick to braking legs. You're no good at this "thinking" stuff.

No thinking needed to realize that a fish isn't going to become a horse someday.

No scientific theory suggests otherwise. Moving on.

My point exactly. No "scientific" theory would claim something so absurd, and stick with it for so long unless it was being used to prop up a philosophical belief system.

Remember, we're talking about evolutionism here, rational thought seems out of place. All one needs is imagination, and you guys definitely have plenty of that.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 8:55:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 8:42:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 4:23:57 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:46:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 1:27:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yawn. Stick to braking legs. You're no good at this "thinking" stuff.

No thinking needed to realize that a fish isn't going to become a horse someday.

No scientific theory suggests otherwise. Moving on.

My point exactly. No "scientific" theory would claim something so absurd, and stick with it for so long unless it was being used to prop up a philosophical belief system.


Then we agree you're talking about something that doesn't exist.

Remember, we're talking about evolutionism here, rational thought seems out of place. All one needs is imagination, and you guys definitely have plenty of that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 9:04:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 7:50:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position.

Fvck the Creationist position. You want to talk about the claims of science? Use the terms in the context science is using.

When presented with valid science, I will use whatever terminology you like. Until then you'll just have to continue wearing your panties in a bunch, if my wording bothers you.

He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 9:13:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 7:49:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 7:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.

The term species is not applicable to any Biblical claim, so it doesn't really fit if you're meaning it in a strict sense. Type is simply a more general term and I used it specifically to try and avoid the kind of nitpicky argument that I figured you'd make. I guess my plan failed.

Translation: I don't like explicitly defined terms because then I can't change them on a whim to give the false appearance that you can't answer the questions.

If you could answer the question then it really wouldn't matter what terminology I used. The question has remained the same ever since Darwin proposed his theory, we haven't changed anything.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 9:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 9:13:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 7:49:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 7:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.

The term species is not applicable to any Biblical claim, so it doesn't really fit if you're meaning it in a strict sense. Type is simply a more general term and I used it specifically to try and avoid the kind of nitpicky argument that I figured you'd make. I guess my plan failed.

Translation: I don't like explicitly defined terms because then I can't change them on a whim to give the false appearance that you can't answer the questions.

If you could answer the question then it really wouldn't matter what terminology I used. The question has remained the same ever since Darwin proposed his theory, we haven't changed anything.

Darwin's theory doesn't make the claims you are critiquing. You just agreed to that. And yes, it does matter what terminology you're using you dumb ol' fvck.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 9:18:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 9:04:19 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 7:50:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position.

Fvck the Creationist position. You want to talk about the claims of science? Use the terms in the context science is using.

When presented with valid science, I will use whatever terminology you like.

Liar.

Until then you'll just have to continue wearing your panties in a bunch, if my wording bothers you.

He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 11:30:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 3:20:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:33:30 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:28:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:44:42 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 11:26:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:39:31 AM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.

Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

ummm experiments have been done showing the bold. we have created life and elements and observed the dying and creation of stars and planets over time

We have??

That begs the question...How could you have created life when life already exists??

bad wording. by create i mean produce.

Ok, so assuming that you have indeed produced life, you've proven the Creationist claims that it takes life to make life, and takes intelligence to make life. The evo belief that life can create itself from inorganic materials is still a fail argument.

true but does the intelligence that created life on earth have to be godly

Earth could have been seeded by extra-terrestrial life, but that just pushes the question back one step. How did that life originate?? In order to avoid an infinite regress in a finite universe, at some point we have to say that there is an uncaused cause, that is outside the bounds of time and space.

So, this god outside space and time created the Universe? Notice, the emphasis is on the verb; the verb indicates a temporal event.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 12:18:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 7:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 3:24:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:37:26 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Since the creator of the latest evolution thread only wants to discuss the issue using his preferred terminology, which doesn't allow for an adequate representation of the Creationist position. He requested that I respect his wishes and start another thread, so I'm respecting that request. Any aspect of the Creation vs. Evolutionism debate is welcome. Though I'm starting the thread with the argument that evolutionism is not scientific, feel free to veer off into any aspect of the overall debate that interests you.

I say "evolutionISM" because the concept is used in more than just biology. There are at least 6 types of evolution...

Cosmic- The origin of time, space, and matter.
Chemical- The origin of elements, and higher elements from lower.
Stellar and Planetary- The origin of stars, planets, solar systems, etc.
Organic- The origin of life from non-living substances.
Macro-Evolution- The changing of one type of life form into another type, over time.
Micro-Evolution- Environmental adaptation and variation of life forms.

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has ever been observed. It is the only one that has empirical, observable, repeatable, testable, scientific evidence supporting it. The rest are merely examples of "theoretical science", which in some cases is nothing more than junk science, or philosophical beliefs portrayed as science. It's important to note that I'm not saying that theoretical science itself is invalid, or is not a useful means of pursuing knowledge, simply that it can indeed be misused. Further, for a theory to become "scientific", and be advocated by the scientific community as such, it has to be "believed" by a majority consensus. Most of evolutionary science is just that, "consensus science".

The word "science", at its most basic, means knowledge. Knowledge is not dependent upon, and does not require "belief". The concept of "consensus science", that is so pervasive within the evolutionary and atheistic community, amounts to nothing more than "knowledge by majority belief". That concept is irrational and self-refuting, thus the claim that most of evolutionism is not scientific. It is nothing more than naturalism, materialism, etc., in other words a belief system or worldview, trying to hide behind what it alleges to be "science".

""In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes." - Michael Behe

How many types of birds are there? It's impossible to demonstrate macroevolution unless this question can be answered.

You're still straining on that gnat while swallowing a camel. Bird to bird "evolution", so to speak, is not what we're arguing about anyway. Can you show a bird producing something that isn't a bird, or coming from something that wasn't a bird?? That is the question, and it doesn't require knowing how many types of birds there are.

How is "type" different from "kind" as defined as "species existing at the time of creation?"

The term species is not applicable to any Biblical claim, so it doesn't really fit if you're meaning it in a strict sense. Type is simply a more general term and I used it specifically to try and avoid the kind of nitpicky argument that I figured you'd make. I guess my plan failed.

Look, we already are aware that the Bible doesn't tell us what the original created kinds are. You're not showing us anything that we didn't already know. A bird will bring forth a bird, always, so just show it producing something that is not a bird. That has to happen at some point if your claim of macro/UCA is true. You're not going to convince anyone of macro-evolution by showing anything at the species level (unless it's making a change at a higher level at the same time) anyway, so why tunnel on that??

"The term species is not applicable to any Biblical claim, so it doesn't really fit if you're meaning it in a strict sense."

Actually,you're the one who said that kinds were defined by groups that were reproductively isolated at the time of creation.

Reproductive isolation is the definition of different species.

" Type is simply a more general term and I used it specifically to try and avoid the kind of nitpicky argument that I figured you'd make. I guess my plan failed."

If your plan was to cache out one made-up term by invoking another, you're right. The attempt failed.

"Look, we already are aware that the Bible doesn't tell us what the original created kinds are."

Original created kinds?

If "kind" is defined as as reproductively isolated groups at the time of creation, "original created kinds" is redundant. Do you mean "original created types?" Because I'd assume that is synonymous with "kind."

And we do know that Ravens were around at the time of the flood. Eagles were around in the time of Exodus, quail were around by the time of Numbers. Genesis says multiple birds kinds were created on the same day of creation.

"A bird will bring forth a bird, always, so just show it producing something that is not a bird. "

So you've gone from talking about "kinds" to talking about "types" where a type is...what exactly?

From what I can see, your definition of "type" is based on nothing but morphological dissimilarity.

If so, then its philosophically impossible for any amount of evidence, regardless of what sort, to demonstrate macroevolution. Which, of course, it what I've been claiming for quite some time is your stance.