Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Some moments in Evolution

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 8:57:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Researcher, Herbert P Hock Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: :It is impossible that the origin of life was proteins first" RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self sustaining type of life?

Further:

says Dr. Carol Cleland1, a member
of the National Aeronautics and Space
1 Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that
life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully un-
derstood Administration"s Astrobiology Institute.
"Yet," she continues, "most researchers
seem to assume that if they can make
sense of the independent production of
proteins and RNA under natural primor-
dial conditions, the coordination will
somehow take care of itself." Regarding
the current theories of how these build-
ing blocks of life could have arisen by
chance, she says: "None of them have
provided us with a very satisfying story
about how this happened." 6

Yes, I have posted these comments from another source, I will send the PDF information if it is required, but you may like to use your own resources to try to disprove these statements.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:56:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Correct. We do not yet know how life arose, which is the subject of abiogensis.However, evolution pertains to how life changes over time regardless of how it got here.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:04:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.

Yes it is, because just mentioning something unfalsifiable like "God" is a science stopper!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:07:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:04:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.

Yes it is, because just mentioning something unfalsifiable like "God" is a science stopper!

It didn't stop Newton from doing science, did it? Would you say Newton did science?

http://www.godandscience.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:57:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Researcher, Herbert P Hock Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: :It is impossible that the origin of life was proteins first" RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self sustaining type of life?

Further:

says Dr. Carol Cleland1, a member
of the National Aeronautics and Space
1 Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that
life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully un-
derstood Administration"s Astrobiology Institute.
"Yet," she continues, "most researchers
seem to assume that if they can make
sense of the independent production of
proteins and RNA under natural primor-
dial conditions, the coordination will
somehow take care of itself." Regarding
the current theories of how these build-
ing blocks of life could have arisen by
chance, she says: "None of them have
provided us with a very satisfying story
about how this happened." 6

Yes, I have posted these comments from another source, I will send the PDF information if it is required, but you may like to use your own resources to try to disprove these statements.

And what do you make of this? What does it mean for abiogenesis? Sure means little to evolution.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:11:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:07:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:04:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.

Yes it is, because just mentioning something unfalsifiable like "God" is a science stopper!

It didn't stop Newton from doing science, did it? Would you say Newton did science?

http://www.godandscience.org...

He didn't put "god" anywhere near gravity. Although maybe I just remember it wrong.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:13:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:11:09 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:07:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:04:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.

Yes it is, because just mentioning something unfalsifiable like "God" is a science stopper!

It didn't stop Newton from doing science, did it? Would you say Newton did science?

http://www.godandscience.org...

He didn't put "god" anywhere near gravity. Although maybe I just remember it wrong.

My point is belief in God doesn't automatically make people not want to investigate the world around them and figure out how it works.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:30:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:07:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:04:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.

Yes it is, because just mentioning something unfalsifiable like "God" is a science stopper!

It didn't stop Newton from doing science, did it? Would you say Newton did science?

http://www.godandscience.org...

ME: AS far as I can see, Newton happened to sit under an apple tree and come up with a theory that was already being bantered around, and two or three other things. IN his time, when discoveries of many things where occurring. IMO Newton could be called a scientist for a few moments in time.

What about Edison, was he a scientist? What about the bloke that invented the wheel, we don't even know his name, is he a scientist? Under the heading 'what makes a scientist', IMO everyone that discovers is a scientist of some sort.

The amount of scientific disciplines in the world today makes being a scientist a rather un-extrodanary thing. IMO

Is Gyro-Gear-Loose a scientist or an inventor, and aren't inventors scientists?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:38:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak"s "Five Major Misconceptions" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
" 2016 TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.

Wallace responds to Wayne Duck"s critique of this article at this link.
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven"t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn"t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, "If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don"t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it." He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:

https://www.trueorigin.org...

I will just find these things and allow you to give your counter attack. LOL

You must agree that the emboldened section hits the nail on the head.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 6:24:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:38:02 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak"s "Five Major Misconceptions" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
" 2016 TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.

Wallace responds to Wayne Duck"s critique of this article at this link.
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven"t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn"t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, "If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don"t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it." He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:

https://www.trueorigin.org...

I will just find these things and allow you to give your counter attack. LOL

You must agree that the emboldened section hits the nail on the head.

Fairy tales like creationism deserve to be ridiculed. There is not even one shred of evidence indicating some kind of god-fairy just magically created life out of thin air.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 8:25:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 6:24:30 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:38:02 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak"s "Five Major Misconceptions" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
" 2016 TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.

Wallace responds to Wayne Duck"s critique of this article at this link.
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven"t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn"t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, "If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don"t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it." He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:

https://www.trueorigin.org...

I will just find these things and allow you to give your counter attack. LOL

You must agree that the emboldened section hits the nail on the head.

Fairy tales like creationism deserve to be ridiculed. There is not even one shred of evidence indicating some kind of god-fairy just magically created life out of thin air.

Let us look at Evolution and Creation:

Evolution will have it that out of nothing came the elements that would create a large universal explosion known as the Big Bang...Saying t hat there never was nothing, makes it worse.

Creation says that there is and always was a supreme spirit being who created the universe, the earth and all life on the earth.

Evolution says that in some millions or billions of years there became some life from the primordial slime which needed to have many elements to come near any form of life. Evolution says that it has no order or direction and that we could have become anything, and very different to what man is today, just at the whim of a slight difference in the chemicals in the slime.

Creation says that God had a purpose for mankind and it was not subject to any evolutionary concept. God would continue to direct the course of all things.

Evolution says that life of any kind can cross between families of animals and plants and insects and whatever creeps crawls flies runs or swims. Evolution says that a mutation can be a good change for any life, but do not explain what use a part of an eye would be to any life form, given that they say it could take millions of years before the mutation became complete and working. Where was the gene for the complete eye.

Creation says that God made the animals according to their kind or Family if you wish. In the time of the flood, so as to keep the families of animals going, God told Noah to gather the animals 2 X 2 according to their kind. Creation has given the answer to how all the different species of life came about...Yes, there were groups of seven for sacrifice after the flood. These animals were complete in their family groups, and changes occurred to the species because of environmental requirements and by chance breeding in the species.

Evolution: At least in these posts seem to confuse family with species. Many species arise in individual families. Species do not cross amongst family groups. Not even with human intervention.

Creation uses straight forward explanations for life on earth.

Evolution uses the biggest longest most impressive sounding words that prove nothing and only are conjecture, as no one was around in the primordial slime to say what really happened.

No one on earth today was around at the time of creation either, but the Bible has been proved as a reliable account. The finding and interpreting the Dead Sea scrolls proved that.

Not all evolution is the same story, and many have their own versions of the story of life on earth.

Creation adamantly sticks with the one story and this story is found in many isolated peoples around the earth, as is the flood story with many similarities as that of the Bible.

Evolution has no such ancient written records for anything they claim.

So, as far as an evolutionist getting upset if creationists don't believe a word they say...you now have the reason why.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 8:28:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Go here to talk about your book of fairy tales: http://www.debate.org...
It is not science and never will be science. Anybody who pretends that it is science deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 9:33:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:40:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:15:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationism: I don't know, therefore goddidit.
Science: I don't know, so I will make more observations until I figure it out.

Many creationists want to figure out how God did it. It's not a science stopper.

Unfortunately, Jane, 'Goddidit' is not falsifiable, and has no testable mechanisms. Therefore it's always an unscientific conjecture. This is (part of) why 'Intelligent Design' is pseudoscience. Other reasons include frequent academic dishonesty; evasion of peer review; zero significant, specific results; and constantly struggling to lower the bar for evidence, rather than raising it as science ought.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:15:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think it a question of 'level'. I can imagine a religious scientist working on (say) the mechanism of protein syntheses by ribosomes doing excellent work - as long as he sticks to working within the strict discipline of science.

He may be motivated by the question of 'How does God get ribosomes to work?' but that isn't so different from being motivated by the question 'How does nature get ribosomes to work?' As long as the goal is working out the mechanism of protein synthesis believing you are discovering God's methods or Nature's is not a show-stopper.

The problems with 'Goddidit' are a) it can discourage investigation because it stands in place of true understanding and b) it can be used to present rational investigation as somehow 'impious', 'blasphemous' or even 'immoral'.

A great deal of opposition to science (especially evolution) is fear that it undermines the need for religious faith. Their faith is incredibly important to some people. It is the basis of their sense of identity and worth. To such people imagining losing their faith is like imagining stepping over the edge of a cliff - it isn't something they want to contemplate.

Why do many creationists refuse to learn anything about evolution? Because they are scared to - they'd be risking losing the rock on which they have built their lives. Websites like answersingenesis don't exist to convert evolutionists into creationists - they are there to provide reassurance to creationists who might otherwise waver.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 4:11:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 8:25:48 AM, Peternosaint wrote:

Creation says that there is and always was a supreme spirit being who created the universe, the earth and all life on the earth.

An answer from ignorance and incredulity supported with no evidence whatsoever that contradicts the actual evidence.

Creation says that God had a purpose for mankind and it was not subject to any evolutionary concept. God would continue to direct the course of all things.

An answer refuted overwhelmingly with contradictions and a lack of any observed guidance.

Creation says that God made the animals according to their kind or Family if you wish. In the time of the flood, so as to keep the families of animals going, God told Noah to gather the animals 2 X 2 according to their kind. Creation has given the answer to how all the different species of life came about...Yes, there were groups of seven for sacrifice after the flood. These animals were complete in their family groups, and changes occurred to the species because of environmental requirements and by chance breeding in the species.

An answer that begs the question, supported by an absurd explanation far too impossible to be taken seriously.

Creation uses straight forward explanations for life on earth.

Creation has NO explanations for life on Earth.

No one on earth today was around at the time of creation either, but the Bible has been proved as a reliable account. The finding and interpreting the Dead Sea scrolls proved that.

An answer appealing to authority and special pleading.

Creation adamantly sticks with the one story and this story is found in many isolated peoples around the earth, as is the flood story with many similarities as that of the Bible.

An answer of biased sample that misrepresents all other explanations.

So, as far as an evolutionist getting upset if creationists don't believe a word they say...you now have the reason why.

Yes, disinformation, misrepresentation, contradictions, ignorance and falsehoods are at the basis of your answers, which are the real motives behind the creationist agenda.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:30:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 6:24:30 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:38:02 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak"s "Five Major Misconceptions" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
" 2016 TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.

Wallace responds to Wayne Duck"s critique of this article at this link.
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven"t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn"t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, "If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don"t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it." He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:

https://www.trueorigin.org...

I will just find these things and allow you to give your counter attack. LOL

You must agree that the emboldened section hits the nail on the head.

Fairy tales like creationism deserve to be ridiculed. There is not even one shred of evidence indicating some kind of god-fairy just magically created life out of thin air.

ME; To be better accepted you should put IMO.

Fairy tales like the many theories of evolution deserve to be ridiculed. There is not one shred of evidence (Incontestable Proof) that some kind of nothing made everything and life appeared out of thin air that didn't exist.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:37:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:15:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think it a question of 'level'. I can imagine a religious scientist working on (say) the mechanism of protein syntheses by ribosomes doing excellent work - as long as he sticks to working within the strict discipline of science.

He may be motivated by the question of 'How does God get ribosomes to work?' but that isn't so different from being motivated by the question 'How does nature get ribosomes to work?' As long as the goal is working out the mechanism of protein synthesis believing you are discovering God's methods or Nature's is not a show-stopper.

The problems with 'Goddidit' are a) it can discourage investigation because it stands in place of true understanding and b) it can be used to present rational investigation as somehow 'impious', 'blasphemous' or even 'immoral'.

A great deal of opposition to science (especially evolution) is fear that it undermines the need for religious faith. Their faith is incredibly important to some people. It is the basis of their sense of identity and worth. To such people imagining losing their faith is like imagining stepping over the edge of a cliff - it isn't something they want to contemplate.

Why do many creationists refuse to learn anything about evolution? Because they are scared to - they'd be risking losing the rock on which they have built their lives. Websites like answersingenesis don't exist to convert evolutionists into creationists - they are there to provide reassurance to creationists who might otherwise waver.

ME: Here is one creationists that is not scared to look at any theory of interest; however evolution is such a c convoluted expression of opinions rather than factual data, it is hard to follow any one of the many theories. If there was a book, that all evolutionists agreed with, like true Christians do with the Holy Bible, it would be a better and easier subject to follow.

DO anyone of you know of such a book? I will surely make myself familiar with it if there is?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:38:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:30:12 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/7/2016 6:24:30 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:38:02 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak"s "Five Major Misconceptions" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
" 2016 TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.

Wallace responds to Wayne Duck"s critique of this article at this link.
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven"t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn"t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)

The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says concerning these five arguments, "If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don"t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it." He then attempts to refute each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:

https://www.trueorigin.org...

I will just find these things and allow you to give your counter attack. LOL

You must agree that the emboldened section hits the nail on the head.

Fairy tales like creationism deserve to be ridiculed. There is not even one shred of evidence indicating some kind of god-fairy just magically created life out of thin air.

ME; To be better accepted you should put IMO.

Fairy tales like the many theories of evolution deserve to be ridiculed. There is not one shred of evidence (Incontestable Proof) that some kind of nothing made everything and life appeared out of thin air that didn't exist.

Amino acids have already been created in experiments from even simpler chemicals.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:46:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 4:11:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/7/2016 8:25:48 AM, Peternosaint wrote:

Creation says that there is and always was a supreme spirit being who created the universe, the earth and all life on the earth.

An answer from ignorance and incredulity supported with no evidence whatsoever that contradicts the actual evidence.

Creation says that God had a purpose for mankind and it was not subject to any evolutionary concept. God would continue to direct the course of all things.

An answer refuted overwhelmingly with contradictions and a lack of any observed guidance.

ME: Contradictions that are not facts do not contradict anything.

Creation says that God made the animals according to their kind or Family if you wish. In the time of the flood, so as to keep the families of animals going, God told Noah to gather the animals 2 X 2 according to their kind. Creation has given the answer to how all the different species of life came about...Yes, there were groups of seven for sacrifice after the flood. These animals were complete in their family groups, and changes occurred to the species because of environmental requirements and by chance breeding in the species.

An answer that begs the question, supported by an absurd explanation far too impossible to be taken seriously.

ME: So answer me, do you believe that all life can cross family boundaries at will via evolution in any of the several theories of your concept?

Creation uses straight forward explanations for life on earth.

Creation has NO explanations for life on Earth.

ME: What is an explanation? Evolutionist use many explanations, and many of those explanations have been found to be false or fraudulent The Bible offers a very simple and reasonable Explanation for all life on earth..

No one on earth today was around at the time of creation either, but the Bible has been proved as a reliable account. The finding and interpreting the Dead Sea scrolls proved that.

An answer appealing to authority and special pleading.

Creation adamantly sticks with the one story and this story is found in many isolated peoples around the earth, as is the flood story with many similarities as that of the Bible.

An answer of biased sample that misrepresents all other explanations.

So, as far as an evolutionist getting upset if creationists don't believe a word they say...you now have the reason why.

Yes, disinformation, misrepresentation, contradictions, ignorance and falsehoods are at the basis of your answers, which are the real motives behind the creationist agenda.

ME: In your opinion, based on the lies of science at its worst.

ME: I thought that you would know better. I simply put the difference between the thoughts of creationists and evolutionists and you come out with self assured comments that also have no proof. Your attack is aimed at ridicule only and not debate.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:48:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
PS: ME: Why did you miss the first statement in my post for you tirade on creation...A bit to close to the mark I would say. Rosso...what-is name.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:57:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You can try to prove that evolution is false all you want. That will still never prove creationism.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 3:04:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
DO anyone of you know of such a book? I will surely make myself familiar with it if there is?

Ah, if only I could believe you were sincere!

But as a cue to recommend books I think everyone should read, I don't think you can beat early Dawkins. Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker etc. explain the principles of evolution in clear, accessible language. (They pre-date Dawkin's stardom and are nothing like the godawful 'God Delusion' which is one of my least favourite books.)

No doubt there are many other other excellent books on evolution, but as the KJV says, "of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.", so if you only ever read one book on evolution, it should - IMO - be The Selfish Gene.

That is a general remark, not specifically aimed at PNS who will no doubt have something to say about it.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:43:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 3:04:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
DO anyone of you know of such a book? I will surely make myself familiar with it if there is?

Ah, if only I could believe you were sincere!

But as a cue to recommend books I think everyone should read, I don't think you can beat early Dawkins. Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker etc. explain the principles of evolution in clear, accessible language. (They pre-date Dawkin's stardom and are nothing like the godawful 'God Delusion' which is one of my least favourite books.)

No doubt there are many other other excellent books on evolution, but as the KJV says, "of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.", so if you only ever read one book on evolution, it should - IMO - be The Selfish Gene.

That is a general remark, not specifically aimed at PNS who will no doubt have something to say about it.

ME: Why not, you are looking for my comment aren't you? I want one comprehensive book that is written by and 'expert' and is accepted by all those that believe the evolution religion.

I have read books on mutation, and I have read books on Survival of the fittest, and natural selection and it seems that my selections were ill thought out as they often contradicted each other..

This, of course, is the nature of science...One scientist comes up with some theory and another "school of thought" tries to debunk the previous theory and replace it with their own, especially in the guesswork world of evolution.

Don't try to answer this with "Proof Please" you know the books to read, find them yourself. Having said that, I doubt that you would read a book that does not fit your theory or opinion or guesses.

I am sure you will reply!!!!
,
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:45:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:57:52 AM, user13579 wrote:
You can try to prove that evolution is false all you want. That will still never prove creationism.

ME: Is that a profound statement, a question, a challenge or just a bit of dribble from your mouth parts?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:50:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:43:54 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
This, of course, is the nature of science...One scientist comes up with some theory and another "school of thought" tries to debunk the previous theory and replace it with their own, especially in the guesswork world of evolution.

That would actually be great if you came up with an alternative theory. Do you have one?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:55:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:45:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:57:52 AM, user13579 wrote:
You can try to prove that evolution is false all you want. That will still never prove creationism.


ME: Is that a profound statement, a question, a challenge or just a bit of dribble from your mouth parts?

Creationism is not science and never will be science.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 5:03:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I am not aware of all these alternative theories. I don't think any alternative theory has existed since Lamarck. There was some fuss over a few years ago about 'punctuated equilibrium', but that was over whether evolution was proceeded smoothly or by fits and starts, not about the fundamentals.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 6:37:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:55:14 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:45:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:57:52 AM, user13579 wrote:
You can try to prove that evolution is false all you want. That will still never prove creationism.


ME: Is that a profound statement, a question, a challenge or just a bit of dribble from your mouth parts?

Creationism is not science and never will be science.

ME: You are saying that, not me. If I gave an opinion on that subject I would agree with you, creation is a fact not a science with all the intricate guess work attached...But you asked for it.