|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/15/2009 8:56:03 AM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4910
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Please take the discussion on the court cases to the appropriate thread HERE.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
"A faith that can be destroyed by suffering is not faith."--Richard Wurmbrand
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/16/2009 10:50:13 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4503
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sponge protiens show Metazoans monophyletic.
Any comment on the reklevance of this, or you just like posting links to obscure scientific papers from '99?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 1:41:02 AM
|
|
|
USincognito
Posts: 47
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Any comment on the reklevance of this, or you just like posting links to obscure scientific papers from '99?
If you have any critique of the content of the paper (the link the the full paper is just below the abstract) instead of questioning my motives, feel free to post it. Of if you don't like that paper, here's another discussing metozoan monoplyly based on the study of sponges.
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 3:00:34 AM
|
|
|
ataraxical
Posts: 37
Joined: 11/26/2008
Status: offline
|
Simple question for literalists/IDers, YEC etc...
Do you think it is logically possible that no God exists? Is Atheism logically possible at all? IOW, is there any possible world (of infinite amounts) where no God exists?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 7:30:12 AM
|
|
|
schtumpy
Posts: 893
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: offline
|
Ataraxical, there used to be a thread - until a few days ago - on this very subject.
It's no longer alive.
Perhaps it's an unpopular idea......
_____________________________
I deplore what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 9:07:40 AM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4910
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
That discussion is off-topic here.
This is a Christian web-site. Argument for the non-existence of God is against our range of doctrines which may be debated, and false teachings is a terms of service violation.
Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
"A faith that can be destroyed by suffering is not faith."--Richard Wurmbrand
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 10:19:22 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 998
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rasico
While I agree with the logic of what you're saying: Two things. A, if you claim evolutionists predict both then provide some credible sources, That's not what I'm saying. Darwinism doesn't predict much at all. Read the so-called predictions. It's almost always post hoc and thus not prediction at all.
It doesn't matter what is discovered, it is always said that Darwinism predicted it. Even when it clearly was never predicted. On the contrary we're always seeing phrases like "surprised", "unexpected" and the like. Doesn't matter, "Darwinism predicted it" no matter what is was - and that even though the 'predictions' are generally brought in after the fact because no Darwinist expected it or predicted it at all. If we found phosphorescent green horses living in deep subterranean caverns it would be called a prediction of Darwinism; and if we didn't then that would also be a claimed prediction.
The point is that a hypothesis that can accommodate anything and everything no matter what, has zero explanatory power.
quote:
Bashing Darwinists and generally engaging in personal attacks however only hurts our case. Personal attacks? Against whom?
Bashing Darwinists? I see it as exposing Darwinism for the debilitating materialist dogma that it is. I see it as exposing the ever more inventive and speculative Darwinist 'explanations' for the vacuous sophistry they usually are.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 11:16:05 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 998
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: USincognito
It looks like Morton, Crow and Mullers conclusions were being questioned back in 1960s.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v207/n5002/abs/2071216a0.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/50/4/587.full.pdf?ck=nck
Indeed. That's what science is about - questioning. Something Darwinists refuse to do. Thus Darwinism is no longer science.
Nevertheless, the conclusions continue to repeat themselves no matter what the given estimates or methods, mutation rates continue to pose serious problems both for the human genome and necessarily for Darwinism.
Again, there are virtually no truly neutral mutations - most are near-neutral. Mutations tend to accumulate in populations thus increasing the genetic load.
i.e. We are not evolving, we are devolving. "Mutational meltdown" is a very real problem.
Neel et al. in 1986 showed that deleterious mutation rates must be greater than 1/person/generation. And that is bad news for Darwinism and humans.
Furthermore, the more we learn about DNA the more we see that it's information content is ever greater than that predicted under Darwinist models - of course since ID predicts that not much of the genome will be "junk". So there's another Darwinist prediction that has utterly failed.
Sanfords data may be questioned as to it's precision, but his conclusions, based on any viable mutation rate estimates are still devastating to Darwinism - which is why he abandoned Darwinism altogether after all his years of research at Cornell U.
Sanford demonstrates as a testable data-based hypothesis (not speculative conjecture), that DNA as a rich repository of information, has been steadily eroding and will continue to erode even if a maximal amount of eugenic selection is applied. But this implies that the original genome was far more 'perfect' or 'pure' and than now, which implies that Darwinism is not true. And this uniquely coincides with both creationism and the predictions of ID theory!
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 11:39:27 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 998
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
I've never seen anything in the literature that shows that evolution could predict anything but a nested hierarchy.
You're right on the misquote thing. I was wrong and misunderstood you. Sorry.
But for the rest - Your missing the whole point.
Which is that Darwinism can accommodate anything at all! The 'predictive' element is almost always brought in post hoc and ad hoc. That ought to raise an objective observers suspicions.
After the fact. It works like this :"We found this evidence that doesn't fit so lets say NDE predicted exactly that! St. Charley help us if NDE's predictions failed! "
So, no matter how glaringly the data contradicts the theory, Darwinists manage to invent a post hoc 'prediction' for it.
It doesn't matter what is discovered or observed (nesting or anything else) - we would be told that Darwinism predicted it (even when it clearly predicted the opposite - like junk DNA, like simple cells, like not much specified information processing, like no error correcting mechanisms, like millions of intermediate fossil species, etc. - all failed predictions).
The Darwinist "prediction" almost invariably turns out to be an ad hoc explanation intentionally designed to avoid any questioning of the Primary Axiom.
The most conspicuous thing in your response though is the complete lack of response to genetic entropy.
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 2:13:20 PM
|
|
|
ataraxical
Posts: 37
Joined: 11/26/2008
Status: offline
|
I wasn't giving an argument against the existence of God at all, I was asking if its logically possible. Kind of like if I were to ask, is it logically possible for horses to fly? That doesn't mean I am actually arguing that horses do fly. (BTW, it is logically possible for horses to fly...)
I'll rephrase the question to make it more pertinent to this specific thread...
Simple question for literalists/IDers, YEC etc...
Do you think it is logically possible for evolution to be true? IOW, is there any possible world (of infinite amounts) where it could be true that evolution occurs?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/17/2009 3:46:45 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4503
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Simple question for literalists/IDers, YEC etc...
Do you think it is logically possible for evolution to be true? IOW, is there any possible world (of infinite amounts) where it could be true that evolution occurs?
I am not exactly sure what you are asking as 'evolution' really isn't one thing - I don't think it's reasonably possible at all that information system driven self-replicating nano-machinery arose through evolutionary mechanisms, or were modified through unguided changes to produce novel irreducibly complex interdependent structures and systems.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/21/2009 2:43:37 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ataraxical
I wasn't giving an argument against the existence of God at all, I was asking if its logically possible. Kind of like if I were to ask, is it logically possible for horses to fly? That doesn't mean I am actually arguing that horses do fly. (BTW, it is logically possible for horses to fly...)
I'll rephrase the question to make it more pertinent to this specific thread...
Simple question for literalists/IDers, YEC etc...
Do you think it is logically possible for evolution to be true? IOW, is there any possible world (of infinite amounts) where it could be true that evolution occurs?
Even if there were hundreds of trillions of worlds in our universe, I would say that it is not possible for life as we know it to have evolved through unguided means. If you want infinite worlds, then it sounds to me like you're asking if the impossible is possible given enough time and chances.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/21/2009 2:50:28 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Simple question for literalists/IDers, YEC etc...
Do you think it is logically possible for evolution to be true? IOW, is there any possible world (of infinite amounts) where it could be true that evolution occurs?
I am not exactly sure what you are asking as 'evolution' really isn't one thing
There used to be a list of acronyms commonly used on this site. I coined the term GUS for "Grand Uniformitarian Scheme", which basically meant everything having anything to do with the fact that the earth is old: cosmic evolution, uniformitarianism, and UCD. Universal Common Descent (UCD) was the idea that all organisms are descendants of a common ancestor (evolution as it and other things are sometimes called). It's no wonder it's hard to be taken seriously when you say "Evolution doesn't happen." You can point to two cats and say, "Look, they're different! Of course evolution happens!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/21/2009 4:43:11 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4503
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
There used to be a list of acronyms commonly used on this site. I coined the term GUS for "Grand Uniformitarian Scheme", which basically meant everything having anything to do with the fact that the earth is old: cosmic evolution, uniformitarianism, and UCD. Universal Common Descent (UCD) was the idea that all organisms are descendants of a common ancestor (evolution as it and other things are sometimes called). It's no wonder it's hard to be taken seriously when you say "Evolution doesn't happen." You can point to two cats and say, "Look, they're different! Of course evolution happens!"
Exactly - this is the 'evolution is change' school of thought. The problem there of course is that everyone agrees life changes - the question really is how much and in what ways life can change in an unguided manner, and of course there are differences of opinions on that.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 1/21/2009 6:46:20 PM
|
|
|
Victory444
Posts: 134
Status: offline
|
Hi, people, If you haven't seen this already, it should really wow you!
I guess we are allowed to post links, so, this is a link to take you to a
video about LAMININ. It is awesome!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4
_____________________________
In His Precious Love, Victory444
Psalm 118:17 & 18 "I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord hath chastened me sore: but He hath not given me over unto death."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 2/3/2009 7:43:13 PM
|
|
|
GWO
Posts: 34
Joined: 1/24/2009
Status: offline
|
Two cats??? thats not evolution. thats reshuffling of already geneteic code information. Within the same KIND!!!! for example around 3,000 years ago there were only around 5 different kinds of dogs. All variations come from the same kind but they are still of that kind. In this case DOGS!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 2/4/2009 5:18:15 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Is there even a topic in this thread anymore?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
