Denial of evolution III

[John99]

Perhaps not, if that is the rules of the game, but one could very strongly conclude that I was aiming for the target. If there is some other than "evolved from common ancestor" theory then it must also explain why it produces a "near miss" from identical DNA.

So using your own terminology "near miss" gets completely disregarded?

Again what is the alternative to evolution that can cause the observed nearly identical DNA?

Well the only thing i will tell you, right now, is that the way to producing a living organism is somewhat narrow in scope though admittedly narrow being what we DO know.

You throw a basketball and totally miss the backboard, you throw a basketball and it bounces off the rim, now you got a little closer but still not good enough unless you throw a basketball and it goes right through the basket.

For some the alternative is "God created the different and separate creatures as the are now and were in the past," except for minor adaptations but to trick / mislead scientists, he/she made it seem like they evolved from a common ancestor.

Dont misinterpret what i am saying, i am not religious and already said i am 50-50 on this. There are aspects of evolution that are very debatable though.

 

[Billy T]

I'm still waiting for clear answers to the two simple, specific, direct, questions in post 850 from someone who thinks evolution's answers are not the only possible answers.

Thus far I have 5 "duck and weave" replies (posts 861,559,857,855, & 852) from John99 and Saquist.

 

[Billy T]

So using your own terminology "near miss" gets completely disregarded?

I always try to answer questions, so: No, certainly not disregarded. In fact, these small difference are being investigated in an effort to learn what in the DNA controls what. It is quite amazing how these tiny differences can make two creatures develop from a single cell under DNA control yet appear so different.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Let see, We have observed speciation of multicellular organisms happening in our time in both natural and controlled settings. We have genetic evidence of relationships and even track gene mutations with clear pattern of progressive change from one species to the next. And of course we got loads of fossil evidence and microevolutionary events observed. What conclusion can we derive? Not only that evolution is happening (observed micro and macroevolution) but that it did happen. The only creationist conclusions that could be derived is that:

1) God(s) created life and let in evolve.
2) God(s) placed created life as is but placed all this false evidence of evolution for some reason, even to the point of having it evolved from the point of creation before our vary eyes.

If you accept #2 then god(s) are clearly malicious! More so all of reality can be questioned: the universe is not old its young and made to look old, the earth does not move its only made to look that way, the earth is not round but flat, god is merely tricking us! And what is there to believe this? Holy scripture? But religions have holy scripture that contradict one another, so which is the true faith? I have no way of telling, all evidence can clearly be a plant by god to trick me! Clearly this is all a metaphysical meltdown.

More so all this has no barring on physical reality: lets say I use scientific knowledge of evolution or any scientific field in fact, lets say I use Kepler and Newtonian motion to travel from earth to mars and back. Now my knowledge clearly worked, but metaphysically god was moving me making it look like Kepler and Newtonian motion worked. All this scientific knowledge though appearing useful is just me playing along with what god wants me to believe, I could in theory get by better by just praying to god, although statistically studies show that pray is as effective as random chance, so clearly god does not answer prays or answers them with such rarity as to be statistically undetectable, or god could in fact be fudging statistical measures to hid the one true faith and send all us sinners to hell, again anything possible. Oh well I guess this is the power of faith: if you believe enough you can believe all evidence is a lie and that you know the true god and nothing will sway you otherwise.

 

[Saquist]

I'm still waiting for clear answers to the two simple, specific, direct, questions in post 850 from someone who thinks evolution's answers are not the only possible answers.

Thus far I have 5 "duck and weave" replies (posts 861,559,857,855, & 852) from John99 and Saquist.

BillyT, you want me to be arrogant and I won't do that. I can't tell you what I do not know and most importantly I won't meander through meaningless conjecture when someone ask for a direct answer.

“To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.”~ Henry David Thoreau

The arrogance that it takes to slap a theory full of conjecture and baseless speculation on any question is blind ignorance in my book. It's the practice of much of the scientific community when the only truthful answer I can give you is "I don't know". If that's ducking and weaving...I'm sorry. I have factual standards and I won't compromise them just because of grade school level dares or hubris.

Even my religious beliefs are objective. It puts me in the same reputation in my congregation as I am here. I think nothing of tradition, scientific or cultural. I must have reason and it's the only thing I'm interested in. So I have learned that people use ridicule to discredit what they don't like. I'm used to social fallacies. No amount of ridicule,slights or emotional appeals will induce me to buy out more than I know is right or misrepresent the facts or my own knowledge.

The discussion has to be more than simple jousting and maneuvering because there is a finite degree of information and I prefer to rely it rather than conjecture. And I say that with all due respect, BillyT to you and your desire for information.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The arrogance that it takes to slap a theory full of conjecture and baseless speculation on any question is blind ignorance in my book.

What about evolution is conjecture and baseless speculation?

Now evolution is the best theory out there on the subject, it explains the evidence the best and makes predictions which have been accurate, why should we consider it false?

 

[markl323]

anyone who denies evolution in this day and age is probably trolling and should be permanently banned.

/thread

 

[Saquist]

What about evolution is conjecture and baseless speculation?

Now evolution is the best theory out there on the subject, it explains the evidence the best and makes predictions which have been accurate, why should we consider it false?

We've already tried this and establish that you just have predilection for contentions.

 

[ElectricFetus]

We've already tried this and establish that you just have predilection for contentions.

So? Why would that forbid you from answering the questions?

 

[iceaura]

You've accused me of some awful disparity and I haven't seen the charges explicitly laid out

Post 830, is the simplest of the four or five repetitions.

Your response?

 

[Saquist]

Post 830, is the simplest of the four or five repetitions.

Your response?

Why would my response change before the presentation of elaboration?
Your statements are a matter of record, I don't need an arrow to find them. I've looked at them more times then they deserved just as dispensation to you and what they say and what you want still make little sense to me. But I'm still not going to guess while you take shots in the dark and then evade further explanation. If you had something to say then I think you would have said it by now other wise I'm forced to concede to stubbornness or an irreconcilable schism in communication with a person who possibly does not have a full grasp of the English language and grammatical requirements.

I could think of worse things than a failure of communication.

 

[Ophiolite]

Saquist is a sub-conscious troll. It's best not to feed him. He is unable to recognise the inherent arrogance and rudeness of his repsonses. Place him on Ignore. It will make for a happier 2011.

 

[Saquist]

So? Why would that forbid you from answering the questions?

..because that is my standard.

 

[ElectricFetus]

..because that is my standard.

Either this is an appeal to relativism or your just admitting to being a troll?

 

[Saquist]

Either this is an appeal to relativism or your just admitting to being a troll?

So you want me to answer your questions just so that you may exercise your contentiousness? And that would define me (according to you) as not a Troll....

Saquist is a sub-conscious troll. It's best not to feed him. He is unable to recognise the inherent arrogance and rudeness of his repsonses. Place him on Ignore. It will make for a happier 2011.

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

Infammatory: - arousal to violent emotion
I have bore no insults, personal attacks or exaggerated descriptions.

"extraneous: not pertinent to the matter under consideration; "

I didn't bring up the matter genesis or bible contradictions but I have answered the interrogations of those who have. And no one has currently displayed a anything which could be called "provocative" or provoked.

The lack of these descriptors leads me to the suspicion that you were not attempting to be precise or accurate but rather expressing your general irratation, disapproval to my point of view. We've had words before to which you made clear the only point of view you considered not that of a Troll was your point of view. To which I assume You think that anyone that doesn't believe singularly along the lines of evolution is not welcome here....despite the presence of the thread called "Denial of evolution III)

If that's true...That's most contradictory Ophiolite. And most unreasonable that a person who claims to be motivated scientifically cannot think objectively external to his or her own views and biases.

If you don't want me here just say so.
If you find my presence intolerable I will not return to the thread and I will allow you to have the lack of opposition that you apparently desire.

 

[river-wind]

I hope Saquist, that you don't feel that I have attacked you. If we are agreed on that, what is your response to my point that the whole re-organization of one existing creature into another existing creature without lines of decent would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution.

For example, a bird with teeth would not be surprising (given the lizard scales on the legs showing likely ancestry to animals with teeth), but a fish born with human arms would almost certainly invalidate the theory (barring some unusual and very possibly human-caused genetic manipulation.).

 

[ElectricFetus]

So you want me to answer your questions just so that you may exercise your contentiousness?

Well if what I wanted matter, which it doesn't, that not why I want the questions answered, I merely would like to hear how those questions can be answered without resorting to atheism, agnosticism or at the very least deism.

And that would define me (according to you) as not a Troll....

Well assuming you cared what I think of you, and in honesty I don't think you should, no. I was going to accuse you of being an asshole instead but in sycophancy with Ophiolite I swapped "troll" in there instead.

 

[Saquist]

I hope Saquist, that you don't feel that I have attacked you. If we are agreed on that, what is your response to my point that the whole re-organization of one existing creature into another existing creature without lines of decent would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution.

As usual, sir, your behavior on the forum has been exemplary.
I would say you'd be right but it would also suggest that micro evolution was false as well. But we do have clear examples of adaptation. The question...is the accumulative effects which are preceded as gradual systematic changes by the environment.

Now very often science takes a uniformatiarian approach. That things continue gradually, systemically and yet persistently with out sudden interruption. It wasn't until the discovery of the multitudes of craters discovered on the Earth and other planets that the true impact of catastrophes were considered within the scope of geologic time frequent. The same goes for biological changes. We do have indications that there is more going on than simple accumulation of genetic material.

Well if what I wanted matter, which it doesn't, that not why I want the questions answered, I merely would like to hear how those questions can be answered without resorting to atheism, agnosticism or at the very least deism.

Yet you've have clearly communicated that you really don't care and that your interest merely lie in the act of being quarrelsome and combative and I have no interest in such wastes of time. If I really was a troll I'd imagine I'd like nothing better than to expend my efforts in an inept wresting of egos.

Well assuming you cared what I think of you, and in honesty I don't think you should, no. I was going to accuse you of being an asshole instead but in sycophancy with Ophiolite I swapped "troll" in there instead.

I care about logic and nothing else.

 

[ElectricFetus]

We do have indications that there is more going on than simple accumulation of genetic material.

More going on like? what? We have known for some time that evolution does not need to be gradual or uninterruptable, so what are you getting at?

 

[Ophiolite]

I have bore no insults, personal attacks or exaggerated descriptions.

You have done so repeatedly and consistently since you joined the forum.

What is the nature of these insults? Your arrogance in refusing to respond to particular posts, mentioned in the last few pages, is an example. Your high minded disregard for evidence, substantiated by generations of biologists is an ongoing insult. Your faux polite responses that seek to mask a snide disdain for your protagonists is a deep, vicious insult.

The personal attacks are present in the flippant dismissal of alternate views, in the casual disregard for pertinent criticism, and in arrogance in which you choose to ignore many potent counter arguments.

Exaggerated descriptions? There we can agree. Your posts are devoid of any substance, of any meaningful argument. They are as sounding brass.