Evolution is a Fact.
Evolution is a Fact
I really get sick and tired of uneducated Christians that have no idea what the word theory means. A theory is a fact. It does not matter what you say or what you want it to be. When you make an ignorant statement like: "It's only a theory." most people will just mark you as an idiot and move on. Why is it I never hear Christians say: "Gravity is only a theory, do you really expect us to believe a theory?" You would never dream of saying gravity isn't real. In fact we have way more evidence for evolution than for gravity. I just want to list a few of those evidences here:
- Fossils - Fossils are found in layers of rock, accurately showing us the time period of when they lived. Charles Darwin noticed that the fossils in the deeper layers are very different from living organisms today. In fact in most cases he didn't even recognize them.We sill observe this today
- DNA - DNA is a unique code which link ancestry through messages.
- Genes - This is how we find out if something is related to something else. We are related to Chimpanzees.
- Embryos - Embryos of mammals, reptiles and even fish look nearly identical. There has been a lot of study in this field and we are learning more and more each day.
I didn't even touch the tip of the iceberg on this subject. Evolution is not a belief system, it is a fact in the same way The Theory of Gravity and The Theory of Relativity is. Google the words: scientific theory and slowly read the definition. I will post it here so you can read it for yourself:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
In closing, if you have read this article and still think there is no evidence of evolution then congratulations, you have been brain washed by your religion. Any self respecting individual that cares about what is true would investigate this further. You have now been more educated on this subject. We invite you if you are willing, to join the real world with us. You just might find that it's more honest than your religion.
A scientific theory is a received fact of direct evidence and experimental demonstration. We have never observed an instance of one species evolving into an entirely difference species. Those who reject the myth of Darwinism, the claptrap of a common ancestry, don't accept your standard of what constitutes an established scientific theory. Your post evades the true essence of the ideological divide and fails to acknowledge the actuality of Darwinism's underlying metaphysical presupposition, which begs the question.
ReplyDeleteObserving macro evolution is NOT needed to reach a scientific conclusion largely due to the fact that macro and micro evolution are the exact same thing. The only difference is the amount of time needed. Darwinism is a term used only by religious people as far as I know. I have never heard a scientist use that term before and therefore I have no clue what it means. Evolution is a fact. It is really just that simple.
DeleteThat's what many of you evolutionists say. But they are not the same thing. Microevolution is a nonsensical term in any event, as the only thing we've ever observed is adaptation within kinds that are in fact cyclically limited! Darwin imagined evidence for a common ancestry in the adaptive changes in finches, because the various species within this kind supposedly branched out from a common ancestor. But we know today that these variations are limited and oscillate around a fixed form. Beaks grow and recede over time and generations. The only thing we see is adaptive changes within kinds driven by natural selection and genetic mutation relative to environmental forces. A finch is a finch is a finch. A fruit fly is a fruit is a fruit fly. In fact, most variations of experimental fruit flies are defective. As for the term Darwinism, nonsense. Some might misuse it, but I know the science inside and out. I'm using the term to denote the notion of a common ancestry in accordance with the foundational mechanism of natural selection and its later developments as distinguished from previous evolutionary models. You're very confused. See the following article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/ The term merely goes to this historical distinction regarding the concerns of selection, probability and change, nominalism vs. essentialism, and tempo and mode of evolutionary change.
DeleteTo be honest, I usually wouldn't entertain a conversation like this, but I will, only because I think you sincerely think you are correct. For the purpose of this conversation, I will pretend like we do NOT have fossils (one of the many evidences)I will stick to one of the ways that you can know that evolution is a fact. Simply put: You trust DNA to tell you that you are the father of your children, then why do you not trust it to tell you that you are also related to chimpanzees? I mean I could really go on for days however, you have a huge job ahead of you in an attempt to prove that DNA is not real.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I'm happy to get to the alleged genetic evidence. But first tell me how the paleontological record supports evolution. More to the point, how does a gratuitously imposed model of speciation, which tautologically presupposes Darwinian naturalism, on the paleontological record support evolution? All of biological history is an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect over time, and what survives, survives, therefore, a common ancestry?! That doesn't follow. The conclusion is presupposed in the premise. We call that circular reasoning or begging the question. Explain to me why the paleontological record does not support a biological history that is a series of direct, creative events of fully formed species, coupled with adaptations within kinds and extinctions driven by naturally occurring mechanisms thereafter, over time. The evidence would look much the same in many respects. Indeed, given that the paleontological record does not reflect any definitively Darwinian model of speciation, beyond the fact that species generally appear in the order of increasing complexity, why is Darwin's model not merely a collection of anecdotes and hunches predicated on a metaphysical presupposition? The Bible, for example, holds to a history of speciation from the simple to the complex over time too. Since we do not have and cannot have any direct observable evidence of transmutational macrospeciation, why are we not instead insisting on an open-ended methodological naturalism for science?
ReplyDeleteWell, you have made a lot of assertions in your reply so lets address some of them. We observe evolution happening. Scientists agree that micro/macro evolution are fundamentally the same thing. The only difference is the amount of time it takes. Logic tells you that if you make many small changes over time to anything given enough time that it will be very different. I only need DNA to exist to make my point. If you are looking for fossils I would suggest: The Natural Museum of History. The fossil record does indeed show a model of speciation, the evidence is clear. I mean I just can't put it more simple than this.
DeleteOnce again, the notion, the idea, of a transmutational, macroevolutionary speciation is gratuitously imposed on the fossil record! The notion or idea is not in the fossil record. It's an idea, a notion, an assumption! What's wrong with you? Those arrows and lines on evolutionary graphs alleging the branchings of a common ancestry are not in the fossil record. There exists absolutely NO fossil evidence or observable evidence for macroevolution. That most biologists presuppose a Darwinian metaphysics or an ontological metaphysics has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence in an of itself. Further, the fossil record should be flooded with unmistakable transitional forms. It's not! I'm telling you that the fossil record may be readily interpreted to be a history of direct, creative events of fully formed species, coupled with adaptive variations within kinds and extinctions driven by naturally occurring mechanisms thereafter, over time.
DeleteEvolutionists claim that logic tells us that many small changes over time lead to one species becoming a different kind of species. Really? That only follows if genetic and morphological variations can produce different kinds of species. We have no evidence for any such thing. On the contrary, the evidence tells us that these variations are of a cyclical, oscillating and limited range of speciation within kinds. Your logical assumption in not in the fossil record. It's not observable, verifiable or testable. Indeed, all evidence points away from this possibility. You want to go to the DNA evidence, supposedly the very best of evidence. No you don't, because it is becoming increasingly clear that the evolutionist's interpretation of that is teleologically metaphysical as well, that the predictions of decades ago are being systematically falsified. Read the follow article from my blog and behold the problem: http://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/125313057441/an-expos%C3%A9-of-the-nose-mining-busybodies
Your problem is that you've never wrapped your head around the fact that the Darwinian model of speciation and the evolutionist's interpretation of the evidence is in fact based on a scientifically unfalsifiable, metaphysical presupposition that begs the question, one that presupposes it to be true. Further, we've got tons of junk science that allegedly supports the Darwinian model in our textbooks to this day, cited by know-nothings, that has been falsified for decades. Getting to the point: evolutionists look at the fossil, morphological and genetic evidence and say: "looky here, we have a collection of various species with common traits; hence, a common ancestry!" No. I say, "looky here, we have a collection of various species with common traits because they are all terrestrial species!" Logic dictates that a designer would of course modify any number of universally applicable infrastructural components, as a matter of necessity and efficiency, for species comprised of the same material with the same fundamental needs for life and survival on the same planet. Given the fact that we now know for sure that so-called micospeciation, which is better described as adaptive variations within kinds, is cyclically limited, actually oscillates, why are we not looking at a speciation of a common design rather than a speciation of a common ancestry?
Finally, and this is why peer-reviewed mutationism and neutralism are hammering away at the foundation of the Darwinian model today, we know damn well that genetic mutations go NOT produce new information, that most are defective. The information that produces them preexists, that portions of this preexisting information is, alternately, lost or is suppressed by genetic and environmental factors of natural selection. This is what we actually observe. After all, nature doesn't select nonexistent information, but existing information, that which is better suited to the prevailing environmental conditions! The environmental factors of natural selection do not produce new information, but drive the replication of existing information that is adaptable, and severe, geologically sudden changes in the environment and catastrophic events can wipe that information out, render it extinct. The genetic evidence? Pfft. The genetic evidence is the death knell of the Darwinian model, but the fanatics of ontological naturalism will cling to their "religion" relentlessly, I'm sure.
DeleteWhat I don't tolerate, what I'm fed up with, is the arrogance of pseudo-intellectuals who can't divorce themselves of their metaphysical biases long enough to grasp what learned Creationists and/or ID scientists are actually pointing out to you, what their actual objections are! I'm fed up with the unconstitutional imposition of your metaphysics in the state schools.
WOW, I am so sorry you are this indoctrinated that you cannot even see facts. You have again rambled on it the hopes that many words will convince someone that facts are not true. DNA is REAL! No matter what you imply. You claim science is a religion and that shows your lack of understanding in even basic reality. I am sorry you are brainwashed into your beliefs but that don't mean you get to make assertions without proof.
DeleteWhat a load of ad hominem malarkey! "You're indoctrinated!" "Many words!" "DNA is real!" Who said it wasn't? "Science is religion!" I said no such thing! "You're brainwashed!" "Assertions without proof!" You're just another slogan-spouting hack. ARE YOU ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU UNDERSTWAND MY OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE LOGISTICS AND METAPHYSICS OF SCIENCE, THE NATURE OF YOUR PRESUPPOSITION, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM AND ONTOLOGICAL NATURALISM, THE LACK OF OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE FOR A TRANSMUTATION COMMON ANCESTRY, THEN ASSERT WHY THESE THINGS ARE NOT TRUE W3ITH FACTS AND LOGIC . . . OR NOT? IF ALL THESE AD HOMIMENS ARE TRUE IT SHOLD BE A SNAP. LET'S HAVE IT!
DeleteAllow me to make one more point. Creationists presuppose there is a creator before they even ask the question. Creationists are NOT scientists. They are a cancer trying to prove that there belief is right. That is NOT what science does. You clearly are more worried about trying to sound smart instead of trying to discover the truth. I am sorry that you do not realize what a Theory is and what it means. If you want the world to grasp what these so called Creationist Scientists are saying, all they have to do is submit their facts to the scientific community to be tested. They won't do this. Why? Because they have no evidence of these lies.
ReplyDelete"I'm fed up with the unconstitutional imposition of your metaphysics in the state schools." No Sir, you do not get to replace science with your pseudo-scientific nonsense and preach it as such in a public classroom that I pay taxes to keep in places. We ave in fact witnessed changes from one species to another. You probably already know that and are simply ignoring it or you are moving the goalpost, or you are completely ignorant of it , in which case you should not be involved in these types of conversations. Try opening a book you can't find in the back of a pew.
ReplyDeleteTheologically, Creationists KNOW that God exists because they have experienced God's reality in their lives! Scientifically, they hold to an open-ended, methodological naturalism, as opposed to your strictly faith-based ontological naturalism, based on the incontrovertible logic of the universally absolute--neurologically hardwired!--rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and the empirical evidence of material reality that overwhelming supports the conclusion that God exists. Anytime you think you can refute that logic and the empirical evidence, pony up and watch what happens. As for you absurd claim that I don't know what scientific theories are, prove it with something other than slogans and unsubstantiated clams. Put up or shut up.
Delete"No Sir, you do not get to replace science with your pseudo-scientific nonsense and preach it as such in a public classroom that I pay taxes to keep in places."
DeleteOh, I see, so I don't pay taxes, and my inalienable First Amendment liberties can be violated at will, eh? Has it ever occurred to you, jackass, that the majority of scientists do no have the right to impose their pseudo-scientific baby talk premised on Darwinian metaphysics in the schools on children against the parent consent and authority of those who hold their swill to be false? Has is ever occurred to you, you brainwashed twit, that the public education system in and of itself, in the absence of universal school choice, is unconstitutional? Where in the imperatives of natural and constitutional do you have the legitimate right to impose your metaphysics for science and the pseudo-scientific baby talk thereof on me in the sate schools? So far what we have here are slogan-spouting morons who obviously cannot give me any examples of direct, observable evidence of macrospeciation, let alone refute the facts and the logic in my article on my blog or even comprehend the realities of the logistics and metaphysics of science. All I've read so far are the ad hominem of second-rate intellects and statist bootlicks.
I've put up real arguments here. Ad hominem, appeals to authority and the statist impositions of children who do not understand the imperatives of natural and constitutional law, or respect and defend the inalienable rights of others don't rate! What is your ontological justification to hold that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect? You can't appeal to science as that is axiomatically unscientific and you can't appeal to logic for reasons that you've obviously never considered in all your brainwashed lives.
"Based on the incontrovertible logic of the universally absolute--neurologically hardwired!--rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and the empirical evidence of material reality that overwhelming supports the conclusion that God exists." I'd be happy to take on your assertion here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that because people have sentience and are capable of using logic they must be created? Firstly, how do you make that connection? Secondly, why is excluding your creator from this not special pleading? Through the course of the conversation all I've really seen from your side is ad hominem, arguments from ignorance, information overload, special pleading, non sequiturs, and run of the mill misinformation.
DeleteI mean how many times must you be proven wrong before you see it? You stated "Creationists KNOW that God exists because they have experienced God's reality in their lives!" I call you a liar. Prove that statement! A more accurate statement would be Creationists have a happy feeling and then say...THAT MUST BE JESUS OF THE BIBLE MAKING ME FEEL THAT WAY! It's kinda like seeing something up in the sky and you are NOT sure what it is and then say: ITS ALIENS FROM PLUTO! Making a non falsifiable claim causes you to lose this argument before it even begins.
ReplyDeleteAs far as you paying taxes goes, when you ask us to teach children FAIRY TALES are real in science class, we have a problem. I am fine with them teaching the history of ALL religions in a separate class. You have consistently made arguments from authority, then have the ordasity to say "Ad hominem, appeals to authority". I mean you have proven yourself what religion can do to the mind. Brainwashing is a REAL thing and you simple brainwashed.
It's stupid for you to even talk about spiritual experiences in terms of proof? By proof, what do you mean? Scientific proof? Are you retarded? Science can't address spiritual matters. LOL! I know God exists because I have experienced His reality in my life. I don't need to prove anything to you in that wise. What I can demonstrate is the logic proves out that God must be. All you're saying is that God doesn't exist. Really? So what is your ontological justification for that absolute claim? What's your scientific proof that God doesn't exist? What's your scientific evidence for metaphysical naturalism? Why do you keep making pseudoscientific claims?
DeleteThe issue is not God in any event. I challenged your claim that macroevolution is a fact. All you've done is made baby talk and evaded the facts that I laid down. Refute them. You claimed there could be no facts or logic that refute evolution. Well, looky, boy, I gave you plenty of facts and logic, and once again all you give me is irrelevant lip. LOL! What a fraud, what a know-nothing, what a phony. You're just another slogan-spouter, another robot, another zombie. You can't argue evolution can you? LOL! What a phony you are.
Let me demonstrate why we cant take you seriously "It's stupid for you to even talk about spiritual experiences in terms of proof? By proof, what do you mean? Scientific proof?" Begs the question if there are spiritual experiences."Are you retarded?" Ad hominem. "All you're saying is that God doesn't exist." False, no one here has said that. You made the claim that there is a god, we're saying put up or shut up and you're doing neither. "mutationism and neutralism are hammering away at the foundation of the Darwinian model today, we know damn well that genetic mutations go NOT produce new information, that most are defective. The information that produces them preexists, that portions of this preexisting information is, alternately, lost or is suppressed by genetic and environmental factors of natural selection." One of many baseless claims, this is not evidence this is an assertion.
DeleteReligious studies are not for science classrooms. It is no way a violation of your rights to avoid indoctrinating children, I'm sorry that you feel otherwise. Children can go wherever there parents send them to school, but in a public/government ran i.e. secular school, in tandem with the fact that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", you & your child may have whatever religion you wish, but you will not be taught your religion in a public school as science. Not until it is proven scientifically. "What is your ontological justification to hold that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect?" Evolution in and of itself does not address the cosmological so I'm not sure why you'd redirect the conversation in that way. You are essentially asking in all your verbosity, "How do you prove that all of the universe as it is today is a result of natural cause and effect?" As opposed to supernatural cause and effect? Perhaps because there is no reason to assume such a thing, there certainly isn't any proof of that. Beyond that point, EVERY single bit of evidence we've EVER discovered related to the topic converges on the fact that the Universe in which we know is entirely governed by natural processes. Including evolution. Explain vestigial organs, junk DNA, transitional fossils, the list goes on. We have more evidence supporting evolution than many other areas of science that are noncontroversial and widely accepted. I noticed you avoided my statement earlier, an oversight I'm sure because creationists never ignore evidence and intend to mislead -I'll restate it for you here, We ave in fact witnessed changes from one species to another. You probably already know that and are simply ignoring it or you are moving the goalpost, or you are completely ignorant of it , in which case you should not be involved in these types of conversations. Try opening a book you can't find in the back of a pew.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything about religious studies in the state schools, you idiot. I said that the public education system in the absence of universal school choice is unconstitutional. That's obvious! That's self-evident. Are you another statist moron like most atheists? Are you another brainwashed, statist bootlick like most atheists? If it's unconstitutional to impose my metaphysics and the scientific evidence of creationism/ID science on your kids, then why is it not unconstitutional for you to impose YOUR metaphysics and the subsequent interpretation of the evidence on my kids, you fascist thug? You mindless robot! If your metaphysical presupposition for science is wrong, your interpretation of the evidence is wrong. Evolution is presupposed in your metaphysics, you drooling moron. You atheists are the stupidest human beings on the face of the planet. Dense as a pile of bricks.
DeleteVestigial organs? Well aside from the fact that, once again, the claim that so-called vestigial organs support evolution presupposes that the metaphysics of evolution are true, beg the question, over a hundred organs that evolutionists have claimed to be useless, vestigial organs have been shown to be essential; i.e., those claims have been falsified. It's unscientific to hold that that any organ is useless or non-essential, because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. Even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution, not evolution. Common design would allow for deterioration. Evolution actually needs to provide examples of nascent organs, those that increase in complexity.
Well aside from the fact that, once again, the so-called DNA evidence and fossil evidence for evolution presupposes that the metaphysics of evolution are true, I already addressed that nonsense here:
http://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/125313057441/an-expos%C3%A9-of-the-nose-mining-busybodies
Shut up about the moving the goal posts, junior, and tell refute what I've already demonstrated. Man, you atheists, you evolutionists are stupid. Dense as a pile of bricks.
You did speak about religious studies, albeit not verbatum. You want your religion to be presented in science classrooms to be studied. It isn't unconstitutional for you to present your scientific evidence for creationism in public schools, you just don't have any. You have a book of fairy tales written by ignorant desert dwellers that believed animals talked and that angels had sex with human women to create nephilm. Your wrong about how science works it's as simple as that. You think you should presuppose an idea and find the evidence that supports it, science observes the evidence and sees what it supports. In this case vestigial organs amoung many other evidences lead us to conclude necessarily that evolution is the most accurate model for how the system of biology works.Vestigial organs are essential? LMAO, I smell a troll.
DeleteBTW You don't seem to know the meaning of a lot of words you use, let me explain one of those for you. Fascism is a system in which society is to be organized to obey a supreme leader in which the followers of said leader must be staunchly devout and unquestioningly or be punished with utmost severity, of course the rewards for following the fascist tyrant will lead to grand prosperity or at least that is what they claim. I don't know how it is possible to have so much cognitive dissonance that you haven't realised that you are in fact a fascist and the very religion you participate in is a prime example of fascism.
DeleteForget about religious studies. They're not relevant, you idiot. And there's nothing profound about the observation that religious studies and science are distinct disciplines. I never said they weren't, you dishonest little prick. I swear to God, most atheists are pathological liars, intellectual sociopaths. Further, I asserted an open-ended, methodological naturalism for science, which prevailed, by the way, for centuries before Darwinists usurped the proper metaphysical foundation for science with a strict naturalism and/or an ontological naturalism, which is what begs the question, jackass, and the meaning and the application of the term "fascism" is NOT limited to the technical or literal denotation. It does in fact carry connotations beyond that, you small-minded ignoramus. You remind me of the feminist morons who point to the dictionary definition of feminism, which is politically contrived, as if that definition were substantively accurate relative to the realities of their fascist ideology, more at the polymorphous perversity of cultural Marxism an as if equality between the genders were desirable in terms of authority in the first place. I say that men by nature necessarily bear the greater burden of responsibility for the family and civilization: it is men, not women, who do the bulk of the heavy lifting, physically and intellectually that builds, sustains, advances and defends them. Equal authority via governmental policies axiomatically oppresses and enslaves men.
DeleteAs for your blather about the topic before us, see my challenge to Nick the Mindless Stick.
You children don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning. It's not even close.
That's exactly what a fascist would say. Also, no, your intellect does not surpass mine by any stretch of the imagination, if I wanted to kill myself I would jump from your ego all the way down to your iq. Provide your scientific evidence for a creator and I will make it a goal of my own accord to get it into science classrooms. I am entirely willing to change my mind if provided sufficient evidence, can you do that or not?
DeleteYou have yet to show that spiritual experiences are supernatural. This is what you are saying right? I mean you are so very ignorant its hard to even engage you. I was a christian for 25 years, I also claimed to have special feelings of a divine being. Does this then qualify me access to make the claim that your so called "Divine Revelation" is false. In fact, I would say it would. Logic
ReplyDeleteI have experienced your "Holy Ghost" moments,"The love of Christ" if you will. You can convince yourself of anything if you want it enough. What can you say to someone that is brainwashed so badly that he cannot even see evidence? You have done nothing but make assertions, and I have repeatedly shown you where you can get the evidence you so un-earnestly seek. Evolution is a fact, there is evidence. Tons of it. I have explained to you that macro-evolution is a product of micro-evolution.
You said: "What I can demonstrate is the logic proves out that God must be."
This is a lie, you cannot use logic to prove that statement. Why? Because the laws of logic prevents you from using a fallacy from incredulity. Your logic must be fallacy free to hold water.
You said: "God doesn't exist. Really? So what is your ontological justification for that absolute claim?"
The simple answer is: DNA! How many times must we go over this? No one here has made any absolute claim on a gods existence. However, we can be a good 97% sure and we can be 100% that if hes does exist its not the god of the bible.
In closing, I have refuted all your claims. I have told you were you can look to find the information. You are so brainwashed I am sure you don't really want any answers. You just want to believe in god no matter what. YOU MUST believe, because if you don't hell awaits.
Now, given that you are obviously poorly trained in logistics and science, and given that you are a bad, lazy thinker--a closed-minded, intellectual bigot--I'm prepared to offer my masterful services to lace you up, child.
DeleteYou claim that logic DOES NOT prove out that God exists. Boy, you've just never thought the matter through for yourself, boy.
So let's start with something simple, and see if you can focus.
Do you agree that the universe exists?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDUDE! ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS! YOU ARE EXHIBIT A AS TO WHY I DESPISE MY GENERATION. YOU CAN'T THINK. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND. YOU DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE JUST A SLOGAN SPOUTER. THE ISSUE IS SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL. SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES OF GOD ARE NOT THE ISSUE. THEY OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HAD THEM, YOU IDIOT, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES. I MERELY POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT YOUR CLAIMS REGARDING THE THEOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS FOR THEISM ARE FALSE.
DeleteSTRAW MEN, YOU LYING-ASS COWARD, YOU IGNORAMUS, YOU PHONY!
AN EVOLUTIONARY COMMON ANCESTRY VS. COMMON DESIGN, THE METAPHYSICS OF SCIENCE, THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND THE LOGISTICS OF FIRST PRINCIPLES ARE THE PERTINENT ISSUES. THESE THINGS ARE SUBJECT TO EMPIRICAL AND OBJECTIVE EXAMINATION.
FORGET ABOUT SPIRITUAL AND BIBLICAL CONCERNS! THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT. FORGET ABOUT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. THAT'S NOT RELEVANT, AND YOUR INCOHERENT BLATHER ABOUT DNA AND THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MADNESS.
YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED ANYTHING.
A REFUTATION BEGINS WITH A DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT. YOUR REPETITIOUS BLATHER ABOUT HOW MANY SMALL CHANGES WITHIN KINDS NECESSARILY RESULTS IN MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY TRANSMUTATIONS OF KINDS IS NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE FACTS THAT:
(1) NATURE DOES NOT PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION BUT SELECTS FROM PREEXISTING INFORMATION . . .
(2) GENETIC MUTATIONS ARE LOSES OF OR SUPPRESSIONS OF INFORMATION . . .
(3) WE CANNOT AND NEVER HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY TRANSMUTATIONS OF KINDS . . .
(4) WE HAVE NEVER OBSERVED ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THAT THE RANGE OF GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES ARE CYCLICALLY LIMITED, OSCILLATE, WITHIN KINDS . . .
(5) THE DARWINIAN MODEL OF SPECIATION IS PREDICATED ON A METAPHYSICS FOR SCIENCE THAT PRESUPPOSES THE DARWINIAN MODEL OF SPECIATION, BEGGING THE QUESTION AND INTERPRETING THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ACCORDINGLY, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE JUST AS READILY, IF NOT MORE SO, SUPPORTS a history of direct, creative events of fully formed species, coupled with adaptive variations within kinds and extinctions driven by naturally occurring mechanisms thereafter, over time.
In addition to that, responding to the know-nothing anonymous poster, I wrote:
“Vestigial organs? Well aside from the fact that, once again, the claim that so-called vestigial organs support evolution presupposes that the metaphysics of evolution are true, beg the question, over a hundred organs that evolutionists have claimed to be useless, vestigial organs have been shown to be essential; i.e., those claims have been falsified. It's unscientific to hold that that any organ is useless or non-essential, because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. Even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution, not evolution. Common design would allow for deterioration. Evolution actually needs to provide examples of nascent organs, those that increase in complexity.
Well aside from the fact that, once again, the so-called DNA evidence and fossil evidence for evolution presupposes that the metaphysics of evolution are true, I already addressed that nonsense here:
http://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/125313057441/an-expos%C3%A9-of-the-nose-mining-busybodies”
YOU HAVE NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESSED ANY OF THESE THINGS. YOU’RE JUST A SLOGAN-SPOUTING ROBOT. YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED MY OBSERVATIONS WITH ANY LOGICAL, FACTUAL OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
"NATURE DOES NOT PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION BUT SELECTS FROM PREEXISTING INFORMATION" an accumulation and a recombination of bricks can give you entirely different buildings. An accumulation and recombination of genes can give you entirely different species. "GENETIC MUTATIONS ARE LOSES OF OR SUPPRESSIONS OF INFORMATION . . . " you have a limited and incirrect knowledge of this, imperfect copying of genes can result in added information. "WE CANNOT AND NEVER HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY TRANSMUTATIONS OF KINDS . . . " what are kinds? This is not a scientific term. "WE HAVE NEVER OBSERVED ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THAT THE RANGE OF GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES ARE CYCLICALLY LIMITED, OSCILLATE, WITHIN KINDS . . ." Again, what are these kinds? "THE DARWINIAN MODEL OF SPECIATION IS PREDICATED ON A METAPHYSICS FOR SCIENCE THAT PRESUPPOSES THE DARWINIAN MODEL OF SPECIATION, BEGGING THE QUESTION AND INTERPRETING THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ACCORDINGLY" No, we observed the evidence for evolution and came to the conclusion that it is accurate.We did not assume it was accurate and only look for supporting evidence like you are doing with creationism.
DeleteWow, your religion has your panties in a bunch huh? I know how you feel, I felt that rage when I believed in your worthless god. Look kid, you clearly are messed up in the head. I mean I am not going to keep repeating myself. You again make assertions that are not true. What am I to do with you? Your small mind clearly cannot understand words like empirical evidence.
ReplyDeleteI mean, you have given me nothing more to refute. DNA is a real thing rather you believe in it or not. I know how you Christians like to just pull things outa your ass and pretend fairy tales are real, however that don't work here. I mean I just read your post for a 2nd time, and yet I still have nothing to address until you prove that their is no such thing as DNA. We have fossil records, we observe macro-evolution everyday of our lives.
You just make up shit, and expect me to comes against it?
1. NATURE DOES NOT PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION BUT SELECTS FROM PREEXISTING INFORMATION
Umm...mutation causes changes to existing DNA (that stuff you don't know that's real)causing new information to form that wasn't there before. Conclusion #1: Nick wins!
#2 GENETIC MUTATIONS ARE LOSES OF OR SUPPRESSIONS OF INFORMATION
This one is just a lie, a 30 seconds google search would do you some good. Not to mention a biology book.(My field of study)
3. WE CANNOT AND NEVER HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY TRANSMUTATIONS OF KINDS . . .
As I said we observe it everyday. You are not doing so well....you are 0/3
4. WE HAVE NEVER OBSERVED ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THAT THE RANGE OF GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES ARE CYCLICALLY LIMITED, OSCILLATE, WITHIN KINDS . .
That is just an assertion, I will need you to prove that it is cyclically limited please. It's like you are Mr. Fallacy!
5. THE DARWINIAN MODEL OF SPECIATION IS PREDICATED ON A METAPHYSICS FOR SCIENCE THAT PRESUPPOSES THE DARWINIAN MODEL OF SPECIATION, BEGGING THE QUESTION AND INTERPRETING THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ACCORDINGLY, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE JUST AS READILY, IF NOT MORE SO, SUPPORTS
And last but not least: So your point is that we have to presuppose that science works before we accept evidence from science? I agree.
I mean you are so foolish, what do you expect? Please gain some knowledge before you post again, I mean really, you are making a fool out of yourself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOops. I had to revise twice. . . .
ReplyDeleteI used uppercase letters because you're as dense as a pile of bricks, and I see that you're still evading the facts. What a phony. If I'm so wrong it should be easy to refute me. I gave you arguments and facts, and you respond with slogans and ad hominem. LOL! You're a product of the public education system, aren't you?
Give me an instance from a peer reviewed, scientific work documenting adaptations within kinds wherein new information was added. I gave you the facts of known speciation, the facts of actually observed speciation. We all know my facts are correct. We have never observed an instance of evolutionary macroevolution of one kind of species becoming another kind of species . . . ever.
You can't give me an example because no such thing exits.
"But . . . but . . . but many changes equal macroevolution!" Really? When? Where? How?
Nonsense!
All genetic mutations and morphological changes ever observed are limited to a cyclical range, but not only that they oscillate back and forth, and are the stuff of lost or suppressed information. No new information.
We have short-billed finches that are the ancestors of long-billed finches today. They're still finches, now with short beaks because nature selected from preexistent information, not from new information, obviously, due to another change in the environment. LOL!
So in what sense is macroevolution scientific. It’s pure philosophy based on a metaphysical presupposition? You're brainwashed. You're a mindless, slogan-spouting moroon, a robot, a good little conformist.
Now, back to your stupid, laugh-out-loud claim that logic does not prove out that God exists.
Do you agree that the universe exists? Yes or no, coward?
Answer my questions, follow the inescapable line of logic to its conclusion via the Socratic method and watch what happens.
Knock, knock, anyone home? Are you there? Are you absolutely sure that I'm wrong? Let's follow the logic, Mr. Atheist. Let's see what the universally absolute and neurologically hardwired rational forms and logical categories of human cognition reveal. What are you afraid of? It's only a matter of the three fundamental laws of logic--identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle, comprehensively, the universal principle of identity. After all, inherently contradictory assertions are self-negating, hence, formal logical proofs of the opposite, Mr. Atheist. Let's see how well the assertion of atheism actually holds up against REAL logic.
Do you agree that the universe exists? Yes or no? Or do I have to force the Socratic dialogue on you, as Plato had to do with intellectually dishonest little pricks?
Answer the question! It goes to the foundation of whether or not the metaphysics of science must rest on an open-ended, methodological naturalism in order to be legitimate, a presupposition that DOES NOT beg the question, but permits the evidence to be objectively assessed without a pre-programed bias against either an evolutionary common ancestry or against a speciation of common design. It permits the chips to fall where they may.
Answer the question!
You said "We have short-billed finches that are the ancestors of long-billed finches today." Prove it! Oh wait you can with DNAs right? Oh wait, you can also prove we are related to chimpanzees with DNA. I guess I win again, until you refute DNA which I have asked you 10 times to address and disprove. I have refuted every single claim you have made...not its time for you to just refute mine.
ReplyDeleteLOL! How does DNA prove that we are directly related to chimpanzees in terms of a common ancestry? You haven't demonstrated any discernible understanding of the alleged science that supports that notion. You just keep repeating the allegation. Tell me why this must be true according to evolutionists and watch what happens. Bald claims are not arguments, you brainwashed product of the public education system. You don't know how to think or how to make formal arguments, do you? I know the science, the substance of the supposed genetic "proof" for this link. I'm waiting for you to state it, so that I can show you why the interpretation of the evidence is purely teleological and, once again, ultimately predicated on the presupposition of a Darwinian metaphysics.
DeleteI'm more than willing to be that I, a former evolutionist and an expert on abiogenetic research and the related microbiological and biotechnological concerns, know the science better than you, boyo.
In the meantime, do you agree that the universe exists?
You really can't be this dumb. I mean we test the dna of you then a chimp and it matches 98% sure and BOOM we have some evidence. You have yet to show any scientific knowledge. As a matter of fact, I would even go as far as saying you are one of the least educated people I have ever meet on this subject.
DeleteI've had enough or your mealy mouth. Face the fact of the Darwinian Paradox, which those of us who actually understand the totality of the matter and the science, both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, have known for decades, you close-minded, intellectually bigoted nitwit, about textbook evolution:
Deletehttp://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/138311016936/the-essential-factors-of-natural-selection-are-1
Okay, I think I get it, you just assert things unrealistic in nature. You are a joke. Best you move along now. You are clearly to dumb to grasp anything. lol
DeleteWow, this conversation is bizarre. You don't seem to be very bright, Nick. The Darwinian Paradox is real and it's well known by evolutionists that it hasn't been or can't be resolved.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
Delete"The Darwinian Paradox is real and it's well known by evolutionists that it hasn't been or can't be resolved."
Well, I appreciate the thrust of your observation, but for accuracy's sake, the Darwinian Paradox goes to the fact that microspeciation has never been shown to scale to macroevolutionary speciation. The latter is in fact nothing more than a working hypothesis presupposed to be true, i.e., that many changes at the micro level eventually produce changes at the macro level. The problem is that the kind of mutations needed in order to produce macroevolutionary speciation must occur during the earliest stage--or the embryonic stage--of development and must entail mutations in fundamental systems and fundamental body plans.
But evidentiary research shows again and again that these kinds of mutations are destructive. They are not viable. They kill the organism. They are fatal errors in genetic recombination. Natural selection does not create or produce new information. Nature selects from viable, post-embryonic information only, not from nonexistent information. Adaptive mutations within kinds entail benign variations of height, length, size, pigmentation and the like. These do not transform species from one kind to another. The cannon of textbook evolution is riddled with claims that are counterfactual or falsified. All of the talk about the alleged fossil, vestigial and genetic supports for macroevolutionary Darwinism is the nonsense of an historical philosophy of speciation predicated on a strict methodological naturalism and/or an ontological naturalism, which begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the interpretation of the evidence from the perspective of an open-ended, methodological naturalism for science.
In addition to that, we have the likes of Dawkins and Shermer, for example, who know damn well that the gap between the microspeciation of natural selection within kinds and the alleged macroevolutionary speciation of Neo-Darwinism has never been bridged. We have never observed the latter, and the random mutation and natural selection at the micro-level of speciation does not and cannot account for a branching, macroevolutionary speciation of a common ancestry. The latter has never been anything more than a working hypothesis predicated on the notion that small scale and large scale speciation are the same thing over time.
DeleteThis is why the likes of these men claim that irreducible complexity has been falsified by either demonstrating functionality in degraded mechanisms (Miller) or by co-optive functionality (Dawkins and Shermer). But these are mere analogies, not the stuff of actual scientific, evidentiary research. Further, the first is the stuff of de-evolution, which the construct of irreducible complexity allows for. It doesn’t impinge on the construct at all except in the minds of gullible nitwits.
Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind chance and mutation. In other words, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.
Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute irreducible complexity with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It’s not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.
DeleteThe matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It’s a matter of experimentation and falsification.
In other words, ultimately, it’s not even a matter of morphology. It’s a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces.
As for co-optive functionality, it begs the question as it presupposes, once again, that the hypothetical scale from microspeciation to macroevolutionary speciation actually occurred when that’s the very essence of the dispute! If it is impossible, as the known, observable evidence shows, the speciation of so-called co-optive functionality would necessarily be of a limited range within kinds or be among species that are not related. These supposed refutations of irreducible complexity are baby talk.
Irreducible complexity holds that micro-speciation does not and cannot scale to macroevolutioary speciation! The former goes to the adaptively viable mutations of existing information of secondary systems and body parts that do not transform one kind of species into another kind. These are cyclically limited in range and oscillate. The latter goes to changes in fundamental systems and body plans in the earliest stage of development. All research shows that the latter rarely happen and when they do, they kill the organism, precisely because they are isolated, developmental abnormalities of fundamental systems. Ultimately, Shermer’s nonsense, especially, in “Why Darwin Matters” goes to his philosophical confusion regarding the difference between agency and mechanism. Agency precedes mechanism, and deciphering the natural processes of mechanism does not impinge upon agency at all, let alone eliminate agency. The atheist’s God in the Gaps Fallacy is nonsense. There is no such fallacy. This is more question-begging bs! The real fallacy is the ontologically unjustifiable presupposition that agency and mechanism are necessarily the same thing because agency doesn’t exist.
DeleteClaptrap!
Agency precedes mechanism in the very same way and for the very same reason that logistics, metaphysics and the philosophy of science precede science. Those who do not understand this or confound this reality routinely spout pseudoscientific blather.
Also, and this is another example of the kind of bs that nitwits like Nick uncritically swallow hook, line and sinker all the time, Shermer’s claims regarding the structure of the eye is totally wrong, and his discourse regarding the supposed eight intermediate fossil stages previously identified in the evolution of whales has been falsified. Indeed, it was falsified several years before the publication of his work. We now know that everyone of those fossils had features they would have had to lose in order to give birth to anything in the series. We now know these species were not related. This dated crap it still in the textbooks, just like more than a hundred of so-called vestigial organs cited as support for Darwinism are still in the textbooks.
Nick the stick blathers about DNA as he evades stating precisely what the supposed DNA evidence for the link between chimpanzees and humans is (fused chromosomes). I have news flash for him: that evidence is based on the presupposition of that evolution is true, that it can be readily accounted for by common design with no sweat, and evolutionists bloody well know that‘s true. Genetics is going to be the death knell of Darwinian macroevolutionary speciation.
He was trolling you and got 3 pages outa you..LOL
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to me, I'm a she who came to this discussion after reading MDR's article on abiogenesis. I wasn't trolling anyone. I simply don't have a Google account.
DeleteYour behavior in this discussion is bizarre. You don't seem to understand anything MDR is telling you. I started reading this discussion with a lot of interest after reading MDR's brilliant piece on abiogenesis and reviewing your blog, which gives the first impression of being owned by someone who can intelligently discuss the various issues. But as MDR pointed out, your posts are boring, non-responsive bumper stickers, while his are cogent and informative.
For example, you claim that logic doesn’t support God’s existence. MDR says that it does, and that he can prove it. I suspect that he would lead you to the alternatives of origin via infinite regress, but you avoid the discussion. I guess your followers are naive. Maybe that’s what you’re used to, but real intellects are going to have nothing but contempt for your empty, demagogic responses.
You act as if the Darwinian Paradox has been resolved, when those of us who know the science very well know that's not true. Evolutionists know that’s not true in any sense that we require in the hard, mathematically predictive sciences. Neo-Darwinism remains a historical-philosophical theory that may be true if the underlying metaphysics are true. In that light is has some evidentiary support, but it’s not conclusive. You don’t seem to understand its real nature and why it may not be true. That’s why the debate will not go away. I was looking for you to explain why we should think that the textbook assumption that micro-speciation scales to macro-speciation in some detail, but you don't explain anything. You just make unsupported claims and call him stupid. Well, you’re the one who looks stupid. You come off as a mantra-mumbling fanatic without any real understanding of anything.
You're a silly man.
There's a few typos in my post above yours, but I trust that they don't muddle the reading . . . except for this one:
Delete"Nick the stick blathers about DNA as he evades stating precisely what the supposed DNA evidence for the link between chimpanzees and humans is (fused chromosomes). I have a news flash for him: that evidence is based on the presupposition of that evolution is true, that it can be readily accounted for by common design with no sweat, and evolutionists bloody well know that‘s true. Genetics is going to be the death knell of Darwinian macroevolutionary speciation."
The latter part of that should read, "I have news flash for him: that evidence is based on the presupposition that evolution is true. It can be readily accounted for by common design with no sweat, and evolutionists bloody well know that's true. Genetics is going to be the death knell of Darwinian macroevolutionary speciation."
Essentially, the allegedly shared ancestry between chimpanzees and humans is teleological in nature, and, as I said before, it presupposes that Neo-Darwinian macroevolutionary speciation is necessarily true. But neither the fossil nor the genetic evidence refutes a history of common design, i.e., a series of engineering feats or discrete extractions from an extant, foundationally universal motif episodically refined to produce new and fully formed species. These similarities may be just as readily interpreted as being a foundationally universal blueprint for a common design of transcribed components. If the foundation of biological history is a series of creative events over time and subsequent adaptive variations within kinds and extinctions via the various mechanisms of natural selection thereafter over time, transcribed components make perfect sense in terms of efficiency and in terms of the requirements of a disparate collection of terrestrial-bound species comprised of the same material.
I should also point out that what the likes of Shermer and Dawkins do all the time in their books is imply that various research projects have produced new species in the sense of organisms with new organs or body plans, which is utter crap. The fact of the matter is that if such a thing were to ever occur, it would nece3ssarily be engineered. Shermer does this with a 2004 research project. The authors of that work--Neo-Darwinian evolutionists, real, honest scientists, who know that evolutionary biologists are still trying to uncover a conclusively definitive route that would bridge the gap between microspeciation and macroevolutionary speciation--wrote a scathing critique of Shermer's mischaracterization of their work.
This is the sort of thing that flim-flam artists like Dawkins and Shermer do all the time to sell books to mindless, true believers and imbecilic atheists like Nick the stick, who, as you pointed out, won't follow me to the overwhelming logical conclusion regarding what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition actually divulge about the construct of divine origin.
DeleteAlso, guys like Nick don't think past the gap of the Darwinian Paradox. All these charlatans--Dawkins et. al.--are really saying over and over and over again is that microspeication necessarily scales to or is the same thing as macroevolutioanry speciation over time, relative to research projects that are trying to definitively prove this against the avalanche of evidentiary research that shows that it never occurs, that nature only selects from adaptively viable, secondary mutations within kinds--preexisting information!--that are cyclically limited in range and oscillate.
As for the logic that proves out that God must be. Yes. More accurately or formally stated, that begins with the ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin and the irreducible mind. But that only produces the three fundamental options for origin. From there the transcendental argument demonstrates why the substance of the construct of divine origin must be . . . at least according to the imperatives of organic logic, which divulges the paradoxical absurdity and irrationalism of atheism.
Ultimately, It's because of this that learned theists routinely beat the imbeciles of the new atheism black and blue in debates. The blather of laymen atheists, who've never thought anything through in their lives, that the arguments for God's existence are inconclusive is exposed for what it really is: the idiocy which demands that spiritual substance be empirical substance.
IDIOTS!
A = A.
Only logistics and metaphysics can deal with spiritual realities, and agency, logistics, metaphysics and the philosophy of science necessarily precede science and mechanism.
Materialists are philosophical retards. That alone demonstrates why their metaphysics must be wrong!
The only reason they get away with this stupidity is because our post-modern culture of philosophical relativism, which is anti-scientific and anti-rational, is trumpeted by the state schools and pop culture--a collection of slogans repeated over and over again, the stuff of irrational, self-negating, pseudoscientific baby talk.
The moral output of this is the intellectual bigotry and polymorphous perversity of SJWs: the feminazis and homofascists of cultural Marxism against whom patriots will have to eventually take up arms. They’re murderous, pitchfork-wielding barbarians. They’re statist bootlicks. Sluts. Cuckold manginas. Homos. Infanticidal monsters.
Bottom line: the evidence for God's existence IS the existence of the universe and the imperatives of organic logic. Atheism is the idiocy that (1) necessarily acknowledges that the universe IS the evidence for God's existence in its very denial of God's existence, that (2) the substance of the construct of divine origin cannot be logically ruled out and that (3) the denial of the God axiom devolves into a paradoxically arbitrary allegiance to the propositional and mathematical axioms of human cognition without any ontological justification for that anywhere in sight. Atheism is inherently irrational, self-negating. It's based on nothing more than blind faith.
Still waiting..its funny he got his girlfriend to support him afters hes been proved wrong time and time again. It don't matter who agrees with you when you are wrong. Still awaiting for u to prove DNA is not real like you keep saying......If your next post is NOT that proof, best you just move on because you have yet to show any thing scientific, and that's all I care about.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a scientific THEORY = AKA FACT! Those are the facts. Either put up or shut up. If you DO NOT refute my claim this conversation is done.
No sane person knows what you're talking about. Prove that DNA is not real? Of course DNA is real. What does that have to do with resolving the paradox? Textbook evolutionary theory regarding the notion that the microspeciation of the various mechanisms of natural selection within kinds, which no one has ever disputed and was understood before Darwin came along, scales to a macroevolutionary speciation is not a theory, but a working, historical-philosophical hypothesis. No, sir! You put up or shut up. There is no experimental evidence that the latter scales. NONE!
DeleteI and a growing number of biologists don't give a damn that the majority call that aspect of evolutionary theory a theory or a fact. It's a myth. It's counterfactual. It's predictions are being systematically falsified. It resides outside the mathematical calculi of known speciation. The Neo-Darwinian notion of a biological history of a macroevolutionary common ancestry is BS. And you haven't provided one argument or one iota of conclusive evidence for it. Why? Because none exists!
ReplyDeleteYes its a myth..like gravity.. I understand now. And that makes since its a fact but some call it a myth..yes...everything you said makes sense...lol. There is no paradox..LOL I study biology and have never even heard of this..when I looked it up..it was something that creationists made up..imagine that making up more shit..lol. There is a reason there are no creationists scientists. Give me a break kiddo..
ReplyDelete29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There is your proof....reject it if you like but us scientists look at facts not made up bitches named Jesus.
Sounds like you confusing the coral reef paradox with the scaling paradox. You have yet to point to any study that overcomes the necessity of early embryonic changes in fundamental systems and body plans. Once again, Nick the stick, microspeciation does not scale to macroevolutionary speciation, and evolutionary biologists know this.
DeleteYou are just full of shit. You make assertions yet do not back it up with any evidence. I listed 29 evidences in my last post. Ignore them....if you like..but they are still facts...Macro and micro are the same thing..the difference is time. Those are the facts.
DeleteJust in case you missed it:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You are just full of shit. You make assertions yet do not back it up with any evidence. I listed 29 evidences in my last post. Ignore them....if you like..but they are still facts...Macro and micro are the same thing..the difference is time. Those are the facts.
DeleteJust in case you missed it:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution refuted: http://trueorigin.org/theobald1a.php
ReplyDeleteHAHHAHAH you sent me that piece of shit..LOL That is laughed at by the scientific community. IT EVEN STARTS WITH A GOD REFERENCE...LOL Talk about begging the question. Yeah, its been really refuted many times by many people. We laugh at your page. There is nothing there but guessing..nothing scientific or factual. Give me a break kiddo..lol
DeleteLast word: Repent or perish, sinner.
DeleteThere is no God, there never has been one. And even if there was one it for SURE wouldn't be the one of the bible. Simple.
DeleteLook. You haven't demonstrated that you actually understand the science of observable speciation, and you apparently don't understand why your “29 Evidences” link, which is nothing new to someone like me, does not address it. You're stuck on the stupid of your metaphysics. Macroevolutionary mutations would necessarily go to embryonic mutations of fundamental systems and body plans. This has been demonstrated again and again in experimental science. There exists absolutely no experimental evidence to the contrary. These kinds of mutations are organism-killing/degenerative abnormalities in DNA recombination. They are not viable. Hence, nature does select them out of the population against prevailing environmental factors. The only organism in which they can survive, those that do not kill the organism, is human, e.g., malformed appendages or malformed brains, as in the mentally retarded. Unlike other organisms, we're moral creatures of the rule of law. These kinds of abnormalities are not advantageous from a strictly materialistic perspective. Decent human beings place value on all human life. Hence, they survive and are occasionally passed on. But that’s not evolution!
DeleteAs for you idiocy that God doesn’t exist anytime you think you can refute the following, have at it on my blog:
http://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/124872239206/the-seven-things
Good luck with that.
Let me know when you are ready to get real, and I'll show you why only the God of the Bible can be the God behind the axiom.
"As for you idiocy that God doesn’t exist..." Begs the question. "You're stuck on the stupid of your metaphysics...." You believe in a god without evidence.....so I mean..its so easy to disprove all your poits...still waiting on you to disprove even 1 of mine..let me know if you ever can.
DeleteThe existence of the universe and everything in it, beginning with the existence of life and consciousness--intelligence and moral awareness--IS the evidence for God's existence, you idiot.
ReplyDeleteDo you make it a habit of denying the existence of things for no reason? God doesn't exist?! You moron! There would be no conscious reason to deny God's existence if there were no evidence for His existence, you dope. There would be no impetus for the construct of a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent being of ultimate origin if there were no evidence for its existence, you retard.
You necessarily concede what the evidence is for God's existence every time you open you silly yap to deny His existence.
Once again, boy, do you agree that the universe exists? Yes or no?
Hence, http://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/124872239206/the-seven-things
Logic proves out that God must be!
Just wow, again you make assertions and have yet to give any evidence of this so called gods existence. Insane people believe without evidence. I mean, think about this kid..you believe in a magic made up person...get over it already. Brainwashing is a crazy thing huh?
ReplyDeleteHe just gave you the evidence for God's existence and a link to his blog that proves it. The TAG argument for God's existence cannot be refuted, you foolish man. The ball is in your court. What is your refutation?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Matt Slick "Trans Mental Argument" goes..lol It has been refuted many many times. Simply, you cannot even have an argument because you must first pre-suppose God exists before you ask the question. First you must PROVE there is a god. I mean come on Christians, Learn some science.
DeleteLOL Still looking for this proof you are talking about? I went to his page..and read nothing that you can't put the word SANTA CLAUSE in the spot of God and reach the same conclusion..LOL Christians need to learn logic..LOL I win again.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to show you the folly of this Transcendental Argument for God:
ReplyDelete1.) There are some objective logical absolutes.
Answer: Yes there is. The above statement is correct.
2.) We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
Answer: Yes, I accept this as fact.
3.) These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
Answer: This is also correct. Looks like you are winning.
4.) These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Answer: Correct again. Congratulations!
5.) Concepts require a mind.
Answer: Yes again..this is correct.
6.) Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
Answer: WRONG! Concepts can ONLY be in minds. The only minds we have evidence for are human/animal minds. Concepts are not material objects therefore they are not every where in space. Before you can continue on you must first prove that the universe is a mind.
7.) That mind is God.
Assertion without facts!
8.) God exists.
No.....lol He REALLY doesn't.
As you can see, this is another worthless creationist attempt to prove their delusions are true. They want it so badly they will just make up shit, and try brainwash other people. Faith is a bad thing.
Wrong! Nick (Straw Man) the Stick spouts more nonsense. The reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which he bypasses as he misstates what the TAG actually proves regarding the construct of divine origin, proves that the existence of the universe IS the evidence for God's existence.
DeleteWe begin with the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. Nick the Stick pretends that the imperatives of the universally absolute, rational forms and logical categories of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin don’t exist.
That’s why he keeps evading the following line of logic that precedes the TAG!
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea of God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God’s existence cannot be logically ruled out.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator.
5. Currently and arguably, science cannot verify or falsify God’s existence.
6. On the very face of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that God the Creator doesn’t exist, whether God actually exists, objectively speaking, outside the logic of our minds or not.
7. All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.
See link for why these things are logically irrefutable:
http://sweetlingsuniverse.tumblr.com/post/124872239206/the-seven-things
Stop pretending that the foundation for the TAG doesn’t exist, Nick the Stick. We clearly see that your assertion regarding #6 pretends not to understand that the existence of the universe is the evidence for God’s existence. To claim that we only have evidence for cosmological minds in the same breath that you claim there is no evidence for the existence of a transcendent mind, demonstrates that you are well aware of the fact that (1) eternal materiality and (2) something from nothing ARE NOT the only options for origin.
YOU ARE AWARE OF ALL THREE OPTIONS THAT MUST NECESSARILY BE REGARDED PRECISELY BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE EXISTS.
It is so hard not to laugh at your silly assertions. Once more I will refute your new claims.
Delete1. We exist!
Answer: Yes we do!
2. The cosmological order exists!
Answer: Agreed!
3. The idea of God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God’s existence cannot be logically ruled out.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator.
Answer: Blind assertion! Making shit up. If there was a god he could have only created a few things or not even created things at all. You have NO IDEA what god is. You are a liar.
5. Currently and arguably, science cannot verify or falsify God’s existence.
Answer: Neither can you. This means you claim loses right here. You are trying to scientificly prove there is a God..but science can't do it...neither can you.
6. On the very face of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that God the Creator doesn’t exist, whether God actually exists, objectively speaking, outside the logic of our minds or not.
Answer: MORE BULL SHIT! Just blind assertions yet again. I think God doesn't exist...so I and every other atheist on the planet proves this wrong.
7. All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.
Answer: Its the Law of non-contradiction jackass. Your whole argument just fell apart. You can't just assert things and make them true. You have to do this little thing called PROVIDE EVIDENCE!
See the problem with your logical TAG is that it is not logical at all and even if it was...it would still be wrong. Because, when you start making claims that are un-falsifiable the rest of the argument is no longer logical.
I mean as mush as I enjoy teaching you guys...please stop with the silliness. Read some science books.
Allow me to show you the folly of this Transcendental Argument for God:
ReplyDelete1.) There are some objective logical absolutes.
Answer: Yes there is. The above statement is correct.
2.) We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
Answer: Yes, I accept this as fact.
3.) These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
Answer: This is also correct. Looks like you are winning.
4.) These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Answer: Correct again. Congratulations!
5.) Concepts require a mind.
Answer: Yes again..this is correct.
6.) Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
Answer: WRONG! Concepts can ONLY be in minds. The only minds we have evidence for are human/animal minds. Concepts are not material objects therefore they are not every where in space. Before you can continue on you must first prove that the universe is a mind.
7.) That mind is God.
Assertion without facts!
8.) God exists.
No.....lol He REALLY doesn't.
As you can see, this is another worthless creationist attempt to prove their delusions are true. They want it so badly they will just make up shit, and try brainwash other people. Faith is a bad thing.
LOL! Nick thinks we're stupid like his followers, that we won't notice his bs.
DeleteDeal with the logical facts of the foundation for the TAG, Nick. Deal with the facts of infinite regress. Stop lying. Tells us that God doesn't exist or that there's no evidence for God's existence again then explain to us why you're evening talking about God in the first place if that's true.
I mean..I just refuted your irrefutable claim. What facts of infinite regress would you like to talk about? There are no Gods. There is no evidence for a Gods existence. Care to point out my lie? I mean you are showing how brain washed you are.
DeleteI am talking about this God you made up...because there are so many ignorant people who REFUSE facts but embrace fantasy as though it is reality. You have yet to give any reason anyone should believe in a god at all..let alone your god.
LOL! You know God exists, Nick the stick. You aren't fooling me. Your followers aren't very bright, maybe, but you don't fool me. You hold the truth in unrighteousness. Debate presupposes the reality of absolute truth and that the laws of logic divulge the essence of that absolute. Every time you open your yap in dissent, you necessarily that your blather is absolutely true. So what's the ontological foundation for holding that all of biological history is necessarily and unbroken chain of natural cause and effect? What's your ontological foundation for holding to you presupposition of metaphysical naturalism? LOL! If your premise is true, you don't have one. No such thing could possibly exist.
DeleteLOL!
Nick claims he's absolutely right, but his philosophical presupposition holds that no such knowledge is possible. That's why atheism is a logical non-starter, inherently contradictory, self-negating. Stupid. Irrational. Absurd.
You wasted him Nick... and his anonymous other self chime in was hillarious! The sad thing is, his blatant god of the gaps "the universe proves god" will probably never be realized by him, due to extensive religious conditioning.
ReplyDelete