Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know it sounds crazy, but part with 'schizophrenic person' is probably very accurate. I had a friend who was schizophrenic (unfortunately - past tense... he took his own life) and couple of times when we took him to ER when he had attacks it is just unbelievable what kind of stories he would tell us... sometimes would turn toward wall and have conversation... and once he told us that aliens visited him and took him for a ride to moon. Sadly, he started hearing voices that told him to hurt himself...

Every time I read about it in bible, I remember this experience and I am very sure this is what really happened. Sad that in time people did not know about this condition... and that this bad story was misused to show 'love for god'...

Otherwise, what kind of monster would almost kill his son to please angry little man in skies...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I'm pretty sure myself as well. That's why I used that word. Where else would the story of a talking burning bush come from? Why does the bush have to be burning to talk? Wouldn't it have made more sense for it to be an animal? You know, something with a mouth? Like a burning bush is the most illogical thing you could think of to try to communicate with someone. Heck as a GOD, it would make sense that you appear as, I dunno, a human to talk to a human. Also, why is it that god never communicates with anything else through this mechanism? It's is literally one of the most oddball things in the Bible. To call it anything else BUT an ancient case of schizophrenia is just being illogical.

Of course it could also be a drug trip. Apparently Moses' people were known for eating these mushrooms that grow in that area of the world that are full of psilocybin.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: borntowatch

Three strikes and you're out. Sorry Born. Nobody's buying what you're selling. I have asked you 3 times now explain why evolution requires abiogenesis and I was very clear and concise about it. I'm not saying life, I'm saying life that arose naturally via abiogenesis. What is so difficult to grasp about that? Especially since you are the one that has made a career out of claiming this. You have now dodged it for the 3rd time, yet still maintain your view that it is required for evolution. So sad that the best arguments against creationism are made by creationists themselves when they demonstrate such blatant intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance.

rinse repeat

If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

No life no evolution

You dont set the rules, you're not a god

Please address the question or stop trolling the thread.

I know you hate this but its what i require, you constant demanding I submit to your beliefs is fundamentalism

a reply to: borntowatch

LMAO. Keep copying and pasting the same post over and over again. It doesn't answer my question or back up your false claim that abiogenesis is required for evolution to be true as claimed in the OP. I'm taking this as you conceding the argument since you won't even attempt to address it. Such a shame that you refuse to even defend your claims. I gotta stop getting my hopes up thinking that one day you will actually debate honestly or back up a single thing you say. These things are what make religious people look like idiots. If that is your intention, you have succeeded, I still do not think you even believe what you are typing.

If any creationist would like to step in and answer the question, I'd love to hear a response. It's like my question about the accumulation of mutations. No evolution denier will even attempt to answer it, they'll just repeat the original argument over and over with no evidence or justification. That's pretty pathetic for somebody that claims they KNOW evolution is wrong.

originally posted by: borntowatch
rinse repeat

If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

I just read the last couple of pages in this thread. I think you two are running in circles and getting too entrenched in this debate. Phew, gets ya all dizzy, don't it! Take a deep breath or do something else for a moment and then come back and read each others posts with a clear head

See, I think Barcs isn't actually talking about life per se, but specifically about abiogenesis, a way in wich life could be created. If you read the first post in this thread, it is mentioned there. The OP thinks abiogenesis is necessary for evolution.

Abiogenesis is not needed, but he actually agrees with you that life is indeed necessary for evolution.

So what are y'all arguing about??? Your actually on the same page, dudes!

What a silly misunderstanding! Glad I could help you clear this up, no need to thank me! Have a good one, guys!

a reply to: Subnatural

Thank you! You explained it way better than I could.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I think you should surrender. Here's why: You haven't given a single link to a recognized scientific journal that substantiates your case. By contrast, there are over 500 scientific journals which have published hundreds of articles demonstrating proof of the evolutionary process.

I like you username: But change your numbers to 666!

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Cypress

Yes but you need to first prove a single cell organisms can evole into a multi-cellular one.

That is Step 1 of evolution, and it has yet to be duplicated in a lab.

I am supposed to imagine it happened, like the rest of evolution. If you can imagine it you can be a scientist.

There is no evidence showing it is implausible. In order to refute evolution on this point, you must first show the null hypothesis to be correct. You cannot do this.

We know from genetics that mutations have led to differetiation between cell types and that cell structure is predicated through genetics as well. Therefore, we know it is possible even if the exact mutation is never known. Has nothing to do with imagination.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Cypress

When a pig can mate with a monkey, then tell me their is no barrier.

Their are at least 7 barriers to life that science cannot explain by evolution, without it coming from thier imagination.

Picture or it didn't happen.

I can use my imagination however I want, and it doesn't make me ignorant. You imagine evolution, I imagine creation.

Nice try at twisting my words. A human and pig are too genetically seperate to mate and create offspring; however, there is not a clear cut line as to when that point is crossed otherwise you could not interbreed distinct species. That is required to define micro and macro as seperate processes and that dpes not exist.

Multiple times we come to this...



Easy to explain with evolution...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I don't think he's TRYING to prove anything. He's merely pointing out the fact that both are religious and belief oriented in nature.

And he's 100% wrong because evolution is based on facts and experiments, not blind faith. Sorry.

Many you would consider scientists do NOT utilize the scientific method and most conclusions regarding evolution fall so short of using even valid logic, let alone the scientific method, it's laughable.

Wrong again. Can you please address the evidence?

www.talkorigins.org...

Start here and show me where they are wrong or drawing unscientific conclusions. No creationist EVER addresses the evidence, they pretend it doesn't exist, call it faith and bury their heads in the sand when confronted with the evidence. Saying evolution has no evidence or is not scientific is an absolute joke. Unfortunately it stopped being funny a while ago.

And here you perfectly illustrate one of the problems with the paradigms...Where in my statement did I EVER say that evolution has no evidence. I said the logic used was faulty or circular, I did NOT say that there was no evidence.

You need to work on your reading comprehension before your statements and conclusions can be taken seriously.

Jaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Agartha

I always think it is funny when Creationists make this blanket assertions about scientists and science and general. It really shows how uneducated they are on the subject.

First off do NOT lump me in with creationists.. Second, they aren't blanket assertions but showcasing them would take volumes regarding the evolution of the current paradigms... Evolution definitely exists in that respect. It's based on a fallacy that I coined personally. It's the fallacy of incremental correction without accounting for the possibility of foundational errors.

Almost ALL of the modern scientific paradigms are guilty of it and this fallacy is the greatest cause for the difficulty in having paradigm shifts and is caused by the nature of man to desire to be right and to not acknowledge that his accumulated knowledge is wrong. It only gets worse with progress, not better, because people erroneously think that incremental adjustments to theories automatically gets them closer to the truth.

It also usually coincides with another fallacy that I have also coined and that is the fallacy of interdisciplinary support structure. This is the fallacy of believing that other disciplines conclusions supporting your own conclusions makes your conclusions more valid. It does not. All paradigms at any given time are more likely to support each other by the very nature of paradigms. This erroneous belief further makes paradigm shifts even more difficult and continues incorrect conclusions unnecessarily.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
First off do NOT lump me in with creationists.. Second, they aren't blanket assertions but showcasing them would take volumes regarding the evolution of the current paradigms... Evolution definitely exists in that respect. It's based on a fallacy that I coined personally. It's the fallacy of incremental correction without accounting for the possibility of foundational errors.

Why not? You use the same logical fallacies and strawmans as Creationists. Are you telling me that you DON'T believe in god, but think that Creationists have the right idea when they question evolution for religious reasons? Because that makes you just all around ignorant. At least Creationists have a REASON for their doubt.

As for your post above, I see a lot words here, but no actual scientists or studies that prove any of your points about scientists deviating from the scientific method. You took DAYS to respond to that post in the first place, and you didn't spend it doing research. tsk tsk...

Almost ALL of the modern scientific paradigms are guilty of it and this fallacy is the greatest cause for the difficulty in having paradigm shifts and is caused by the nature of man to desire to be right and to not acknowledge that his accumulated knowledge is wrong. It only gets worse with progress, not better, because people erroneously think that incremental adjustments to theories gets them closer to the truth.

Jaden

Be sure AWESOME if you'd just source your claims here with some evidence of all this. You say that there is supposedly volumes of evidence of this, but you can't even be arsed to post even ONE source. That's a dead giveaway to set off any intelligent person's BS detector. Talking out your ass confirmed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Agartha

I always think it is funny when Creationists make this blanket assertions about scientists and science and general. It really shows how uneducated they are on the subject.

First off do NOT lump me in with creationists.. Second, they aren't blanket assertions but showcasing them would take volumes regarding the evolution of the current paradigms... Evolution definitely exists in that respect. It's based on a fallacy that I coined personally. It's the fallacy of incremental correction without accounting for the possibility of foundational errors.

Almost ALL of the modern scientific paradigms are guilty of it and this fallacy is the greatest cause for the difficulty in having paradigm shifts and is caused by the nature of man to desire to be right and to not acknowledge that his accumulated knowledge is wrong. It only gets worse with progress, not better, because people erroneously think that incremental adjustments to theories automatically gets them closer to the truth.

It also usually coincides with another fallacy that I have also coined and that is the fallacy of interdisciplinary support structure. This is the fallacy of believing that other disciplines conclusions supporting your own conclusions makes your conclusions more valid. It does not. All paradigms at any given time are more likely to support each other by the very nature of paradigms and the education support structure that creates and supports them. This erroneous belief further makes paradigm shifts even more difficult and continues incorrect conclusions unnecessarily.

Jaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Masterjaden
First off do NOT lump me in with creationists.. Second, they aren't blanket assertions but showcasing them would take volumes regarding the evolution of the current paradigms... Evolution definitely exists in that respect. It's based on a fallacy that I coined personally. It's the fallacy of incremental correction without accounting for the possibility of foundational errors.

Why not? You use the same logical fallacies and strawmans as Creationists. Are you telling me that you DON'T believe in god, but think that Creationists have the right idea when they question evolution for religious reasons? Because that makes you just all around ignorant. At least Creationists have a REASON for their doubt.

As for your post above, I see a lot words here, but no actual scientists or studies that prove any of your points about scientists deviating from the scientific method. You took DAYS to respond to that post in the first place, and you didn't spend it doing research. tsk tsk...

Almost ALL of the modern scientific paradigms are guilty of it and this fallacy is the greatest cause for the difficulty in having paradigm shifts and is caused by the nature of man to desire to be right and to not acknowledge that his accumulated knowledge is wrong. It only gets worse with progress, not better, because people erroneously think that incremental adjustments to theories gets them closer to the truth.

Jaden

Be sure AWESOME if you'd just source your claims here with some evidence of all this. You say that there is supposedly volumes of evidence of this, but you can't even be arsed to post even ONE source. That's a dead giveaway to set off any intelligent person's BS detector. Talking out your ass confirmed.

I don't spend all my time on this site because I have much better things to do...

I sometimes go weeks without coming here. I've already done the research and it is fairly obvious when you research the history of certain paradigms that are used as foundations for those and other paradigms.

All you have to do is look at the history of geology without pseudo scientific religious blinders on to see how #ed up the paradigms are.

It took hundreds of thousands of years of erosion, oh wait, no, it took millions of years of....oh wait, no, it took billions of years of....

If you can't see that there was a foundational error there that minor adjustments over decades couldn't fix, then you have no hope of ever getting past the paradigms you've been indoctrinated in.

Are religious people any better for the most part??? Hell NO!!!, but at least they acknowledge that their's is a religious belief system not based on logical evaluation of evidence.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
And here you perfectly illustrate one of the problems with the paradigms...Where in my statement did I EVER say that evolution has no evidence. I said the logic used was faulty or circular, I did NOT say that there was no evidence.

Um, you clearly said it was "religious in nature" and mentioned the conclusions are not made with valid logic or the scientific method. That means, you think it is based on faith rather than evidence. That means YOU DID say there was no evidence (or not enough to be valid). That's why I posted the evidence, and like a typical creationist you ignored it completely. There is no circular logic in evolution, pretty much every thing you said in that last post was wrong.

You need to work on your reading comprehension before your statements and conclusions can be taken seriously.

The typical creationist rhetoric following a post where everything I said was pretty much ignored. You think because I disagree with your false claims that I can't comprehend them. No, your claims are wrong and you did not respond to my counterpoints, nor did you address the evidence.

Many you would consider scientists do NOT utilize the scientific method and most conclusions regarding evolution fall so short of using even valid logic, let alone the scientific method, it's laughable.

This is your exact quote from the previous post. Oh yeah you totally didn't say there was no evidence, only that it does not follow the scientific method and the conclusions are illogical. LMAO. Nice try.

This is the fallacy of believing that other disciplines conclusions supporting your own conclusions makes your conclusions more valid. It does not. All paradigms at any given time are more likely to support each other by the very nature of paradigms and the education support structure that creates and supports them. This erroneous belief further makes paradigm shifts even more difficult and continues incorrect conclusions unnecessarily.

What a load of BS. You can't just make fallacies up and redefine what logic means. When multiple fields of scientific research find different evidence that reinforces the same conclusions of another, IT DOES VERY MUCH MEAN that the conclusions are way more likely to be true. That's not a fallacy. It pretty much means more evidence for something makes it more likely to be true than something with little or no evidence (ie creation).

a reply to: Barcs

In this post, you are guilty of everything they have accused me of. I will gladly take any IQ, logic, or other test and compare scores to ANY of you.

Those who blindly accept the paradigms are incapable of applying rational, logical thought to any real world phenomena and it does the world and society a disservice. Then, they try and claim intellectual superiority because, NOT religion, when it absolutely is.

As I've stated it would take multiple volumes to truly put it into undeniable terms for you scientific religious nuts, and someday, I may sit down and do it.

As for now, I'll probably take another two or three week hiatus from this site as I have too much more important stuff to do in my life right now.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I don't spend all my time on this site because I have much better things to do...

I sometimes go weeks without coming here. I've already done the research and it is fairly obvious when you research the history of certain paradigms that are used as foundations for those and other paradigms.

All you have to do is look at the history of geology without pseudo scientific religious blinders on to see how #ed up the paradigms are.

If it is so easy, then why have you STILL not posted any evidence? I'm not going to look at an ENTIRE scientific discipline to look for your supposed evidence. You have to provide it.

It took hundreds of thousands of years of erosion, oh wait, no, it took millions of years of....oh wait, no, it took billions of years of....

If you can't see that there was a foundational error there that minor adjustments over decades couldn't fix, then you have no hope of ever getting past the paradigms you've been indoctrinated in.

You are basing your premise on the fact that science corrects its errors? That's dumb. The fact that science self-corrects its errors is one of the foundations of the scientific method and what makes it so much more trustworthy. It isn't 100% correct, but it helps us know we are on the right track.

Are religious people any better for the most part??? Hell NO!!!, but at least they acknowledge that their's is a religious belief system not based on logical evaluation of evidence.

Jaden

This is a ridiculous statement.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
In this post, you are guilty of everything they have accused me of. I will gladly take any IQ, logic, or other test and compare scores to ANY of you.

And what exactly am I guilty of? Following evidence? Sure, you got me there. I understand scientific evidence, I don't dismiss it as faith with no justification whatsoever for that position.

Those who blindly accept the paradigms are incapable of applying rational, logical thought to any real world phenomena and it does the world and society a disservice. Then, they try and claim intellectual superiority because, NOT religion, when it absolutely is.

Who is claiming intellectual superiority? Aren't you the one who literally just said you want to take an IQ test and compare results? I don't claim to be more intelligent than anybody else, but I understand evolution and the mechanisms behind it. I've just done loads of reading on the subject, it doesn't mean I'm more intelligent. When you claim the theory requires tons of faith and is illogical, you are wrong, plain and simple. I posted the evidence that goes against that notion and you ignored it. I asked you what parts were wrong and you never answered. Faith isn't required when you have hard evidence and experiment results. Denial of science is not about intelligence, it's about willful ignorance.

As I've stated it would take multiple volumes to truly put it into undeniable terms for you scientific religious nuts, and someday, I may sit down and do it.

If you could post just ONE PIECE of objective evidence that goes against evolution or supports an alternative theory, or ONE PIECE of objective evidence that supports creation it would be more than any evolution denier has ever done on this site in favor of ID or evolution being wrong. You can't put something like that into terms. You need evidence of an alternative theory, or evidence that suggests it is wrong if you wish to dismiss science as faith. Do you think gravity is faith based as well? Heliocentrism? Atomic theory?

As for now, I'll probably take another two or three week hiatus from this site as I have too much more important stuff to do in my life right now.

Of course you will. The evidence is never addressed. You arbitrarily state a whole bunch of things as if they are true, but won't back anything up and as soon as the criticism and debunking comes in, you guys vanish without a trace. Don't worry, you aren't the first and certainly won't be the last. Good luck to you.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Choosing geology as your target to push some made up fallacy to sound smart is a poor choice. Geologocal processes and principals are very well understood......