Evolution Cannot be Proven

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by kegs

 

Are you accusing me of purposely running away from a discussion with you? Well, you're right. It's because I was one of the inspirations for THIS thread by the boss man himself and THIS complaint where I was subsequently post banned, also by the boss man himself. lol So, sorry, I'm no stranger to evo/ID/creationist debates. It's a blast of a topic- ATS is just a place where I no longer feel safe and free to discuss the issue so my involvement dwindled down to casual involvement in random threads.

There just comes a time when you know you're kicking against the grain and make yourself realize things will be the way they are and people will believe what they will believe.

I don't want to get post banned again any time soon so I very rarely participate in this forum anymore and when people try to pull me in, I just pull myself right back out. That's why- it's not you personally at all. You can call it, 'learning my lesson.'

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Cry me a river. You Are Wrong.

Get over it, learn from it.



[edit on 21-9-2008 by kegs]

reply to post by kegs


A blanket statement from another omniscient being. Perhaps we should be having this discussion in the Faith forum? You'd be a weight off my shoulders if you ever chose to oblige. I mean, I spend so much of my time trying to help people come to the realization there actually is an omniscient being but it is an uphill battle no doubt. With your help, can I just point at you and resolve this debate once and for all? That would be great. Thanks.

'You're wrong.'

I love it. Mainly because... not once have I ever expressed my personal beliefs in this thread but you say I'm wrong... without even knowing what it is that I believe. Ass/u/me.

Take care.

I tend to group ID and creationism as the same thing with the prior being just more tolerant of evolution. I mean if life is designed then it must be by a God figure somewhere. What if it were aliens, I hear you say. Well then the question must be asked (knowing it can't be answered), were they designed or did they evolve naturally?

Yes I recognise irreducibly complex (IC) systems in nature, it's foolish not to. But the misunderstanding is that the evolve too.

Look at the human body. It's IC because if you remove the liver then the human dies. That doesn't mean that it didn't evolve, and at some point was necessary to survive.

Goosebumps do nothing for us. Take it out, and hey, still alive! But this used to be an integral part of survival when we had lots of think hair. It's now evolved out of IC

reply to post by Good Wolf


Thanks so much. You are the first evolutionist I've seen who agrees with irreducible complexity. Intellectual honesty and accepting something that is not necessarily 'kosher science,' is refreshing to see around here.

Truthfully, I don't even know how I feel about IC so it was interesting to see an evolutionist who accepts it. Pretty cool.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by kegs

 

A blanket statement from another omniscient being. Perhaps we should be having this discussion in the Faith forum? You'd be a weight off my shoulders if you ever chose to oblige. I mean, I spend so much of my time trying to help people come to the realization there actually is an omniscient being but it is an uphill battle no doubt. With your help, can I just point at you and resolve this debate once and for all? That would be great. Thanks.

'You're wrong.'

I love it. Mainly because... not once have I ever expressed my personal beliefs in this thread but you say I'm wrong... without even knowing what it is that I believe. Ass/u/me.

Take care.

I've been here over five years dear, you need to try harder than a sob story about the admins.

reply to post by kegs


You might not be able to see my signature, if not let me help you out:



It's not a sob story. Just the truth. If there is an intelligent origins debate going down around here, count me in. If I have to deal with people like you, count me out. Pretty simple. All you are doing is debating me... not the information... not my beliefs (which I never provided)... not my rebuttal to your reply (yet you then for some reason complain to me about not replying to your arguments presented to other people in this thread before I even entered... therefore you won't even acknowledge my own reply to you but wish me to run around in circles replying to everything else you said to other people).

You, my dear, are a master baiter. I'll be having none of that! You're my test and this one I am going to make myself pass.

Originally posted by kegs
You Are Wrong.

I will make you a deal... if you tell me where I am wrong and why I am wrong, I will go through every single post you have made in this thread and reply to your arguments. But your explanation of why I am wrong and how must be accurate and proven.

This will be a challenge because again, I have made no expression of what it is I believe. So you say, 'You are wrong.' Tell me how and why.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by kegs

 

You might not be able to see my signature, if not let me help you out:



It's not a sob story. Just the truth. If there is an intelligent origins debate going down around here, count me in. If I have to deal with people like you, count me out. Pretty simple. All you are doing is debating me... not the information... not my beliefs (which I never provided)... not my rebuttal to your reply (yet you then for some reason complain to me about not replying to your arguments presented to other people in this thread before I even entered... therefore you won't even acknowledge my own reply to you but wish me to run around in circles replying to everything else you said to other people).

You, my dear, are a master baiter. I'll be having none of that! You're my test and this one I am going to make myself pass.

You haven't present any information. Not one thing.

Originally posted by kegs
You haven't present any information. Not one thing.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Well that blows the party when it comes to the challenge I submitted right above your post.

That was the clincher: I have not presented any information, opinion, or belief in this thread. Glad you now realize it.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by kegs
You haven't present any information. Not one thing.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Well that blows the party when it comes to the challenge I submitted right above your post.

That was the clincher: I have not presented any information, opinion, or belief in this thread. Glad you now realize it.

Opinions and beliefs are cheaper than air.

reply to post by AshleyD


Thanks, appreciated. I look at the IC thing and I rekon I know why people try to argue about it. The creationists (including ID's) noticed this thing in science that they call IC. They are right. They somehow think that this proves there point. It would only prove their point if the first organisms were IC to the degree that things are IC today. Abiogenesis tells us that the first life forms really weren't IC.

So the debate whether IC is real is trivial, because it doesn't matter if IC exists, IC systems can evolve as well.

...I might put IC systems on the evolution misconception thread.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Again, thank you so much for your thoughts. In the other ID thread I linked to before, we discussed IC. An evolutionist brought up a trial that had something to do with mouse traps being used as a tie clip. Therefore, supposedly disproving IC. I learned a lot from that thread but otherwise, I don't keep up too much with the I.D. movement and am not too much of a fan of it because it seems too generic. Anyways, I enjoyed it. You are officially the first evolutionist I have met that believes in IC.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

Again, thank you so much for your thoughts. In the other ID thread I linked to before, we discussed IC. An evolutionist brought up a trial that had something to do with mouse traps being used as a tie clip. Therefore, supposedly disproving IC. I learned a lot from that thread but otherwise, I don't keep up too much with the I.D. movement and am not too much of a fan of it because it seems too generic. Anyways, I enjoyed it. You are officially the first evolutionist I have met that believes in IC.

Sure that's great.

I have to tell you the term "evolutionist" is a creationist invention and you'd realise the ridiculousness of the term if you understood evolution in the slightest.

It's like calling people that accept Germ Theory "Germist" or accepting Gravity means you're a "Gravitist"

But whatever gets you though the night I suppose.

reply to post by kegs


Thank you so much. You don't know what you're doing for me right now. Truly. As for the term 'evolutionist,' there has been a lot of discussion over the use of the term. Yes, I'm aware of the problems some people have with it and why but that is their problem- not mine. It's a convenient term and the definition is understood, even if it not without protest. Anyways, if your posts from the last two pages directed towards me are anything like your posts on the previous pages you were complaining about not receiving answers for, I can totally understand why they were ignored by other members.

Take care. Sorry you have issues with people (not their points- but the actual people) who don't see the world as you do.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by kegs

 

Thank you so much. You don't know what you're doing for me right now. Truly. As for the term 'evolutionist,' there has been a lot of discussion over the use of the term. Yes, I'm aware of the problems some people have with it and why but that is their problem- not mine. It's a convenient term and the definition is understood, even if it not without protest. Anyways, if your posts from the last two pages directed towards me are anything like your posts on the previous pages you were complaining about not receiving answers for, I can totally understand why they were ignored by other members.

Take care. Sorry you have issues with people (not their points- but the actual people) who don't see the world as you do.

Well you can rest assured I won't be losing any sleep.

reply to post by kegs


I know it's a creationist construct but I'm playing along. The term "evolutionist" basically defines someone who debates against creation. That what I'm doing. I'm playing ball.

Trust me. I've a good handle on the theory of evolution.



...But there is not reason to be bitter about it.


And I recognise IC just as much I do chipmunks. I don't live in a country with chipmunks - so they just don't matter.

IC like I said, is an observation of creationists. It means nothing, no matter how real it is.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by kegs

 

I know it's a creationist construct but I'm playing along. The term "evolutionist" basically defines someone who debates against creation. That what I'm doing. I'm playing ball.

Trust me. I've a good handle on the theory of evolution.



...But there is not reason to be bitter about it.


And I recognise IC just as much I do chipmunks. I don't live in a country with chipmunks - so they just don't matter.

IC like I said, is an observation of creationists. It means nothing, no matter how real it is.

Someone who argues against creationism is probably best described as a realist.

Creationists make up these terms because they want to drag the argument down to their level.

Same reason you hear many Creationist describe Evolution, Atheism, even global warming as a religion.

They don't make it up on their own, they're fed these ideas by their pastors, who themselves are fed these ideas.



I have to admit I'm lost on IC, I haven't heard that one before.

So what does IC stand for?

I'm bracing myself for dumb.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Good Wolf
But there is a problem with believing both creation and evolution. At what stage does god come into the picture? The only place I can see is at some stage before the bigbang.

This might be what you're looking for: Watchmaker Analogy.

It has some flaws but this is essentially what it says and how it ties into the O.P.'s claims how evidence for evolution is evidence of design:

If you come across a watch, a complex object, you will know by examining it that it had an intelligence behind it's creator. However, if you came across a self-running watch making factory, then you'd pretty much say, 'Oh boy! Yes. There is definitely an intelligence behind this factory which produced the watch.'

The watch = any living object (insect, plant, human, or animal).
The factory = evolution.

It can be used as a teleological argument for ID or theistic evolution. We might think a cell or living organism is complex but how much more so complex is evolution. Hence, it too would have required an intelligence that far surpasses the need for an intelligence relying on 'Poofing' things into existence.

Wow. We do agree on the same thing

It is just my personal feeling that there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe and evolution. That is why I am rooting for Intelligent Design. I am aware that ID is suspicious to many scientists because creationism may be hidden behind it. I do not think there are any evidence for Creationism.

I gave you a star You are a good debater.

I have read Richard Dawkins books. In my opinion, he had not made a strong case.

Originally posted by kegs

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by kegs

 

I have to admit I'm lost on IC, I haven't heard that one before.

So what does IC stand for?

Irreducible complexity
www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Deaf Alien]

Well, on the same token, 'Creationist' is a misnomer as well. I am not a 'creationist' as it is scientifically defined. The difference is, I don't bother nit picking the term as some sort of fail-safe complaint when people refer to me as a creationist. I keep hearing off topic resentment of the word 'evolutionist' but personally never take the time to point out that 'creationist' also tends to be the wrong term when it comes to people like me. Then, I am also an 'evolutionist' as well because I accept aspects of evolution- just not wholesale Darwinism.

Very similar to the gripe dealing with the term 'evolutionist' of it being something creationists use it for in the controversy, 'creationist' is thrown around incorrectly as well. But it is convenient so it is understandable. I don't go rip roaring through threads correcting people who call me a creationist (especially when I refer to myself as a creationist due to the term's ease of use). The terms has probably been used to refer to people like me hundreds of times on ATS and this is the first time I've ever even bothered addressing it. I can understand what they're trying to get at so really the whole 'don't call me an evolutionist!' issue is silly, IMO, because likewise I could very easily say, 'don't call me a creationist!'

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]