Author Topic: I'm just sayin'  (Read 20388 times)

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15565
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #225 on: October 12, 2013, 05:47:05 PM »
CTC said: “Oh, I know how it works, alright.  Chemical evolution starts with a bunch of rocks and time and shakes it all together and out comes life.  Macro-evolution takes that magical first life as a single cell organism and miraculously ends up with man, animals, plants, fish, birds, amphibians, and every other life form just as we have today.”

Your statement here demonstrates that you do in fact NOT know how evolution works. You have clearly gotten all of your information on the subject from other creationists, such as the web site Answersingenesis. The problem is they don’t understand the subject either. Or maybe they do and they’re just lying to people who don’t know any better. What you call ‘chemical evolution’ is not part biological evolution, it is part of abiogenesis. Biological evolution is not dependent on life arising by natural means, the fact that it is here is enough. Remember, evolution is not atheism. It seems you still don't understand that simple fact. I will not defend atheism, but I will defend evolution.

As for your demand for examples of an ‘increase in DNA information’, neither you nor the link you provided have given me an objective way to measure it. Give me this and I’ll see what I can do for you. I have already told you were to find examples of macroevolution, which is a change from one kind to another (defined as organisms which can reproduce). You did not attempt to dispute the use of this definition as your website provided it. Now examples should be easy for you to find. Simply search the peer reviewed literature for ‘speciation’. By the way, do you believe there was an 'increase in DNA information' in our evolution from our most recent ancestor with the other great apes?
Yawn, yawn, yawn.  Let's take a look.

Your statement here demonstrates that you do in fact NOT know how evolution works

Buzzzzzzz.......wrong.  If all life came from a single cell life, it must INCREASE in information to evolve into man and all other life forms.  This is so simple of a concept.  I can fully understand your desire to dodge the issue - you have no science to stand on.

You have clearly gotten all of your information on the subject from other creationists, such as the web site Answersingenesis

Makes no difference where I get my information.  Even you might provide good information.  If something is correct, it is correct regardless of the source.  BTW, answersingenesis is not a source, it is a website that hundreds of sources use to communicate.

What you call ‘chemical evolution’ is not part biological evolution, it is part of abiogenesis

No kidding.  Have you ever heard of Louis Pasteur?  Did did some experiments on abiogenesis.  Cool stuff.  Check him out sometime.  Here is a sweet phrase for you to add to your vocabulary - "Spontaneous generation".  I'll educate you slowly so be patient with me, grasshopper.

Biological evolution is not dependent on life arising by natural means

Yes, Grasshopper; but, if you do not have a where-with-all to get that first life, you have zippo.

As for your demand for examples of an ‘increase in DNA information’, neither you nor the link you provided have given me an objective way to measure it.

I'm going to simplify it for you so that you have no more flimsy excuses.  Just tell me your 5 best evidences that convince you that evolution (single cell life form to all life forms) is true.  I will gladfly present my 5 best evidences to demonstrate why I believe in creation.  I am not afraid, I am anxious.  No excuses from me.

PS....Cut the condescending crap and so will I.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #226 on: October 12, 2013, 07:27:22 PM »


You have clearly gotten all of your information on the subject from other creationists, such as the web site Answersingenesis

Makes no difference where I get my information.  Even you might provide good information.  If something is correct, it is correct regardless of the source.  BTW, answersingenesis is not a source, it is a website that hundreds of sources use to communicate.


And it happens to have been proven without a doubt to be one of, if not the most, dishonest site on the internet period.  The holocaust denier sites are no where near as dishonest as this site.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #227 on: October 12, 2013, 07:45:08 PM »


I'm going to simplify it for you so that you have no more flimsy excuses.  Just tell me your 5 best evidences that convince you that evolution (single cell life form to all life forms) is true.  I will gladfly present my 5 best evidences to demonstrate why I believe in creation.  I am not afraid, I am anxious.  No excuses from me.



Here is evidence of the oldest life on Earth:

Quote
The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites. Stromatolites are created today by living mats of microorganisms (mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae). These primitive organisms trap thin layers of sediment with their sticky filaments and grow upward to get light for photosynthesis. Modern-day examples of stromatolites can be found in waters off Australia, the Bahamas, and Belize.

 In the Archean structures, layers similar to those seen in living stromatolites are evident, and secondary structures interpreted as simple filamentous microfossils have been recovered from the layers. The biotic origin of the structures has, however, been questioned. Both the supposed Archean stromatolites and the microfossils may have been produced by inorganic processes. Regardless, uncontested microfossils and chemical traces of life were present at least by 2.7 billion years ago. Stromatolites that were produced by microorganisms are abundant later in the Archean and throughout the Proterozoic. These sedimentary structures, formed by organic processes, provide important evidence of early life. At present, we can say with certainty that life had evolved by 2.7 billion years ago, and possibly as early as 3.5 billion years ago.

And then evidence of some of the first multicellular life forms:

Quote
A series of well preserved centimetre-scale fossils in an extended fossiliferous level within black shales near Franceville, in Gabon, West Africa, provides a glimpse of perhaps the earliest form of multicellular life so far discovered. Evidence for multicellular life before the Mesoproterozoic era (1.6–1.0 billion years ago) is scarce and controversial. These new finds are from sediments dated at 2.1 billion years old, not long after the rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration and about a billion and a half years before the rapid expansion in multicellular life forms known as the 'Cambrian explosion'. The fossils are variously sized and shaped remains of well-structured soft-bodied organisms, some exhibiting wrinkles suggestive of flexible sheet-like structures. Their shape and regular fabric indicate a multicellular degree of organization. These fossils may represent the earliest evidence so far reported for cell-to-cell signalling and coordinated growth behaviour on the scale of macroorganisms.

« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 07:48:13 PM by coachsparky »
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #228 on: October 12, 2013, 10:53:21 PM »


I'm going to simplify it for you so that you have no more flimsy excuses.  Just tell me your 5 best evidences that convince you that evolution (single cell life form to all life forms) is true.  I will gladfly present my 5 best evidences to demonstrate why I believe in creation.  I am not afraid, I am anxious.  No excuses from me.


Evidence of the first animal movement:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203085914.htm

Quote
Trails found in rocks dating back 565 million years are thought to be the earliest evidence of animal locomotion ever found.

The newly-discovered fossils, from rocks in Newfoundland in Canada, were analysed by an international team led by Oxford University scientists. They identified over 70 fossilised trails indicating that some ancient creatures moved, in a similar way to modern sea anemones, across the seafloors of the Ediacaran Period.

The team publish a report of their research in the February edition of the journal Geology.

'The markings we've found clearly indicate that these organisms could exert some sort of muscular control during locomotion,' said Alex Liu of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences, an author of the paper. 'This is exciting because it is the first evidence that creatures from this early period of Earth's history had muscles to allow them to move around -- enabling them to hunt for food or escape adverse local conditions and, importantly, indicating that they were probably animals.'

Scientists compared the trails to those left by the modern sea anemone Urticina, and found many similarities suggesting that the animals that made them were anemone-like -- perhaps using a muscular disc-shaped 'foot' to get around as anemones do today.

Evidence for animal movement from before the Cambrian Period (542-488 million years ago) is very rare, which has led many palaeontologists to suggest that earlier organisms were stationary and perhaps resembled modern fungi rather than animals.

Discovering evidence for animal movement in the Ediacaran Period (630-542 million years ago), nearly 30 million years before the Cambrian, is especially significant as it sheds light on the world before the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' in which a vast array of animal life rapidly appears in the fossil record -- an event whose apparent suddenness greatly troubled Charles Darwin when he was gathering evidence for his theory of evolution.

Evidence of the first vertebrates:

http://www.accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=4&questionID=5120

Quote
The first animals to show evidence of a vertebral column were small fishes that lived in shallow seas in the late Silurian (425 million years ago). These fishes had thick, bony shields that encased the head and part of the trunk, while the rear of the body and the tail were protected by large scales. Evidence of vertebrae is found as indentations on the inner surface of the fossilized head shield. Jaws and paired fins (corresponding to human arms and legs) were absent, and these fishes must have spent much of their life lying on the sea bed, ingesting mud and straining out tiny food particles. Remains of very similar fishes, such as Arandaspis and Sacabambaspis (see illustration), are known from middle and late Ordovician rocks of Australia and Bolivia (465-460 million years ago), respectively; and these must have had a vertebral column and therefore would rate as the first vertebrates. Today, the lampreys and hagfishes are the modern representatives of these early jawless fishes, but both have adopted very specialized lifestyles.

Evidence of the first life on land:

http://draget.net/hoe/index.php?p=p11

Quote
Evidence of land dwelling organisms at that time was the discovery of wax-coated algae that was found on land dating back to about 430 million years ago. To support this, millipedes were found dating back to about 420 million years ago. Millipedes evolved to be the first land animals. They belong to a group of Myriapoda. Myriapoda has four classes, which are centipedes, millipedes, pauropods, and symphylans. They all have a similar body plan consisting of a head followed by an elongate trunk with many legs. All Myriapods are relatively rare in the fossil record, a result of a light and thin cuticle shell, and their existence in non-marine environments where fossilization is less likely. The few older fossils, however, are testament to the ancient appearance of these Arthropods.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 11:03:40 PM by coachsparky »
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline Griffin

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #229 on: October 19, 2013, 09:55:12 PM »
CTC said: ‘Buzzzzzzz.......wrong.  If all life came from a single cell life, it must INCREASE in information to evolve into man and all other life forms.  This is so simple of a concept.  I can fully understand your desire to dodge the issue - you have no science to stand on.’

It is a simple concept, but you have yet to define ‘information’ in a measureable way, so how can I show you examples? I have no desire to dodge the issue, just be honest enough to define your terms me. I understand why you don’t want to; creationists don’t want to set any requirements in a way that they can be met. It’s easier for you to keep moving the goal posts, that way you don’t have to be honest with yourself and admit that what you asked for has been shown to you. By the way, you are still avoiding the topic of kind = species according to your creationist website, and all the examples we have observed of the evolution of new kinds. Are you hoping everyone will forget?

CTC said: ‘Makes no difference where I get my information.  Even you might provide good information.  If something is correct, it is correct regardless of the source.  BTW, answersingenesis is not a source, it is a website that hundreds of sources use to communicate.’

You are very wrong here. In science, it greatly matters where you get your information. If the information is not from a peer reviewed source, then it is invalid. Do you understand why that is? Please explain it to us so we can all be sure you understand this fundamental tenant of science. If you don’t understand the importance of peer review, you can’t understand science. And yes, I am very familiar with answersingenesis. I know it is not a single source, it is more like a library of creationist claims which their ‘experts’ attempt to defend. They often do make an effort to reference the peer reviewed papers, but typically distort them. I use the site any time I get drawn into one of these. It is the most useful site for debunking creations’ claims of which I am aware.

‘No kidding.  Have you ever heard of Louis Pasteur?  Did did some experiments on abiogenesis.  Cool stuff.  Check him out sometime.  Here is a sweet phrase for you to add to your vocabulary - "Spontaneous generation".  I'll educate you slowly so be patient with me, grasshopper.’

Do you really think I don’t know about Louis Pasteur? I am however unaware of any experiments he did involving abiogenesis. I know he did some experiments which were instrumental in the debunking of spontaneous generation. Surely you’re not laboring under the delusion that spontaneous generation is the same as abiogenesis? I didn’t think I would ever hear any serious defender of creationism actually mix those two up! If you keep making arguments that fundamentally flawed, people will start thinking you are secretly trying to discredit creationism.

CTC said:  ‘Biological evolution is not dependent on life arising by natural means. Yes, Grasshopper; but, if you do not have a where-with-all to get that first life, you have zippo’

Okay CTC sensei; please show me where I said that science had no explanation for the origins of life. This is a very simple concept, and I don’t understand why you find it so hard to grasp.  Do you understand that there are different branches of science? Do you understand that each must have a set of prerequisites before it can act? Do you understand that the validity of each branch is not dependent on how these prerequisites came into being? Is the validity of gravity dependent on HOW mater came into existence? Do I really need to keep going? If you can’t grasp this, maybe you can get your friends at answersingenesis to explain it to you. Although I doubt they understand it either. Their track record in these matters (that is to say science) is not very good.

CTC said: ‘As for your demand for examples of an ‘increase in DNA information’, neither you nor the link you provided have given me an objective way to measure it.
I'm going to simplify it for you so that you have no more flimsy excuses.  Just tell me your 5 best evidences that convince you that evolution (single cell life form to all life forms) is true.  I will gladfly present my 5 best evidences to demonstrate why I believe in creation.  I am not afraid, I am anxious.  No excuses from me.’

So I guess this means you’re not going to give me a way to measure an ‘increase in DNA information’? Until you do, the term is useless in any scientific study or discussion. I will ask you this though. Do you believe there is an increase in information between our nearest ancestor with the African ape clade and ourselves? If so please explain what it is and how it can be measured.
I would love to see your best evidence for creation. Is it safe to assume this evidence has been directly observed and measured and supports creation, such as rocks turning into a man? Or maybe direct evidence against evolution, such as a dog giving birth to a non-dog (again directly observed and measured)? I just hope it is not based on a straw man or negative evidence or unsupported poorly reasoned attempts at probability. But if it is any of those, give it to me anyway, I need a laugh.

I will tell you the bit of evidence which convinced me of the validity of evolution. It was presented to me in an introductory biology class my first year of undergrad. It is the phenomenon of ring species. This is when a population spreads out around an uninhabitable area to form a ring around it. Each adjacent population can and does interbreed; however, when a population circles fully around the uninhabitable area and meets back up with the original population, they cannot interbreed! Think about what that means for a moment. Here we have an example macroevolution in action! Not only did it demonstrate speciation, but all of the intermediate forms were still in existence. If all of the intermediate forms were to die out, then there would be two distinct species. But with them there, the group becomes very hard to classify (another reason I believe our current classification system should be abandoned). Is it one kind of animal to two? This completely destroys the argument of each kind bringing forth its own. It also shows that the transitive property does not work with ‘is the same species as’. Now that we have this clear example of one kind of animal changing into another, what’s to stop it from continuing? Do you know of a mechanism which will stop this divergent process? I would love to hear it if you do.

Once I had seen ring species, I ran into many other striking bits of evidence. We have observed the evolution of new digestive structures in lizards (amazingly this didn’t even require a speciation event). We have observed beneficial mutations in a large number of organisms (including humans), some even resulting in the evolution of completely new traits such as the ability of some bacteria to digest nylon. We have observed the evolution of single celled organisms into stable multicellular organisms. These are just a few off the top of my head, all of which are easily found if you do a search through the peer-reviewed literature.

CTC said: ‘PS....Cut the condescending crap and so will I.’
With the exception of this post in which I was trying to be condescending, I apologize if my previous post(s) came across as condescending. That was not my intent. However, when you make statements which are so blatantly wrong in a manner of such arrogance it is hard to reply kindly. An example of this is your Pasteur comment above. Claiming that abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation is the scientific equivalent of claiming (x+y)2=x2+y2. It may be a common mistake, but it is still laughably wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand. It is simply hard to take you seriously when you make such claims.

Offline Griffin

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #230 on: October 19, 2013, 10:03:16 PM »
Ocianain, you disagree with my assertion that the origins of life are irrelevant to the study of evolution (diversification of life). You then go on to agree with me that none of the mechanisms which act in the diversification of life are useful in explaining the origins of life. I view this as a very troubling contradiction. Biological evolution (as it is understood today) must have life before it can act. How the life got there is not important for evolution. If you wish to say that some supernatural event started life, biological evolution could not be used to disprove that claim. Yet after that supernatural event started life, biological evolution would begin acting. The mechanisms of evolution would be completely unchanged regardless of life having a natural or supernatural origin. Now to be very clear, I am not suggesting that the claim of a supernatural origin of life would be a scientific one. Nor am I suggesting that other branches of science (notably abiogenesis) would allow for a supernatural origin of life. I am simply saying that biological evolution, the diversification of life, is not dependent on how the first life started. It would seem that you, like CTC, are trying to equate evolution with atheism. For reasons that have already been stated, this is simply not the case. Evolution is not alone among the sciences in disallowing supernatural explanations. All of the sciences take this approach. Even if it can be shown a supernatural event is responsible for a given phenomenon, it still would not be science. Science would be unable to give the correct answer, even though (in this hypothetical example) the process was known and identified as supernatural. It would still not be science. Science is not a perfect system, but it is the best we have for understanding the world around us.

Now let me explain about my dislike for Darwin. Firstly, I do not like the tendency of our culture to worship heroes. No individual is important, only their ideas. It happens far too often that people will attack the messenger instead of the idea which they deliver. This is most often done when the opponent of the idea has no logical argument against the idea and thus wishes to shift the focus of the debate. It is a dishonest and disgusting tactic but one of the favorite of many creationists.

Secondly, although Darwin did get the scientific community pointed in the general correct direction, there was so much he didn’t know. When I was taking courses in evolution at university, Darwin was hardly mentioned at all after the intro level classes. Again he gave a good starting point, but we have gone so much farther than he could have possibly imagined. I mean the man didn’t even understand genetics much less DNA. Just because someone started something doesn’t mean they are still relevant to the modern discussion. He also got something’s out right wrong, such as his insistence that evolutionary change must be gradual and almost constant (I know this is an oversimplification, but still his thinking was along those lines). This is simply not what is observed, nor is it what one would expect if you stop and think.

Thirdly, there are many mechanisms which play a large role of which Darwin was either completely unaware or largely disregarded. A few of the big one off the top of my head would include the founder effect, genetic drift, and horizontal gene transfer. The founder effect and genetic drift are closely related. They both deal with change in the frequency of alleles due to nonselective events. This is a great over simplification, but you can look them up yourself to get a more detailed explanation. Horizontal gene transfer deals with the exchange of genes between unrelated organisms. This typically occurs in single celled organisms; in fact I am unaware of any examples of it occurring in multicelled organisms. Horizontal gene transfer has been shown to have played a much larger role in the evolution of early life than Darwin could have possibility known.

I am in no way suggesting that Darwin did not play an important role in getting this field of study going. However, all of his ideas have been taken further by later scientists and many have been modified to the point that I do not believe Darwin himself would recognize them. It is to these later ideas we should look for our understanding of evolution, not to those of a man who died over a century ago.

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 19659
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #231 on: October 21, 2013, 06:51:19 PM »
This is a moot point.  Only I am living.  The rest of you are in the Matrix.

mspart

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15565
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #232 on: October 22, 2013, 08:13:01 AM »
I will reply very soon.  My work load has been brutal lately.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline mspart

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 19659
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #233 on: October 22, 2013, 02:34:23 PM »
I will reply very soon.  My work load has been brutal lately.

You only think it has been brutal.  You are in the matrix. 

mspart

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15565
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #234 on: November 05, 2013, 02:10:49 PM »
Here is a partial response to Griffin -

CTC said: ‘Makes no difference where I get my information.  Even you might provide good information.  If something is correct, it is correct regardless of the source.  BTW, answersingenesis is not a source, it is a website that hundreds of sources use to communicate.’

You are very wrong here. In science, it greatly matters where you get your information. If the information is not from a peer reviewed source, then it is invalid. Do you understand why that is? Please explain it to us so we can all be sure you understand this fundamental tenant of science. If you don’t understand the importance of peer review, you can’t understand science.

Oh I understand what constitutes “truth” or not, alright.  Something being in a “peer review” has absolutely nothing to do with what is truth and what is not truth.  There have been countless claims made in  “peer review” that have later been proven to be bogus.  I can give lots of examples

If you don’t understand the importance of peer review, you can’t understand science.

No validity to this statement.  BTW, scientist that believe in creationism often have items published in “peer review” all the time.  You do know that origins science is not operational science.  There is a major difference here.  One is testable, observable, and repeatable while the other is based solely upon a world view and not science at all.


And yes, I am very familiar with answersingenesis. I know it is not a single source, it is more like a library of creationist claims which their ‘experts’ attempt to defend. They often do make an effort to reference the peer reviewed papers, but typically distort them. I use the site any time I get drawn into one of these. It is the most useful site for debunking creations’ claims of which I am aware.

You are very lacking in knowledge of answersingenesis.  The sources that write for the site are scientists with degrees.  Your  'typically distort them” claim is ONLY your blatant spin.

.  Have you ever heard of Louis Pasteur?  Did did some experiments on abiogenesis.  Cool stuff.  Check him out sometime.  Here is a sweet phrase for you to add to your vocabulary - "Spontaneous generation".  I'll educate you slowly so be patient with me, grasshopper.’

Do you really think I don’t know about Louis Pasteur? I am however unaware of any experiments he did involving abiogenesis. I know he did some experiments which were instrumental in the debunking of spontaneous generation. Surely you’re not laboring under the delusion that spontaneous generation is the same as abiogenesis? I didn’t think I would ever hear any serious defender of creationism actually mix those two up! If you keep making arguments that fundamentally flawed, people will start thinking you are secretly trying to discredit creationism.

I guess you are correct and the dictionary is wrong.  I'll contact TheFreeDictionary and inform them that they are incorrect.
spontaneous generation

n
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material Also called abiogenesis


 Yes, Grasshopper; but, if you do not have a where-with-all to get that first life, you have zippo.

Okay CTC sensei; please show me where I said that science had no explanation for the origins of life. This is a very simple concept, and I don’t understand why you find it so hard to grasp.  Do you understand that there are different branches of science?

Of course, Grasshopper, almost all of them have been founded by creationists.  This is a fact.  I guess you wanted me to gloat about it.  Thank you.  :)

Do you understand that each must have a set of prerequisites before it can act? Do you understand that the validity of each branch is not dependent on how these prerequisites came into being? Is the validity of gravity dependent on HOW mater came into existence? Do I really need to keep going? If you can’t grasp this, maybe you can get your friends at answersingenesis to explain it to you. Although I doubt they understand it either. Their track record in these matters (that is to say science) is not very good.

You utilize Liberal Debate Tactics very well.

9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject. 
   
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #235 on: November 05, 2013, 08:53:45 PM »
Here is a partial response to Griffin -

CTC said: ‘Makes no difference where I get my information.  Even you might provide good information.  If something is correct, it is correct regardless of the source.  BTW, answersingenesis is not a source, it is a website that hundreds of sources use to communicate.’

You are very wrong here. In science, it greatly matters where you get your information. If the information is not from a peer reviewed source, then it is invalid. Do you understand why that is? Please explain it to us so we can all be sure you understand this fundamental tenant of science. If you don’t understand the importance of peer review, you can’t understand science.

Oh I understand what constitutes “truth” or not, alright.  Something being in a “peer review” has absolutely nothing to do with what is truth and what is not truth.  There have been countless claims made in  “peer review” that have later been proven to be bogus.  I can give lots of examples

If you don’t understand the importance of peer review, you can’t understand science.

No validity to this statement.  BTW, scientist that believe in creationism often have items published in “peer review” all the time.  You do know that origins science is not operational science.  There is a major difference here.  One is testable, observable, and repeatable while the other is based solely upon a world view and not science at all.


And yes, I am very familiar with answersingenesis. I know it is not a single source, it is more like a library of creationist claims which their ‘experts’ attempt to defend. They often do make an effort to reference the peer reviewed papers, but typically distort them. I use the site any time I get drawn into one of these. It is the most useful site for debunking creations’ claims of which I am aware.

You are very lacking in knowledge of answersingenesis.  The sources that write for the site are scientists with degrees.  Your  'typically distort them” claim is ONLY your blatant spin.

.  Have you ever heard of Louis Pasteur?  Did did some experiments on abiogenesis.  Cool stuff.  Check him out sometime.  Here is a sweet phrase for you to add to your vocabulary - "Spontaneous generation".  I'll educate you slowly so be patient with me, grasshopper.’

Do you really think I don’t know about Louis Pasteur? I am however unaware of any experiments he did involving abiogenesis. I know he did some experiments which were instrumental in the debunking of spontaneous generation. Surely you’re not laboring under the delusion that spontaneous generation is the same as abiogenesis? I didn’t think I would ever hear any serious defender of creationism actually mix those two up! If you keep making arguments that fundamentally flawed, people will start thinking you are secretly trying to discredit creationism.

I guess you are correct and the dictionary is wrong.  I'll contact TheFreeDictionary and inform them that they are incorrect.
spontaneous generation

n
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material Also called abiogenesis


 Yes, Grasshopper; but, if you do not have a where-with-all to get that first life, you have zippo.

Okay CTC sensei; please show me where I said that science had no explanation for the origins of life. This is a very simple concept, and I don’t understand why you find it so hard to grasp.  Do you understand that there are different branches of science?

Of course, Grasshopper, almost all of them have been founded by creationists.  This is a fact.  I guess you wanted me to gloat about it.  Thank you.  :)

Do you understand that each must have a set of prerequisites before it can act? Do you understand that the validity of each branch is not dependent on how these prerequisites came into being? Is the validity of gravity dependent on HOW mater came into existence? Do I really need to keep going? If you can’t grasp this, maybe you can get your friends at answersingenesis to explain it to you. Although I doubt they understand it either. Their track record in these matters (that is to say science) is not very good.

You utilize Liberal Debate Tactics very well.

9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject. 
   

Arguing with ctc is like arguing with a stone wall.  You can throw all the facts at him you want they bounce off and he continues to spout the literal interpretation of the Bible which was written by men thousands of years ago who did not know science and therefor is replete with errors which he has accepted as truths.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline LILHOWDOG

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 6810
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #236 on: November 05, 2013, 08:59:49 PM »
Says the guy who calls a guy a loon but doesnt address the facts. 

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #237 on: November 06, 2013, 06:55:35 AM »
Spontaneous generation was a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material.  Louis Pasteur helped disprove this theory which held living matter arose easily and rapidly from nonliving matter.  The theory of abiogenesis, removes the concept that it occurs easily and rapidly and has never been disproven.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #238 on: November 06, 2013, 06:58:14 AM »
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2010/06/25/abiogenesis-is-not-spontaneous-generation-period/

Quote
Spontaneous generation held that life in its present form today could form from non-life, and did so all the time — for instance, aphids sprang from dew on plants, maggots emerged from rotting meat, and mice were created from wet hay. In 1859, Louis Pasteur performed experiments that put the final nail in the coffin of the hypothesis. He proved definitively that life does not spring, fully formed and unbidden, from any recipe of inorganic or dead organic matter. So the question of the origin of life was reopened for the first time in centuries.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, does not predict that life in any form known today — not even the simplest single-celled life forms — were created in some flash of magic or through some arcane recipe of components. That would be creation, in the sense of a personal creator deity. Rather, it predicts that, as life is made up of chemical reactions, and the constituent components of life can self-arrange given certain conditions, there is some point in Earth’s early history wherein a chemical chain reaction went runaway and breached the fuzzy barrier between chemistry and biology. All biology is is one single long, unbroken chemical reaction that can be traced back to whatever initial condition sparked it billions of years ago.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline Griffin

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #239 on: November 23, 2013, 01:33:03 PM »
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this, I’ve been rather busy.

CTC said: ‘Oh I understand what constitutes “truth” or not, alright.  Something being in a “peer review” has absolutely nothing to do with what is truth and what is not truth.  There have been countless claims made in  “peer review” that have later been proven to be bogus.  I can give lots of examples’

You seem to be confusing the results section and the discussion section in the papers. The claims are all made in the discussion section. These claims can (and often are) shown to be incorrect when more evidence is accumulated. That is one of the great strengths of the peer review process. It puts all of the data out for the world to examine and allows for corrections. I know of nothing else which has the level of transparency of the peer reviewed process.

Also, ‘truth’ is not as easy to define as you seem to think it is. Science doesn’t deal with ‘truth’, nor does it deal with ‘proof’, it deals with evidence. This is a very important distinction.

CTC said: 'No validity to this statement.  BTW, scientist that believe in creationism often have items published in “peer review” all the time.  You do know that origins science is not operational science.  There is a major difference here.  One is testable, observable, and repeatable while the other is based solely upon a world view and not science at all.’

We will have to agree to disagree on the importance of peer review. I have never met any scientist who considered the peer review process anything other than a foundation of all of science, but maybe you have. I am aware of many creationists who have been published in peer review; however, most of these are in fields unrelated to evolution. On the occasions where they publish in a field related to evolution, their papers never provided evidence against the evolutionary process or the fact that evolution takes place.

Please define how you are using ‘origins science’ and ‘operational science’. Thanks.

CTC said: ‘You are very lacking in knowledge of answersingenesis.  The sources that write for the site are scientists with degrees.  Your  'typically distort them” claim is ONLY your blatant spin.’

If you wish to think so I will not try to change your mind. I find Answersingenesis to be a very useful site as it attempts to site its sources. This makes it much easier for me to track them down and show how they misrepresented the original claims. If you don’t believe me go to one of their articles, follow it back to the original scores and compare.

CTC said: ‘I guess you are correct and the dictionary is wrong.  I'll contact TheFreeDictionary and inform them that they are incorrect.’

Please do, although I don’t think they’ll care very much, accuracy in scientific maters is not often a concern of dictionaries. This goes back to the issue of sources. Terms mean different things in common language and in science. If you are not going to go to the primary sources (peer reviewed publication) to get your information in science, at least go to secondary sources such as college level text books.

CTC said: ‘Of course, Grasshopper, almost all of them have been founded by creationists.  This is a fact.  I guess you wanted me to gloat about it.  Thank you.

I don’t know if this is true or not, but if it is than it is misleading. Most fields of study came into existence before natural selection was proposed and supported as a viable mechanism for evolutionary diversification. As such, any of the scientists of the day would not have had any understanding of this mechanism. Would it be surprising that most would believe a supernatural force is the cause of any unexplainable events? The real question is as our understanding of this mechanism (as well as the others we have since discovered) increased; have more scientists embraced the supernatural as an expiation for the unknown? The answer to this is clearly no. So what does that indicate? Is the acceptance of creationism a benefit or a hindrance to scientific advancement? The evidence is very one sided on this issue.

CTC said: ‘You utilize Liberal Debate Tactics very well.’

Now that’s not nice. I assure you, I am no liberal, unless you mean classically so. I have never accused you of a ‘MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE’. I have accused you of ignorance on the issue, but that is hardly the same thing. I have no interest in changing the focus of the discussion, nor do I wish you to defined yourself. Neither you nor I nor any other individual is important in this matter. Individual people simply are not important in science (or much else in my opinion). It is ideas and evidence which are important. All I want is for you to defend your ideas using data published in a scientific (that is to say peer reviewed) source Or admit you reject evolutionary thought for nonscientific reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.