Originally posted by @wildgrasssounds to me like the typical completely stupid moronic Creationist straw man propaganda crap, that fools nobody let alone scientists, of equating evolution with biogenesis. I don't know what they hope to achieve from doing that but, whatever it is, unless it is to convince everyone else that they are morons in which case they have succeeded, they will fail and they are total morons for doing that. I would think such obviously stupid Creationist propaganda must surely turn many would-be Creationists into atheists by exposing the stark stupidity of such extremist religion; so some good may come from this after all.
... #9 says that "Evolution teaches that we were not created by God, that means we are not subject to God's laws, ..." .... God isn't mentioned in evolution's "teachings". Why does all this nonsense insist that the scientific method and God are incompatible?
Originally posted by @wildgrassIf you want we can go through and revisit the previous pages of this thread.
You were clearly convoluting punctuated equilibrium and irreducible complexity in earlier posts. Why?
Just for starters, the one and only time I played devils advocate you responded by asking if I intended to play a perpetual game of devils advocate. How you figure one example suggests (or translates into) 'perpetual' is something for you to explain.
You were the first to mention aliens (in passing) so I mentioned aliens in passing. Apparently this is supposed to mean I'm responsible for tossing aliens into the convoluted mix... ?
The only subject I came close to expanding on was PE. I don't know how many times I had to reiterate PE addressees the fossil record and not the core tenets of evolution, but I suspect the on-going 'misunderstanding' was intentional.
I can put words into my own mouth, thank you very much.
I don't need you, sonhouse, humy, KN (et all) telling me what to say or how to say it.
01 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou can't complain about people putting words in your mouth when you respond to direct questions with "What do you think my answer might be?"
If you want we can go through and revisit the previous pages of this thread.
Just for starters, the one and only time I played devils advocate you responded by asking if I intended to play a perpetual game of devils advocate. How you figure one example suggests (or translates into) 'perpetual' is something for you to explain.
You were the first to ...[text shortened]... ry much.
I don't need you, sonhouse, humy, KN (et all) telling me what to say or how to say it.
Lets recap.
You claimed there was no support for punctuated equilibrium. You ignored clarification questions and then pages of comments later your (snarky) explanation.....
apathist told me he thought irreducible complexity had been debunked, so I responded by saying I thought punctuated equilibrium had been debunked. Both statements are absurd because neither one of those (PE, IC) has been 'debunked'.
Evolution obviously doesn't need abiogenesis, but it definitely needs (is dependent upon) PE. So there's no doubt in my mind that it will never be 'debunked'. On the other hand, I've heard proclamations from evolutionists claiming irreducible complexity has been debunked.
.... convoluted the two terms by proclaiming neither of them were debunkable. This prompted a lot of questions that have still not been answered. For example, why would evolution be dependent upon PE? How are they similarly absurd statements if only one of them has supportive evidence? I brought up the "pyramids built by aliens" simply to point out the seemingly absurd logic of irreducible complexity. There will always be deniers, but until new evidence is presented beyond "they're really big and complicated", isn't the Egyptians built them explanation the most likely? Rather than explaining your alternative understanding or point of view, you answered my question with another snarky question.
Does that about sum it up?
Originally posted by @wildgrass• If I recall you agreed both statements (re: PE and IC) could not be 'debunked'.
You can't complain about people putting words in your mouth when you respond to direct questions with "What do you think my answer might be?"
Lets recap.
You claimed there was no support for punctuated equilibrium. You ignored clarification questions and then pages of comments later your (snarky) explanation.....
[quote]apathist told me he though ...[text shortened]... nt of view, you answered my question with another snarky question.
Does that about sum it up?
• Evolution (core tenets of) would obviously not collapse if PE disappeared from text books, science papers and articles (and Wikipedia). But have you considered how this might create a problem for evolutionists? If you take the cane away from an old man it won't kill him, but you will have impacted his ability to move around and go places.
There's a reason why the "punctuated equilibria" paper (1972) was called a "landmark" paper.
• If you didn't understand why I was pretending to be someone who thought pyramids were pointy little hills, then you do not understand ID. It has to do with recognizing patterns and design inference.
For example, it wouldn't be unusual for a 2 or three year old child to think he was looking at a funny looking mountain. But a twenty or thirty year old man has enough accumulated experience to determine (without actually knowing) whether a pyramid is man made or a natural formation.
01 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAlthough I am not excessively choosy, I prefer naturals to manmade.
• If I recall you agreed both statements (re: PE and IC) could not be 'debunked'.
• Evolution (core tenets of) would obviously not collapse if PE disappeared from text books, science papers and articles (and Wikipedia). But have you considered how this might create a problem for evolutionists? If you take the cane away from an old man it won't kill hi ...[text shortened]... ce to determine (without actually knowing) whether a pyramid is man made or a natural formation.
02 Sep 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassI brought up the "pyramids built by aliens" simply to point out the seemingly absurd logic of irreducible complexity.
You can't complain about people putting words in your mouth when you respond to direct questions with "What do you think my answer might be?"
Lets recap.
You claimed there was no support for punctuated equilibrium. You ignored clarification questions and then pages of comments later your (snarky) explanation.....
[quote]apathist told me he though ...[text shortened]... nt of view, you answered my question with another snarky question.
Does that about sum it up?
That would indeed be absurd, since the concept of irreducible complexity doesn't apply to "pyramids built by aliens". Did you mean to say 'intelligent design' (design inference), or are you equating IC with ID?
02 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThe argument for irreducible complexity is that some biological systems are too complex for natural selection. The argument for alien pyramids is that some of the pyramids are too complex for ancient Egypt.
[b]I brought up the "pyramids built by aliens" simply to point out the seemingly absurd logic of irreducible complexity.
That would indeed be absurd, since the concept of irreducible complexity doesn't apply to "pyramids built by aliens". Did you mean to say 'intelligent design' (design inference), or are you equating IC with ID?[/b]
02 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassAnd the answer by the fore sworn evolutionist, apparently not!
The argument for irreducible complexity is that some biological systems are too complex for natural selection. The argument for alien pyramids is that some of the pyramids are too complex for ancient Egypt.
02 Sep 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe argument for irreducible complexity is that some biological systems are too complex for natural selection.
The argument for irreducible complexity is that some biological systems are too complex for natural selection. The argument for alien pyramids is that some of the pyramids are too complex for ancient Egypt.
If IC is applied to biological systems then yes, that is the argument.
The argument for alien pyramids is that some of the pyramids are too complex for ancient Egypt.
Unless you're talking about playing an enormous game of Jenga with a pyramid then no, irreducible complexity has nothing to do with the 'complexity' of pyramids.
In any event, the idea that pyramids were too complex for ancient Egyptians is a myth based on uninformed opinion. I've seen documentaries demonstrating how ancient Egyptians could have built the pyramids without advanced technology and machinery.
03 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limePunctuated equilibrium is not in any way, shape or form "support" for the theory of evolution. It attempts to explain/describe consequences of evolution. The theory of evolution would be in trouble if it turned out that DNA does not exist, DNA does not reproduce, DNA does not mutate, or DNA does not affect the phenotype. If you object to the theory of evolution, you have to show why the empirical evidence in favour of any of these four aspects of evolution is incorrectly interpreted.
• If I recall you agreed both statements (re: PE and IC) could not be 'debunked'.
• Evolution (core tenets of) would obviously not collapse if PE disappeared from text books, science papers and articles (and Wikipedia). But have you considered how this might create a problem for evolutionists? If you take the cane away from an old man it won't kill hi ...[text shortened]... ce to determine (without actually knowing) whether a pyramid is man made or a natural formation.
03 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorrahere I am being extremely pedantic but wouldn't be correct to say DNA itself does not mutate (because it stays as DNA) but rather the length and/or order of DNA bases mutates? -obviously that is what you meant so this is a subtle purely academic piece semantics even if that is pedantically correct.
...DNA does not mutate,...
04 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe theory of evolution would be in trouble if it turned out that DNA does not exist...
Punctuated equilibrium is not in any way, shape or form "support" for the theory of evolution. It attempts to explain/describe consequences of evolution. The theory of evolution would be in trouble if it turned out that DNA does not exist, DNA does not reproduce, DNA does not mutate, or DNA does not affect the phenotype. If you object to the theory of ...[text shortened]... pirical evidence in favour of any of these four aspects of evolution is incorrectly interpreted.
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
- George Sim Johnson
"Did Darwin Get It Right?"
The Wall Street Journal (October 15, 1999)
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIf ANY text were to arrive in computer code from outer space from unknown origin, most people may regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. However, one would have to be completely stupid to think DNA is evidence let alone proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence or any other kind of intelligence. There may be more information than in the human genome contained in the pixels in a long video footage of a solar flare and yet nobody I am aware of says that means a solar flare is proof that intelligence had something to do with the solar flare.
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
04 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeSimilarly, one can say "The idea that the bombardier beetle is too complex for natural selection is a myth based on an uninformed opinion. There are clear descriptions illustrating that the biological appendages of the bombardier beetle could have evolved through mechanisms of natural selection."
...irreducible complexity has nothing to do with the 'complexity' of pyramids. In any event, the idea that pyramids were too complex for ancient Egyptians is a myth based on uninformed opinion. I've seen documentaries demonstrating how ancient Egyptians could have built the pyramids without advanced technology and machinery.
With a certain degree of certainty, we can conclude that the bombardier beetle is not irreducibly complex, and the pyramids were not built by aliens.
Originally posted by @wildgrassLemon lime is very gullible it seems, someone puts out a video saying ancient Egyptians were WAY to stupid to have ever built something as complex as aliens THEREFORE aliens exist AND had nothing better to do with a not terribly sophisticated civilization than to help make super sized monuments to the pharaohs, denying them of course of any advanced technology like, oh, EDUCATION. Sure, it could happen.
Similarly, one can say "The idea that the bombardier beetle is too complex for natural selection is a myth based on an uninformed opinion. There are clear descriptions illustrating that the biological appendages of the bombardier beetle could have evolved through mechanisms of natural selection."
With a certain degree of certainty, we can conclude that the bombardier beetle is not irreducibly complex, and the pyramids were not built by aliens.
So I imagine he fell for the rest of the CT like nobody walked on the moon, the ISS is just up there but empty, and a hundred others.