2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"I presume you deny both these things because you believe them to be against your religion. "
[b]…What I deny is it is a fact life started from non-living material without
a plan or purpose AND evolved into the vast variety we see today…(my emphasis)
The former has nothing to do with evolution while the latter is evolution.
I presume you deny both these things because you believe them to be against your religion.
…You can bel ...[text shortened]... n then exactly what do you believe caused those other changes that were not caused by evolution?
[/b]Than you presume in error, my religion does not even come into play
with respect to my complaints and doubts about some of the things
evolution has been given credit for, they have more to do with the
complexity of systems and the lack of logic that was applied to the
formation of the complex systems we see today in life with evolution.
You insist on bringing in my religion as if to quantify all of my
complaints as nothing more than the rants of a religious fanatic. You do
me a disservice when you do that, and avoid answering honest questions
that I have. If you can avoid bringing my religion into this I’ll avoid
saying you are wrong because the Bible says so, and give you valid
concerns that are found in the here and now which have nothing to
do with bogy men or scripture.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"I do not “DESIRE” to believe what I do just as I do not “DESIRE” to believe 2+2=4 "
[b]…What I deny is it is a fact life started from non-living material without
a plan or purpose AND evolved into the vast variety we see today…(my emphasis)
The former has nothing to do with evolution while the latter is evolution.
I presume you deny both these things because you believe them to be against your religion.
…You can bel ...[text shortened]... n then exactly what do you believe caused those other changes that were not caused by evolution?
[/b]If this were a matter of mathematics I'd agree with you, show me the
figures and we can both look at that together, but it isn't like that, this
more like, "Who won the debate between McCain and Obama" where
your starting places, your values, the things you hold near and dear
once touch matter to you. That is quite unlike a mathematical equation
when you start off with the notion all living things sprang from
evolution you justify that belief at every turn.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…I believe in processes of change, but how MUCH change is another question all
[b]…What I deny is it is a fact life started from non-living material without
a plan or purpose AND evolved into the vast variety we see today…(my emphasis)
The former has nothing to do with evolution while the latter is evolution.
I presume you deny both these things because you believe them to be against your religion.
…You can bel ...[text shortened]... n then exactly what do you believe caused those other changes that were not caused by evolution?
together when we start to dish out credit for what occurred and why…(my emphasis)
I am uncertain of exactly what you are suggesting here:
are you saying that evolution is responsible for some of the changes but not others? -if so, then if you accept that evolution is responsible for at least some of the changes then why would you not accept that evolution is responsible simply for all those changes? -I mean, after all, that would be the simplest hypothesis -correct?
If you are suggesting here that some of the changes were caused by evolution but some of the changes where not caused by evolution then exactly what do you believe caused those other changes that were not caused by evolution?
[/b]I mean just what I said, I believe in changes within life, where the
process began is another question all together. I can see fully formed
life being changed over time in degrees, what I do not accept is that
from scratch with no guide what so ever caused all life to appear in the
variety we see today.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you come into this discussion with no education on the subject to speak of and cast doubt on hundreds of years of solid research, but you only have gripes against that which goes against the biblical tales.
"Why are you asking questions like where does everything come from when you know full well nobody on Earth knows the answer to that and why should I be any different?"
Why I’m asking questions like, “Where does everything come from” is
because it is a fair question to ask! I know full well no one on earth
knows, and yet people here seem quite content ...[text shortened]... eld the belief I do and I’m giving my reasons, I’m
not attempting to bait people here.
Kelly
That is pretty obvious and if you can't admit it you are lying to yourself. You have no trouble believing in rockets sending probes to the far reaches of the solar system and now beyond, you have no problem with the successes of cancer research, you have no problem with atomic microscopes, you have no problem with metallurgy science coming up with ever stronger materials with which to make better aircraft, boats, cars, even bicycles. You never have problems with those subjects but you limit your critizism to just those which conflict with biblical tales. Tell me I am wrong about that. Be honest with yourself, maybe you don't even recognize your own bias in this but you should examine the basis of your bias. Why don't you rale against mathemeticians? Why don't I hear you on the soapbox of doubt about polymer chemistry, how come I don't hear you refuting communications engineers? Why only evolution? Surely you don't expect us to believe it's only your own inner voice doing the doubting do you? We were not exactly raised in a barn or yesterday. Why can't you just admit your own biblical bias and be done with it?
Originally posted by KellyJay…Than you presume in error, my religion does not even come into play
"I presume you deny both these things because you believe them to be against your religion. "
Than you presume in error, my religion does not even come into play
with respect to my complaints and doubts about some of the things
evolution has been given credit for, they have more to do with the
complexity of systems and the lack of logic that was a ...[text shortened]... hat are found in the here and now which have nothing to
do with bogy men or scripture.
Kelly[/b]
with respect to my complaints and doubts about some of the things
evolution has been given credit for, they have more to do with the
complexity of systems and the LACK OF LOGIC that was applied to the
formation of the complex systems we see today in life with evolution. … (my emphasis)
But WHY do you not believe that the complexity of life can be generated WITHOUT logical reasoning? -isn’t that you say you doubt here? -if so, then, given the fact what you are implying here is that ‘logical reasoning’ DID generate the complexity of life and that you believe (I presume) that that logical reasoning came from a “god”, it must be your religious beliefs that give you these doubts -correct?
Originally posted by KellyJay…If this were a matter of mathematics I'd agree with you, show me the
"I do not “DESIRE” to believe what I do just as I do not “DESIRE” to believe 2+2=4 "
If this were a matter of mathematics I'd agree with you, show me the
figures and we can both look at that together, but it isn't like that, this
more like, "Who won the debate between McCain and Obama" where
your starting places, your values, the things you hold n ...[text shortened]... ion all living things sprang from
evolution you justify that belief at every turn.
Kelly[/b]
figures and we can both look at that together, (my emphasis)
It isn’t a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of logic and, in the case of evolution, the evidence. What difference does it make if I deduce something from logic non-mathematically or calculate something mathematically? -in either case my “desires” have nothing to do with my conclusion -that is my point.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…I mean just what I said, I believe in CHANGES within life, where the
[b]…I believe in processes of change, but how MUCH change is another question all
together when we start to dish out credit for what occurred and why…(my emphasis)
I am uncertain of exactly what you are suggesting here:
are you saying that evolution is responsible for some of the changes but not others? -if so, then if you accept that evolutio ...[text shortened]... cratch with no guide what so ever caused all life to appear in the
variety we see today.
Kelly
process began is another question all together.
[/b] (my emphasis)
I am uncertain what you mean here:
when you say “I believe in CHANGES within life”, do you mean changes caused by evolution? What kind of “CHANGES” are you referring to here? -I mean, are you referring to changes that result in new species forming from older species or what?
…I can see fully formed life being changed over time in degrees, what I do not accept is that from scratch with no guide what so ever caused all life to appear in the
variety we see today. …
I am uncertain what you are saying here:
Are you saying that evolution is a real process and does cause changes but yet evolution is not what caused the variety of species we see today?
Do you believe that the process of evolution exists in reality?
Originally posted by KellyJayMy answer to that is to argue the issues surrounding evolution on the basis of:
If this were a matter of mathematics I'd agree with you, show me the
figures and we can both look at that together, but it isn't like that, this
more like, "Who won the debate between McCain and Obama" where
your starting places, your values, the things you hold near and dear
once touch matter to you. That is quite unlike a mathematical equation
when y ...[text shortened]... otion all living things sprang from
evolution you justify that belief at every turn.
Kelly
1. Is it physically possible that it happened as described in the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the evidence?
The most popular criticism of the Theory of Evolution is that the mechanism cannot give rise to complex results. That is easily debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
Originally posted by twhitehead"The most popular criticism of the Theory of Evolution is that the mechanism cannot give rise to complex results. That is easily debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program."
My answer to that is to argue the issues surrounding evolution on the basis of:
1. Is it physically possible that it happened as described in the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e ...[text shortened]... debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
I do not think that was ever debunked by a computer program, I have
seen one program cause a computer generated creature to evolve,
but it was programmed to, and that particular program they also
cheated by adding sight through programming not through the
evolutionary process they programmed into their computer generated
creature, which was cheating on that portion of the experiment.
The theory of evolution has to take that programming into account!
If you want to say that we can through no design get a program to
do those things we are crediting evolution with, than the programmers
would have had to let the program write itself first. They did not
do that, they setup the program to do just what they wanted and
called it a successful experiment when it did.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Is it physically possible that it happened as described in the Theory of Evolution?
My answer to that is to argue the issues surrounding evolution on the basis of:
1. Is it physically possible that it happened as described in the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e ...[text shortened]... debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
What are you claiming it did?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?
My answer to that is to argue the issues surrounding evolution on the basis of:
1. Is it physically possible that it happened as described in the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e ...[text shortened]... debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
name some evidence
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e ...[text shortened]... debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
My answer to that is to argue the issues surrounding evolution on the basis of:
1. Is it physically possible that it happened as described in the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e ...[text shortened]... debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
All life started at once complete and started evolving into lesser
creatures instead of more complex ones.
Originally posted by KellyJayShow me the evidence for that. So far all you have is a statement of your idea of fact. A statement is not fact. All that is is a belief system. Show real evidence. Show real evidence the world is 10,000 years old, or the universe is 10,000 years old. You made the statement. Now it is on your shoulders to prove it. We of the scientific community have 300 years of solid evidence and predictions and experiments to show our side. Show me your side.
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
All life started at once complete and started evolving into lesser
creatures instead of more complex ones.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…All life started at once complete and started evolving into lesser
3. Are there any competing theories that can explain the e debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program.
All life started at once complete and started evolving into lesser
creatures instead of more complex ones.
creatures instead of more complex ones.. …
That would not be a credible alternative hypothesis for at least one very good reason;
All the oldest fossils are only those of microbes and, by seeing how living things evolved by looking at the ages of fossils and what kind of living thing each fossil is of, it is absolutely clear that life started as single-celled and got progressively more complex with time. So clearly this hypothesis is completely contradicted by the evidence and so is not a credible alternative hypothesis for that reason.
-you don’t need any computer program to debunk this alternative hypothesis!
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat do you mean show it to you, look at all the life here, that is
Show me the evidence for that. So far all you have is a statement of your idea of fact. A statement is not fact. All that is is a belief system. Show real evidence. Show real evidence the world is 10,000 years old, or the universe is 10,000 years old. You made the statement. Now it is on your shoulders to prove it. We of the scientific community have 300 years of solid evidence and predictions and experiments to show our side. Show me your side.
evidence.
Kelly