Originally posted by JirakonIt seems you get all your scientific information from "Answers in Genesis" then.
First of all, I'd like to point out that nothing I mentioned in this thread could logically show that I belong to a church. I've been trying to make completely scientific arguments. I'm not using any knowledge I gained in church for this argument.
We've heard all this crap from fundies before, and sent most of them packing.
As for the entropy argument, well, if evolution defies entropy, so does tree growth and child birth.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIt's not an ad hom attack to call a stupid person stupid. It's only a statement of fact.
How come so many of the pro-evolutionists in this thread are resorting to various ad hominem attacks and bogus accusations against the anti-evolutionist in this thread? As any unscrupulous lawyer knows, "when you have no defense, abuse the plaintiff!"
Originally posted by scottishinnzI disagree. An ad hom attack is an insult to that person - whether it's true or not.
It's not an ad hom attack to call a stupid person stupid. It's only a statement of fact.
That ad hom attack may be a statement of fact, but it's still attacking the person and not the argument.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerActually, I don't think this is the case at all. The first ad hom on this board came from a theist, claiming us all to be "insecure maniacs".
How come so many of the pro-evolutionists in this thread are resorting to various ad hominem attacks and bogus accusations against the anti-evolutionist in this thread? As any unscrupulous lawyer knows, "when you have no defense, abuse the plaintiff!"
The only thing which might be considered an ad hom attack by an "evolutionist" was twhiteheads statement on the previous page. It seemed fairly okay to me actually. The person was either a) entirely uneducated on the matter, b) mis-educated on the matter (which itself seems only poorly excusable, since many great resources exist on the web), or c) educated on the matter but lying.
I actually think he got it bang on the money.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnHmm, not sure. I can see where you are coming from, but it is possible to address the argument, and make a non-judgemental statement of fact that a person is not particularly bright. I don't think that is an ad hom, in my opinion. Think of it like this, there are some people on these boards who I disagree with, sometimes vehemently, yet I still think are smart people. I would not hesitate to tell them that either. There are some on these boards who I agree with, yet I do not think make logically sound arguments, and I point that out too (i.e. I agree with their conclusion reached, even if they reached it in an innane manner).
I disagree. An ad hom attack is an insult to that person - whether it's true or not.
That ad hom attack may be a statement of fact, but it's still attacking the person and not the argument.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI expect any debate that involves people over the age of 12 to not refer to any of the participants as "stupid." I'm sorry that you are unwilling to meet that minimal standard of civility.
It's not an ad hom attack to call a stupid person stupid. It's only a statement of fact.
Originally posted by Jirakon-Peptide bonds can't form in environments of water, oxygen, or ultraviolet.
How come there are so many creationists, IDers, and other anti-science people...
That's a pretty backward statement. Creation and Intelligent Design are not anti-science; it's just the opposite. Science points to a supernatural origin of the universe, and of life. Science is about making observations, then coming up with the best possible explanati ...[text shortened]... enough to claim that the best explanation for the universe and life is supernatural.
There was no free oxygen before life. Peptide bonds can and do form in aqueous environments with the assistance of catalysts; given a high enough concentration of amino acid triphosphates, even the catalysts might not be necessary. Ultraviolet radiation does not penetrate everywhere. All you need is some sort of overhang to block the uv.
how could it have evolved the processes of metabolism and reproduction in what must have been a single generation?
Reproduction's easy. RNA can catalyze it's own reproduction, and phospholipid vesicles can break in two.
-Natural selection cannot explain the occurence of new traits in organisms.
Who claims it does?
but there are no mutations of addition.
Yes there are.
Originally posted by JirakonCalculations coming out of Fegley's lab at Washington University led to the conclusion that the Early Earth atmosphere should have been a reducing one.
It's all been shown to be rubbish, fundamentalist lies before
First of all, I'd like to know how any of these points were determined to be fundamentalist. They're just occurences that are observed. What does that have to do with biblical fundamentalism (which, I assume, is the type of fundamentalism you're reffering to).
You haven't given a bett ...[text shortened]... don't think you really believe that's the reason you didn't respond to anything else.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/wuis-cfr090705.php
1 edit
Originally posted by JirakonWhat about sexual reproduction? How could asexual beings naturally evolve two different sexual systems that are completely useless without each other?
How come there are so many creationists, IDers, and other anti-science people...
That's a pretty backward statement. Creation and Intelligent Design are not anti-science; it's just the opposite. Science points to a supernatural origin of the universe, and of life. Science is about making observations, then coming up with the best possible explanati enough to claim that the best explanation for the universe and life is supernatural.
Sex is simply haploid cells merging, breaking apart, merging again, etc. That's all there is to it. The rest is refinement. Either sperm or egg could evolve without the other; a sperm is just a haploid cell with propulsion; an egg is just a big haploid cell with mitochondria.
The Laws of Entropy and Conservation of Energy apply to closed systems only. Life is not a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.
What are the "Laws" of Causality and Biogenesis? How do causality or cell theory "show that neither the universe nor life could arise by natural laws of science"?
Biogenesis outcompetes abiogenesis, which is why we don't see it today. The "Law of Biogenesis" (all life comes from an egg) is not a Law in the same sense that the Law of Universal Gravitation is a Law. It's simply a model that describes the observations that have been made with respect to life in this oxidizing atmosphere with self-replicating life everywhere.
Bacteria don't need 11 systems to live or procreate.
However, there is not a single fossil of any species in a transitional state.
Yes there are. Didn't you know velociraptors had feathers? How about Lucy the Australopithecus? She was an ape that walked upright and had limbs intermediate in length ratio between chimpanzees and humans. What about the pakicetids, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, Squalodon?
Originally posted by JirakonThe culture of a church doesn't just stay within the building. It defines some people's lives entirely.
If your church is anything like mine was, they are taking pains to keep you from even hearing the arguments and evidence for evolution.
First of all, I'd like to point out that nothing I mentioned in this thread could logically show that I belong to a church. I've been trying to make completely scientific arguments. I'm not using any knowledge I ga ...[text shortened]... at better explains these observances. If there are any, I certainly am not aware of them.
The minute you tell me you're a creationist, and you have an American flag in your profile, I would bet serious $$ that you attend a church. I need no further information.
Your last paragraph is interesting. Isn't it possible that evolution and creation are both true? Maybe the creation wasn't so instantaneous as young-earth creationists would like to believe.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIt depends if they are being willingly stupid. Anyway, the point still stands, it was a theist, not an atheist, who ad hom'd first.
I expect any debate that involves people over the age of 12 to not refer to any of the participants as "stupid." I'm sorry that you are unwilling to meet that minimal standard of civility.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think I see your point and I think what I would say you are suggesting is basically that an ad hom is appropriate when it's an accurate description of the person.
Hmm, not sure. I can see where you are coming from, but it is possible to address the argument, and make a non-judgemental statement of fact that a person is not particularly bright. I don't think that is an ad hom, in my opinion. Think of it like this, there are some people on these boards who I disagree with, sometimes vehemently, yet I stil ...[text shortened]... too (i.e. I agree with their conclusion reached, even if they reached it in an innane manner).
I am just defining an ad hom as being an insult on the person, that's all.
I don't disagree with you that there are those on this forum that they do appear to be appropriate descriptors for.
I don't really want to continue arguing about what the definition of an ad hom is though so I'll agree to disagree really 🙂