Educate your YEC: Evolutionism IS falsifiable

Originally posted by RJHinds
Notice the word "probably" -- that means this is admitted speculation.

Oh, for f...s sake. The fact that there were only trace amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere before life began is not speculation, why there were any oxygen at all, is.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And again, the story picks from sometime after life begins... this is all so *yawn* very interesting.

So let me get this straight... in your opinion, is something only spam if it's really really long and hard to read?

Try and keep up, will you. You (or your copied text) made the claim that there would have been a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere when life began, and that no scientist had run a test under those conditions. I pointed out that oxygen levels probably only spiked as late as 800 million years ago. You then feel the need to point out that this is not the atmosphere as it was before life began. I give you a link, specifically quoting from it that earth's "early atmosphere contained only small amounts of free oxygen", and in so doing showing you that indeed there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere before life began.

Thus, we can conclude by noting that abiogenesis experiments need not be run in oxygen-rich containers, because evidence don't support the claim that the atmosphere were rich in oxygen before life began. The atmosphere only became rich in oxygen once life began releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And again, the story picks up from sometime [b]after life begins... this is all so *yawn* very interesting.

So let me get this straight... in your opinion, is something only spam if it's really really long and hard to read?[/b]

Posting unnecessarily long copy/pastes with the intention of putting off readers so that you can crow about how they are not willing to read your content is spam.
Now it is entirely possible that you simply don't understand forum etiquette. Next time please consider posing a link to the article and summarizing the key points and why you are posting it in the first place. It is still far from clear to me what you were trying to achieve with that post other than a poor attempt at discrediting Wikipedia as a source. Basically saying 'my source is longer than yours' doesn't make your source any better.

Originally posted by lemon lime
(continued)

So, we see in this first stage experiment that we have irrelevant conditions, a wrong atmosphere, low yields of chemicals in wrong proportions and a serious structural problem. If other compounds necessary to life were present (indeed other compounds at all), we would also have the problem of competitive reactions effectively lower ...[text shortened]... nsition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. how many times must we tell you and people like you?

Originally posted by lemon lime
And again, the story picks up from sometime [b]after life begins... this is all so *yawn* very interesting.

So let me get this straight... in your opinion, is something only spam if it's really really long and hard to read?[/b]

and not relevant to the discussion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Posting unnecessarily long copy/pastes with the intention of putting off readers so that you can crow about how they are not willing to read your content is spam.
Now it is entirely possible that you simply don't understand forum etiquette. Next time please consider posing a link to the article and summarizing the key points and why you are posting it in ...[text shortened]... a source. Basically saying 'my source is longer than yours' doesn't make your source any better.

Now it is entirely possible that you simply don't understand forum etiquette.

Actually, I got the idea for doing this from one of your own colleagues who was consistently doing this at the science forum. And I don't recall you or anyone else getting after him for doing it. He hasn't done it recently, but the fact that you seem to think it's okay for some but not for others is obvious... and I don't mean obvious to you, because it's obviously not.

Originally posted by C Hess
Try and keep up, will you. You (or your copied text) made the claim that there would have been a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere when life began, and that no scientist had run a test under those conditions. I pointed out that oxygen levels probably only spiked as late as 800 million years ago. You then feel the need to point out that this is not the atmospher ...[text shortened]... atmosphere only became rich in oxygen once life began releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere.

Keep up with what? You admitted to stop reading after the first few paragraphs because of an error. Whether it was an error or not you have been using it as an excuse to not read anything else in that article.

Then you listed two links to articles that talk about conditions on Earth after life has already presumably started... which is actually consistent with your position that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. So you can't really be faulted for trying to avoid it, because you've already gone on record saying it's irrelevant.

Watching you tap dance around this has been entertaining, but I am not distracted.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Then you listed two links to articles that talk about conditions on Earth after life has already presumably started...

Dude, what's wrong with you? What part of there was only trace amounts of free oxygen in the atmosphere before life started, can't you grasp? My second link talks about atmospheric conditions before life started, right at the beginning. You couldn't possibly have missed that.

Anyway, all this abiogenesis crap aside, evolutionary theory is falsifiable. It's just that no evidence against it has yet been found.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Actually, I got the idea for doing this from one of your own colleagues who was consistently doing this at the science forum. And I don't recall you or anyone else getting after him for doing it. He hasn't done it recently, but the fact that you seem to think it's okay for some but not for others is obvious... and I don't mean obvious to you, because it's obviously not.

Would you care to tell us who that was, and reference and example? I think it is unjustified for you to claim that I think it is OK for him to do it.
But two wrongs don't make a right. It appears from your response that you knew perfectly well that it was bad forum etiquette but for some reason you still thought it was a good idea to go ahead and do it.

Originally posted by C Hess
Dude, what's wrong with you? What part of there was only trace amounts of free oxygen in the atmosphere before life started, can't you grasp? My second link talks about atmospheric conditions before life started, right at the beginning. You couldn't possibly have missed that.

Anyway, all this abiogenesis crap aside, evolutionary theory is falsifiable. It's just that no evidence against it has yet been found.

2 Major Scientific Evidences Against Evolution

YouTube

Evidence against evolution (Part 1 of 6)

YouTube

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]When you say evolutionists, you seem to mean scientists.

Oops, my mistake.

As for the Miller-Urey experiment, you may wish to get up to date on that

That's why I listed a source other than Wiki:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html

Irreleva ...[text shortened]... urring sugars: they are found in the dextro­ form, not the levo one as in amino acids!

[/b]

The problem with truthinscience.org is that it is a creationist website and can hardly be expected to take an objective stance. I thought of reading your copy and paste, but the dishonesty of creationists regarding scientific methods completely puts me off reading that much. I might consider it if you can find an article that says more or less the same thing from a source that could be considered neutral, but no neutral source would publish that stuff.

Originally posted by RJHinds
2 Major Scientific Evidences Against Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiXTH0484M

Evidence against evolution (Part 1 of 6)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjThfkdAOoQ

ditto

Originally posted by RJHinds
2 Major Scientific Evidences Against Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiXTH0484M

Evolution in the sense of molecules to...

Yeah, I stopped listening right there. That's abiogenesis, and it's argumentation, not evidence. Pay attention. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. And an argument is not evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evidence against evolution (Part 1 of 6)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjThfkdAOoQ

Again, not evidence. This is argumentation. What we see when we look at living fossils is no change, things looked pretty much the same back then as they do now.

Oh, really? Could that be because he's not looking at all the fossils that do show transition over time? Maybe? Ignoring evidence is not evidence against the ignored evidence!

What a moron.

This is what I hate about your vids. It takes literally just seconds before one realises they're bull. Well, actually, come to think of it, that might be their redeeming quality, since I won't waste too much time on them then.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with truthinscience.org is that it is a creationist website and can hardly be expected to take an objective stance. I thought of reading your copy and paste, but the dishonesty of creationists regarding scientific methods completely puts me off reading that much. I might consider it if you can find an article that says more or less the same ...[text shortened]... from a source that could be considered neutral, but no neutral source would publish that stuff.

I might consider it if you can find an article that says more or less the same thing from a source that could be considered neutral, but no neutral source would publish that stuff.

And therein lies the rub... no neutral source would dare publish it, or they would immediately be branded creationist. Teachers have lost their jobs for merely letting the words "intelligent design" slip passed their lips. So don't expect to see any "neutral" source allow itself to become re-branded anytime soon.


You guys complain about how RJ posts links to videos, but I have a DVD at home that explains (in a very entertaining way) how creationism and ID has affected the lives of people who dared to consider it. It's called EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, and it shows Ben Stein going from place to place talking to various people, some of whom you might recognize.