Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#421  Postby Frank Merton » Feb 25, 2014 8:01 am

What was there to refute? You just repeated what I said using more words and introducing silliness.
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#422  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 25, 2014 8:28 am

Frank Merton wrote:What was there to refute? You just repeated what I said using more words and introducing silliness.

You were corrected a false statement. Instead of admitting your mistake you choose to repsond with silly dismissal.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#423  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 9:57 am

theropod wrote:Trilobites?

What's the matter questioner121, can't figure out a way for something like trilobites to arise, diversify on a grand scale, become extinct and still work creation into the picture?

Oh and your BS about not being able to be certain about dating deep time I suggest you read Cali's excellent post made a sticky HERE. Your ignorance isn't an excuse for blatant BS.

In reality we know a great deal about how to date things using consiliant results of empirical testing across a great many fields of examination. You're talking shit, again. It's a waste of time to engage your silliness (aside from the rebuttals to your assertions).


RS


There's not much point since there is no way of finding out the truth unless we evolve to time travel, which I'm assuming according to ToE is actually possible.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#424  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 25, 2014 10:01 am

questioner121 wrote:
theropod wrote:Trilobites?

What's the matter questioner121, can't figure out a way for something like trilobites to arise, diversify on a grand scale, become extinct and still work creation into the picture?

Oh and your BS about not being able to be certain about dating deep time I suggest you read Cali's excellent post made a sticky HERE. Your ignorance isn't an excuse for blatant BS.

In reality we know a great deal about how to date things using consiliant results of empirical testing across a great many fields of examination. You're talking shit, again. It's a waste of time to engage your silliness (aside from the rebuttals to your assertions).


RS


There's not much point since there is no way of finding out the truth unless we evolve to time travel, which I'm assuming according to ToE is actually possible.

More blind and desperate dismissal. Typical.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#425  Postby Frank Merton » Feb 25, 2014 10:15 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:What was there to refute? You just repeated what I said using more words and introducing silliness.

You were corrected a false statement. Instead of admitting your mistake you choose to repsond with silly dismissal.

It's hard for me to figure out what you are doing here except being an mule. Please show where my statement is false. A blunt statement that what I said was false with no explanation or support is hardly persuasive and of course sours the milk something fierce. What you introduced with your extra verbiage may still be true but as I recall opened the door for situations where it didn't apply.

I think maybe you don't like having your nit shown up for what it was so you are still on your high horse.
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#426  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 10:16 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
questioner121 wrote:

There's not much point since there is no way of finding out the truth unless we evolve to time travel, which I'm assuming according to ToE is actually possible.

More blind and desperate dismissal. Typical.


As well as being a case of doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#427  Postby Frank Merton » Feb 25, 2014 10:19 am

I take it questioner121's point is that we can't travel in time to see evolution and therefore we can't know it happened. Do I have that right? Is that really the position?
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#428  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 25, 2014 10:22 am

Frank Merton wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:What was there to refute? You just repeated what I said using more words and introducing silliness.

You were corrected a false statement. Instead of admitting your mistake you choose to repsond with silly dismissal.

It's hard for me to figure out what you are doing here

Pointing out that you failed to acknowledge your mistake and compounded that with silly dismissal.

Frank Merton wrote:except being an mule.

Namecalling is against the FUA.

Frank Merton wrote: Please show where my statement is false.

Scott already did so.

Frank Merton wrote:A blunt statement that what I said was false with no explanation or support is hardly persuasive and of course sours the milk something fierce.

Except of course that Scott already pointed out why what you said is false.
You then proceeded to respond with nothing but silly guff.

Frank Merton wrote: What you introduced with your extra verbiage may still be true but as I recall opened the door for situations where it didn't apply.

I think you're confusing my post with scotts.
Your claim was false, scott explained why.
You can either admit, ignore or handwave it away. If you handwave it away, you will get called out for it on this site.

Frank Merton wrote:I think maybe you don't like having your nit shown up for what it was so you are still on your high horse.

Again confusing my post with scotts and again offering nothing but vapid dismissal. You have not adressed scotts point.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#429  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 10:23 am

It is one of the many sad desperate flailing attempts that are resorted to as means of trying to ignore the vast wealth of evidence which supports evolution.

It's bollocks though and indeed can equally be applied to anything else in history.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#430  Postby Frank Merton » Feb 25, 2014 10:30 am

scott1328 wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:Causation is not a law of logic but an empirical observation.

Incorrect. Causation is only inferred from empirical observation.

Ah as we joyfully nit and twit down the ways of nit-twittery.


I know, do try to be more careful in your phrasing.


Ok, as I formulated it causation is an empirical observation. How else might we conclude causation? As my pedant instructs me, it is inferred from empirical observation. I don't see much difference except one might infer incorrectly and think there is causation when there is not. Therefore my formulation is both briefer and more precise.
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#431  Postby Paul » Feb 25, 2014 10:32 am

questioner121 wrote:It's hard to believe but there really really really is a God and some people know it.

There really really really REALLY isn't but some people just think they know it, but they're wrong/deluded.

In the past some people saw for themselves undeniable evidence.

They thought they did but they were wrong/deluded

Many people trust the accounts of those people but not all of them know that there is a God. It takes effort and will to find the truth, for me anyway.


credulous adj apt to be too ready to believe something, without sufficient evidence.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 63
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#432  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 25, 2014 10:38 am

Frank Merton wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Incorrect. Causation is only inferred from empirical observation.

Ah as we joyfully nit and twit down the ways of nit-twittery.


I know, do try to be more careful in your phrasing.


Ok, as I formulated it causation is an empirical observation.

The problem is that we don't observe it. We infer it.

Frank Merton wrote:How else might we conclude causation?

Through inference, which might be wrong.

Frank Merton wrote:As my pedant instructs me, it is inferred from empirical observation.

And inference =/= observation.

Frank Merton wrote:I don't see much difference except one might infer incorrectly and think there is causation when there is not. Therefore my formulation is both briefer and more precise.

The very fact that inference is flawed means your formulation is inaccurate.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#433  Postby Frank Merton » Feb 25, 2014 10:45 am

I don't want to continue this forever but strongly disagree; you have created your own definition for empirical observation to exclude the fact that it incorporates an assumption of accurate inference. By inserting the word then the implication becomes that empirical knowledge can be mistaken because of incorrect inference.
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#434  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 10:52 am

Frank Merton wrote:I take it questioner121's point is that we can't travel in time to see evolution and therefore we can't know it happened. Do I have that right? Is that really the position?


We can't travel back in time to see what caused the trilobites to die off or the evolution of primates to humans or confirm the age of the earth.

What we have today is evidence which can be interpreted in different ways and unproven for the explanations we derive for them. For example, the evidence for common ancestry is not based on observations of populations interbreeding with one another it's based from traits. However the non believers have been deluded into thinking otherwise.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#435  Postby Greyman » Feb 25, 2014 10:56 am

Frank Merton wrote:I take it questioner121's point is that we can't travel in time to see evolution and therefore we can't know it happened. Do I have that right? Is that really the position?
Yes. It's the "were you there?" defense, which has so often been successfully employed in murder trials to refute forensic evidence.

... :doh:

Wait. That never works.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#436  Postby The_Metatron » Feb 25, 2014 10:59 am

questioner121 wrote:
theropod wrote:Trilobites?

What's the matter questioner121, can't figure out a way for something like trilobites to arise, diversify on a grand scale, become extinct and still work creation into the picture?

Oh and your BS about not being able to be certain about dating deep time I suggest you read Cali's excellent post made a sticky HERE. Your ignorance isn't an excuse for blatant BS.

In reality we know a great deal about how to date things using consiliant results of empirical testing across a great many fields of examination. You're talking shit, again. It's a waste of time to engage your silliness (aside from the rebuttals to your assertions).

RS
There's not much point since there is no way of finding out the truth unless we evolve to time travel, which I'm assuming according to ToE is actually possible.

Yeah, that's a hard problem to shoehorn into your primitive worldview. When it can't be done, best dismiss it. It's the only safe way to maintain your house of cards.

We also note how you cherry pick the scientific theories with which you agree. Apparently science only works sometimes. How does that work? Tell us. The scientific method works well enough to learn everything it takes to enable you to post utter shit and have it read around the world, but somehow it fails when it comes to cosmology?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21274
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#437  Postby Frank Merton » Feb 25, 2014 11:05 am

questioner121 wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:I take it questioner121's point is that we can't travel in time to see evolution and therefore we can't know it happened. Do I have that right? Is that really the position?


We can't travel back in time to see what caused the trilobites to die off or the evolution of primates to humans or confirm the age of the earth.

What we have today is evidence which can be interpreted in different ways and unproven for the explanations we derive for them. For example, the evidence for common ancestry is not based on observations of populations interbreeding with one another it's based from traits. However the non believers have been deluded into thinking otherwise.

Well I'm sure you've been told this before, but let me have a stab at it. We can determine all those things from fossils. Fossils are enough proof to persuade anyone intelligent enough and open enough to study the issues involved. Requiring an excessive level of proof is just a cop-out and is intellectually dishonest.
Frank Merton
 
Name: Frank Merton
Posts: 364

Country: Vietnam
Vietnam (vn)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#438  Postby ADParker » Feb 25, 2014 11:07 am

questioner121 wrote:What we have today is evidence which can be interpreted in different ways and unproven for the explanations we derive for them. For example, the evidence for common ancestry is not based on observations of populations interbreeding with one another it's based from traits. However the non believers have been deluded into thinking otherwise.

You are just plain wrong.

The evidence for common ancestry is based on observations of species breeding and speciating etc.,
of "traits",
of ring species demonstrating how one gene-pool can 'naturally' split into two,
of genetic comparisons (the same ones that are used to identify suspects/victims and familial relationships like parentage - because it can be used to that level of precision),
of geological and temporal dispersal of living and fossilized organism,
Endogenous retroviruses (where they are placed etc.),
Pseudogenes,
etc. etc...

And all of it fits together so beautifully into the "universal common ancestor " model that it would be just be perverse for someone to understand that evidence and still believe it otherwise
If it isn't true then it looks like something has tried extremely hard to make it look true. :lol:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#439  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 25, 2014 11:18 am

Frank Merton wrote:I don't want to continue this forever but strongly disagree;

That's your problem.

Frank Merton wrote:you have created your own definition for empirical observation to exclude the fact that it incorporates an assumption of accurate inference.

False, I merely, like Scott, pointed out the difference between observation and inference.
That you are unable to acknowledge that is your problem, not mine.

Frank Merton wrote: By inserting the word then the implication becomes that empirical knowledge can be mistaken because of incorrect inference.

No inference is flawed and observation =/= inference.
You don't observe cause and effect, you infer it.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#440  Postby hackenslash » Feb 25, 2014 11:26 am

The_Metatron wrote:We also note how you cherry pick the scientific theories with which you agree. Apparently science only works sometimes. How does that work? Tell us. The scientific method works well enough to learn everything it takes to enable you to post utter shit and have it read around the world, but somehow it fails when it comes to cosmology?


Yep, not least when the science underpinning radiometric dating is precisely the same science underpinning the technology allowing the global dissemination of vacuous tripe...
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest