14 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI do not have issue one with people who believe you can have variations ofYou can observe only what you see in the here and now,
and I can remember what I observ[b]ed in the past before the here and now.you assign the meaning to it that pleases you
NO, I do NOT. What “pleases” me has nothing to do with my interpretation of what I observe but rather logic or reason does.Ob ...[text shortened]... dization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa.[/b]
...”
a kind...your example being the plant, but you start with plants you end
with plants....big deal. I believe you can get various other life forms and
do the same, you can get animals to do the same thing, what you do not
see is a huge departure like a worm turning into a dog which would be
quite a leap. What you described is more natural selection in action, which
does not show how you could get a nervous system to develop over time
in life forms that didn't have one before.
Kelly
14 Jun 13
"NO, I do NOT. What “pleases” me has nothing to do with my interpretation of what I observe but rather logic or reason does. "
You reason that evolution is true so you see things in that light only, your
logic will connect the dots. The thing you have going for you is that you can
connect the dots and no one can prove you wrong, because it all is in the
distant past no one can prove it wrong.
Kelly
14 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCheck out Karl Popper, he says a theory has to be 'falsifiable' to be a real workable theory, otherwise it is metaphysics or in the realm of supernatural.
"NO, I do NOT. What “pleases” me has nothing to do with my interpretation of what I observe but rather logic or reason does. "
You reason that evolution is true so you see things in that light only, your
logic will connect the dots. The thing you have going for you is that you can
connect the dots and no one can prove you wrong, because it all is in the
distant past no one can prove it wrong.
Kelly
So evolution is theoretically falsifiable, for instance, if we find a 200 million year old fossil lion then evolution is in deep doo doo.
But so far the only 'evidence' against it is based on so-called creation science which is not science at all BECAUSE IT IS NOT FALSIFIABLE.
That automatically rules out supernatural research as a science.
So evolution is science and if real scientists can refute it then we will have to dig around for a better explanation of the way life on Earth changes over time.
Like I said, find me a 200 million year old lion fossil and we can talk.
Creationists come in with an automatic bias and agenda. They are trying to tilt the world to force it to match the bible, so far with ZERO success, look at the lawsuits filed by them in Kentucky and other bible belt states tying to force creationism to be taught along side evolution in a science class.
There is no problem teaching creationism in a THEOLOGY class. There is BIG problem teaching so-called creation science in a biology science class.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's obvious to me you have your own religious reasons for wanting evolution to prevail. My first clue that something wasn't right with it were the attacks against religion. If religion has nothing to do with evolution then it makes no sense to spend so much intellectual capital attacking religion. Religion was the farthest thing from my mind when I believed in and did not question evolution.
Initially I actually believed you when you said that. However it has become obvious over the course of the thread that you have religious reasons for disputing evolution and your skepticism is not based on any actual issues with the theory itself.
All you are doing is driving people away who don't just talk about keeping an open mind, and do not automatically dismiss a point of view that differs from theirs. Pretending I don't understand evolution is defensive posturing, so please forgive me if I choose to ignore that part of your "reasoning".
14 Jun 13
8 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
"NO, I do NOT. What “pleases” me has nothing to do with my interpretation of what I observe but rather logic or reason does. "
You reason that evolution is true so you see things in that light only, your
logic will connect the dots. The thing you have going for you is that you can
connect the dots and no one can prove you wrong, because it all is in the
distant past no one can prove it wrong.
Kelly
You reason that evolution is true
-purely based on the known evidence and the facts that can be deduced from that evidence, yes.
The thing you have going for you is that you can
connect the dots and no one can prove you wrong,
that would only be true if evolution is true else someone CAN prove me wrong.
because it all is in the
distant past no one can prove it wrong.
OK, read both these next paragraphs very carefully and thoroughly else you will not understand it:
All the available evidence relevant to evolution, whether that evidence is for or against evolution, is NOT in the distant past but exists in the present therefore, if evolution is false then it should be possible to prove it false with the available evidence we have now (the fact that nobody has proven it false is an indication that evolution is true. But athough an important noteworthy point, is NOT the point I am making here). The fact that evolution implies that certain things happened in the distant past is totally irrelevant to whether the theory can be proven false if it is false because the predictions ANY theory makes about what happened in the past, regardless of what the theory is, does not equate with evidence that is available in the present that can either prove or disprove that theory.
To elaborate on that last point, take the theory of gravity; it predicts that if an apple drops from an apple tree, it will fall downwards to the ground and not, say, continually upwards. The evidence for this prediction being true or false exists now because you can observe an apple as it drops from an apple tree. This same theory makes a prediction that any apple falling from a tree that existed in the distant past, say, one million years ago, would also have dropped to the ground. But you cannot say to me that, because I cannot 'prove' this by direct observation of that distant past event because I was not there to see this, that the theory of gravity is not proven and cannot be proven false if the theory was false. The theory of gravity can be disproved if it is false if we always observe anything that falls to always fall, say, upwards; and that is true REGARDLESS of what we can prove about the distant past because that is irrelevant.
And, just as for the theory of evolution, the evidence for it exists NOW and not in the distant past. Thus not being able to verify a prediction the theory of gravity makes about the distant past directly with my own eyes does NOT mean the theory of gravity cannot be proven false if the theory was false. Using the same sound logic, obviously the same applies to the theory of evolution i.e. contrary to what you appear to be saying, not being able to verify a prediction the theory of evolution makes about the distant past by directly observing the event with my own eyes does NOT mean the theory of evolution cannot be proven false if the theory was false.
I don't see how I can explain the logical error you keep making more clearly than in the above but, if you don't understand any of the above, please explain which part and why you fail to understand so that I can clarify it for you.
Note that evolution theory makes predictions of some of the things that should have happened within recorded human history as opposed to JUST within the very distant past. We have observed those things within recorded history. We have even observed a few macroevolution event within recorded history which I just showed you in the last post but which I assume you predictably ignore.
Reminder:
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html
“...
In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.
A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis.
The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.
Tragopogon micelius was found by Owenby in 1950 to have originated in through various hybridizations.
An attempt by Russian scientist Karphchenko to cross a radish with a cabbage resulted initially in the creation of hybrid plant that was sterile. However, the seeds of those plants became fertile with the parent species, creating the new plant Raphanobrassica.
Hemp nettle was a new species of plant created by the hybridization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa.
...”
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI like how creationists always get all vague when claiming limitations to evolution, and the claims about what is possible or not possible or what is in a given kind vary wildly with no apparent reason.
I do not have issue one with people who believe you can have variations of
a kind...your example being the plant, but you start with plants you end
with plants....big deal.
Plants are about half of all multicellular life forms on the planet with more variation than animals. To simply say '... big deal' because you think all plants are basically the same, just shows your general ignorance of biology.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeI have reasons for attacking religions and the ignorance they breed, yes. Its not about evolution 'prevailing'.
It's obvious to me you have your own religious reasons for wanting evolution to prevail. My first clue that something wasn't right with it were the attacks against religion.
If religion has nothing to do with evolution then it makes no sense to spend so much intellectual capital attacking religion.
On this site, almost any discussion of evolution, is about evolution vs creationism. This thread was started by a creationist who has religious reasons for attacking evolution.
Notice how he stars a thread saying he doesn't really understand how something would work in evolution, but then doesn't really follow up on the bountiful information that is supplied to him, but instead ends up saying 'well your belief is as good as mine'.
Pretending I don't understand evolution is defensive posturing, so please forgive me if I choose to ignore that part of your "reasoning".
In this thread you have said you see flaws in the theory of evolution, but you cant seem to isolate any serious flaws, instead you throw out vague claims which you can't seem to explain, and the moment it looks bad for you, you jump to something new. This is not the behaviour of someone who understands evolution but has good reasons for criticizing it.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't know at first if you were pretending or didn't understand it yourself, until you did the same thing when we were talking about time at another thread. It was obvious to me you understood the concept of time being a variable and not a constant, but you assumed I was saying time varies, like a clock that speeds up and slows down for no apparent reason. I finally convinced you that time being a variable means that time is relative. I assumed you understood the concept involved and apparently you assumed I didn't, why is that?
I have reasons for attacking religions and the ignorance they breed, yes. Its not about evolution 'prevailing'.
[b]If religion has nothing to do with evolution then it makes no sense to spend so much intellectual capital attacking religion.
On this site, almost any discussion of evolution, is about evolution vs creationism. This thread was starte ...[text shortened]... ehaviour of someone who understands evolution but has good reasons for criticizing it.[/b]
I suspect it's because of your disagreement with me here at this thread. So I can no longer assume you don't know what you are talking about. And I can assume you will continue to build straw men to knock down, and will continue to ignore what I am actually saying.
And blaming creationists for this debate is like little Johnny pointing to little Suzie and saying "But she did it to me first!" Chronological age isn't necessarily indicative of emotional age or intellectual ability. I could have just said "Grow up" or "Man up", but apparently you need to have everything explained to you.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThat is what 'variable' means. Your poor use of language is what caused the confusion in that thread. Time is not variable, it is relative.
I didn't know at first if you were pretending or didn't understand it yourself, until you did the same thing when we were talking about time at another thread. It was obvious to me you understood the concept of time being a variable and not a constant, but you assumed I was saying time varies, like a clock that speeds up and slows down for no apparent reason.
I finally convinced you that time being a variable means that time is relative.
No, you convinced me that relative is what you really meant when you said 'variable'
I assumed you understood the concept involved and apparently you assumed I didn't, why is that?
Because you used the terminology wrongly.
I suspect it's because of your disagreement with me here at this thread.
Not at all. I was under the impression that that thread was over and done before this one started, but I could be wrong.
And blaming creationists for this debate is like little Johnny pointing to little Suzie and saying "But she did it to me first!"
I am not 'blaming creationists' I am pointing out that a creationist started the thread, and the only reason for evolution debates is because creationists feel threatened by it. You will not find a single person debating against evolution that is not a creationist. Despite your denials, it is pretty obvious that you are a creationist and that is your sole reason for disputing evolution.
If you want to prove me wrong, then give me one genuine reason why you have a problem with evolution. And I mean a genuine reason, not the wishy washy vague inferences you have been trying so far.
14 Jun 13
15 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not have issue one with people who believe you can have variations of
a kind...your example being the plant, but you start with plants you end
with plants....big deal. I believe you can get various other life forms and
do the same, you can get animals to do the same thing, what you do not
see is a huge departure like a worm turning into a dog which ...[text shortened]... ld get a nervous system to develop over time
in life forms that didn't have one before.
Kelly
what you do not
see is a huge departure like a worm turning into a dog which would be
quite a leap.
Straw man: obviously nobody is claiming here that “a worm” could turn into “a dog” in “a leap” because obviously that is nothing like what evolution says.
A SPECIES of worm (not just “a worm&rdquo😉 may evolve over many hundreds of millions of years into a species SIMILAR to a SPECIES of dog (“SIMILAR” because nobody claims that the same identical species could evolve twice and dogs already exist) and obviously NOT in “a leap” but rather in a large series of numerous very small incremental steps and therefore perfectly credible steps occurring sequentially over millions of years and not once involve an incredible event in the form of “a leap” all in one go.
I cannot climb a mountain in a leap; so I cannot climb a mountain? -same straw man logic. I CAN climb a mountain in a very long series of small credible steps done sequentially over many hours but cannot do so in a leap in a second and do not CLAIM I can do so in a leap -I don't think I can make that analogy any clearer.
And why do you suggest that evolution cannot evolve a nervous system from scratch?
First you have animals that have no nervous system (amoebas plus certain multicellular microbes that exists today have no nervous system and yet function just fine) and then it can start with evolving just a few very simple sensory cells that are not connected to each other but simply directly to other types of non-nerve cells (like those in certain primitive microbes that exist today) then over many incremental steps become grouped so to undergo ever more complex interactions with each other and then evolve some that specialize as motor neurons and then some as brain neurons etc. etc. and you have a nervous system. No problem.
P.S. please take far greater notice of my previous post above I made today to you than this one because that one makes a much more important point of explaining why, contrary to your claim, if evolution is false, it can be proved false.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're still doing it!? This is amazing... how do you do that?
That is what 'variable' means. Your poor use of language is what caused the confusion in that thread. Time is not variable, it is relative.
[b]I finally convinced you that time being a variable means that time is relative.
No, you convinced me that relative is what you really meant when you said 'variable'
I assumed you understood the concep ...[text shortened]... an a genuine reason, not the wishy washy vague inferences you have been trying so far.
"That is what 'variable' means. Your poor use of language is what caused the confusion in that thread. Time is not variable, it is relative."
I said time is "A" variable. I did not say time is variable. How many times have you missed that? Are you unble to see the "a" in time is a variable? If time was a constant and not a variable then time would not be relative. And yet you assume I'm saying something completely different because of my "poor use of language". I'm not responsible for words or letters you are unable (or unwilling) to see.
14 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre sure this is a debate? It looks more like pre-game trash talking and muscle flexing. I doubt there has ever been a serious debate here.
That is what 'variable' means. Your poor use of language is what caused the confusion in that thread. Time is not variable, it is relative.
[b]I finally convinced you that time being a variable means that time is relative.
No, you convinced me that relative is what you really meant when you said 'variable'
I assumed you understood the concep ...[text shortened]... an a genuine reason, not the wishy washy vague inferences you have been trying so far.
I do not enjoy debating, because debates have more to do with "winning" debates than anything else. If creationists won every debate I doubt you would change your mind about evolultion. And whether I'm a creationist or not is none of your business. There scientists who are no longer atheists but now call themselves pantheists because of their investigation into evolution, but they can't be called creationists. If you are trying to turn this into a religious debate, then I can tell you right now that it will do nothing to help you validate or shore up your arguments in favor of evolution.
15 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy first mention of time being a variable was posted to sonhouse on June 5th at the Galaxy thread.
That is what 'variable' means. Your poor use of language is what caused the confusion in that thread. Time is not variable, it is relative.
[b]I finally convinced you that time being a variable means that time is relative.
No, you convinced me that relative is what you really meant when you said 'variable'
I assumed you understood the concep ...[text shortened]... an a genuine reason, not the wishy washy vague inferences you have been trying so far.
I started off by saying, "Okay, I get what is meant by 'fake' light now. So do you think the fact that time is a variable (and not a constant) might be something this god could have also done to fake some of us out?"
Nowhere at the Galaxy thread did I say time was variable, or that time varies... one goofball there actually claimed I said "variety". That's hilarious!
So if variety is the spice of life, and thyme is a spice, then...?
15 Jun 13
I assumed you understood the concept involved and apparently you assumed I didn't, why is that?Both threads are currently active, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Because you used the terminology wrongly.
I suspect it's because of your disagreement with me here at this thread.
Not at all. I was under the impression that that thread was over and done before this one started, but I could be wrong.
I joined this site May 30th. My first post anywhere was at this thread on May 31st. You replied to it on June 1st. And my first post to the Galaxy thread was on June 1st. I think you were challenging what I was saying about time and relativity because of our disagreement over evolution. If I had started out agreeing with your beliefs I doubt you would have 'misinterpreted' my comments at the Galaxy board.
15 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSorry, I did misread it. That is partly because the usage that way is even worse. To say something is a variable simple means it is not a constant. A constant is a single number. Time, quite clearly is a variable, usually denoted 't' in equations. Why did you not simply stick with 'sime is relative'. There is a reason that Einstein didn't call his theory 'variability'.
I said time is "A" variable. I did not say time is variable. How many times have you missed that? Are you unble to see the "a" in time is a variable? If time was a constant and not a variable then time would not be relative.