Originally posted by lemon limeHe taught evolution for 16 years. He obviously believed in and had no doubts about evolution before he began teaching it. He co-authored a book on the chemical origins of life that reinvigorated the dying abiogenesis debate, making him one of the most popular and well known evolutionists of his day... and then he suddenly throws it all away because a student (in 1976) asked him a question he couldn't answer.
Dean Kenyon did not become a creationist in 1976. That was the year a student asked him a question he could not answer.
http://thephilosophiserchannel.blogspot.com/2010/04/proof-that-evolution-fails-dean-kenyon.html
Dean Kenyon was not an evolutionist one day and a creationist the next day just because a student asked him a question he couldn't answer.
So what does Mr. Picky Wiki have to say about this?
This is what I would have to believe when I see wikipedia telling me he became a creationist in 1976.
There are people now who are saying he was a creationist back then because they don't understand how anyone could question evolution and still be an evolutionist. He eventually saw himself as a creationist and identified himself as such, but that doesn't mean he became a creationist overnight. If anyone knows when he became a creationist, don't you think that person would be Dean Kenyon?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think they are all convincing, but for me I guess number 18 is the most convincing.
Which of the 25 reasons would you say is the most convincing?
18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=77xr-OgizBg&feature=fvwp
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow you're just looking for anything you can use. Go back and look at the context. I'm obviously talking to a fool who thinks anyone who disagrees with him must be a creationist. I had already figured out your calling Dean Kenyon a creationist didn't necessarily mean he is one.
So where you lying when you said:But now I'm wondering if Dean Kenyon really is a creationist.
Or is this, as I suspect, all an attempt at avoiding answering my challenge?
So I did my research and found out he is indeed a creationist. It's obvious wikipedia got it wrong about when he became a creationist, but you didn't bother to check that out. Or maybe you knew it was a lie, and didn't think I would bother to check it out. Or maybe you're just paranoid, and you think there are creationists behind every bush and tree waiting to pounce on you.
Avoiding your challenge? Are you telling me you've already forgotten everything I've said up to this point? I've been posting messages here since May 31st, and you can't find one example of what you are now challenging me to produce?
I'm not responsible for your short attention span
I'm not responsible for your poor understanding of concepts
I'm not responsible for your obvious laziness in doing your own research
I'm not responsible for your dependence on wikipedia for your source of information
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere was your challenge:
So where you lying when you said:But now I'm wondering if Dean Kenyon really is a creationist.
Or is this, as I suspect, all an attempt at avoiding answering my challenge?
"The challenge still stands: present one good reason why you doubt the validity of the theory of evolution, and we can discuss it."
Do you really think I don't know what you mean by "one good reason"? You have obviously put yourself in charge of what a "good" reason is. If you don't like the reason, or can't dispute it, it will not be a "good" reason... and according to you, I haven't yet given one "good" reason.
I be getting old, not senile. And just because I'm an old fart that doesn't mean the farts are old... they are as fresh today as they were when I was a kid.
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, I am just pointing out what ridiculous lengths you are going to to avoid getting to the point.
Now you're just looking for anything you can use.
I really don't care when he became a creationist, nor how accurate Wikipedia is. I have made no claims about either other than to fully agree that Wikipedia is not always accurate.
It remains the case that we both agree that Dean Kenyon is a creationist and as such, you should never have even bothered to bring up his name when asked for a list of people who are not creationist.
I've been posting messages here since May 31st, and you can't find one example of what you are now challenging me to produce?
My challenge is for you to present one of your claims in clear manner. So far you have been extremely vague about what you are claiming, if anything.
I'm not responsible for your short attention span
Attention span is not the problem.
I'm not responsible for your poor understanding of concepts
It is not concepts I have a problem with, it is your difficulty in being clear about what concepts you are talking about. I am sure that nobody other than you on this thread has any idea what your claim about information with relation to DNA actually was.
I'm not responsible for your obvious laziness in doing your own research
I have no wish whatsoever to do any research into ridiculous claims by an anonymous person on the internet. I asked if you could substantiate your claims. If you can't just say so. Asking me to go substantiate them for you is the height of stupidity.
I'm not responsible for your dependence on wikipedia for your source of information
How is this even remotely relevant? The only information I have depended on Wikipedia for we both agree on and you have not challenged. Instead, you are making a ridiculous number of posts challenging something totally irrelevant on Wikipedia (the exact date somebody became creationist). Who cares when he became creationist?
So here is the challenge again:
State clearly what your biggest issue with the Theory of Evolution actually is, and we can discuss it in detail. If you cannot do this, I will take it you have no interest in such discussions and will leave you alone.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I just don't agree with your logic, that's all. We can agree to disagree.
The Instructor
]I just don't agree with your logic, that's all.
So you don't agree that:
1, any argument that commits the fallacy of equivocation (like I have shown yours does with you confusing the two meanings of “disorder&rdquo😉 is logically flawed.
So you disagree with formal logic?
So what part of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation do you disagree with and why?
2, the entropy law only applies to closed systems.
Life is not a closed system.
Therefore the entropy law does not apply to life.
So you disagree with this logic?
OK, which part? The first premise that is just the definition of the entropy law? Or that life is a closed system despite it receiving energy from outside? Or the formal logic that naturally deductively leads to the conclusion? And why do you disagree with that part?
We can agree to disagree.
NO, we cannot.
I cannot agree to you disagreeing with sound formal logic. I cannot agree to you disagreeing that fallacy of equivocation is a logical flaw that you ought to avoid.
Originally posted by twhiteheadUse your superior language skills to interpret this:
No, I am just pointing out what ridiculous lengths you are going to to avoid getting to the point.
I really don't care when he became a creationist, nor how accurate Wikipedia is. I have made no claims about either other than to fully agree that Wikipedia is not always accurate.
It remains the case that we both agree that Dean Kenyon is a creationist an this, I will take it you have no interest in such discussions and will leave you alone.
I have no interest in such a discussion with you.
Originally posted by humyWell, in that case I will just agree to disagree with you and we can end our discussion.]I just don't agree with your logic, that's all.
So you don't agree that:
1, any argument that commits the fallacy of equivocation (like I have shown yours does with you confusing the two meanings of “disorder&rdquo😉 is logically flawed.
So you disagree with formal logic?
So what part of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation do you ...[text shortened]... ee to you disagreeing that fallacy of equivocation is a logical flaw that you ought to avoid.
The Instructor
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.
5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)
6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" ) actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.
7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.
9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.
10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.
11. Created kind are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.
12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.
15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".
16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
17. Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.
18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
19. The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).
20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
21. As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.
22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.
23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.
24. The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.
25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/25-reasons-doubt-theory-evolution
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHinds-and end the discussion with you disagreeing with our sound logic that obviously totally debunks your logic.
Well, in that case I will just agree to disagree with you and we can end our discussion.
The Instructor
You haven't learned a thing. When you see that you are wrong, instead of doing something about that, you just close your eyes and cover your ears and walk away.
Originally posted by RJHindsReally, you think that one is the most convincing? Since a mutation adds (or removes, or alters) new "code", and mutations have been observed plenty of times, this objection is quite trivial to debunk even for someone who is not an expert on evolution.
I think they are all convincing, but for me I guess number 18 is the most convincing.
18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeCxKzYiIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=77xr-OgizBg&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5bPbwkjKMM
The Instructor
Originally posted by humyThe fallacy of equivocation would be considered informal logic, not formal logic. An example of a fallacy in formal logic could be something like: "a dog is a mammal. John is a mammal. Therefore, John is a dog."]I just don't agree with your logic, that's all.
So you don't agree that:
1, any argument that commits the fallacy of equivocation (like I have shown yours does with you confusing the two meanings of “disorder&rdquo😉 is logically flawed.
So you disagree with formal logic?
So what part of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation do you ...[text shortened]... ee to you disagreeing that fallacy of equivocation is a logical flaw that you ought to avoid.
The entropy law applies to any system, but is less useful in large open systems, since you generally don't know the entropy flux through the system boundary.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDo your debunking if it is so easy. Keep in mind that any altering of existing code is not the same as producing the code in the first place.
Really, you think that one is the most convincing? Since a mutation adds (or removes, or alters) new "code", and mutations have been observed plenty of times, this objection is quite trivial to debunk even for someone who is not an expert on evolution.
The Instructor