Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm a sucker for lost cases...
One should have thought the 20 or so PAGES (in the mammoth "What's wrong with evolution" thread) were I explained all this before, with evidence, explanations and examples would have been enough. Don't waste your time with the disingenuous.
(edit) Also I guess, there has to be an element of rationality or we are all lost. I suppose these forums can seem to show an imbalance that is not really there, because a few people with strong views, especially beliefs, can seem to make an extreme position look like a fify/fifty call.
Originally posted by KellyJayHey, when you;ve managed to bring A SINGLE POINT against the Zhang paper on the age of the earth which I emailed you then you'll be entitled to this viewpoint [that I've only stated baseless assertions]. Until then, I'm the one with the evidence. I've cited paper after paper of original scientific research to back my arguments up - you've NEVER done anything.
Well if your view of demolishing an argument is you disagreeing with
it, I suppose I can see how you'd feel that way.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayevolution is where there is a change in the genes in the population, in response to the natural environment. Is this simple enough?
Before you get to deep into your explanation why don't you tell me
what "YOU" mean when you say the word evolution?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut lying about other people's positions is not acceptable.
...but does not mean I have bow down and accept everything that is thrown my way simply because he says it or you do, or anyone else does!
You paint evolutionary biology as if saltation was an accepted maintstream idea. It is not. I've explained this before, yet you still come out with the same rubbish.
Stop being disingenuous, come out with some sensible, original questions that we haven''t answered (with evidence) already, and you'll find me nice as pie.
Continue repeating lies, that you know to be lies, about the position of mainstream science, and I'll continue to treat you like an idiot. You're obviously quite unable to hold even the simplest of concepts in your mind.
Science, Evolution, and Creationism January 3, 2008 IOM Report
The Institute of Medicine of The National Academy of Sciences, USA, recently released a report on the issues of science, evolution and creationism. The publication is intended as a resource for people who find themselves embroiled in debates about evolution.
While it makes a few conciliatory remarks about the inability of science to challenge all religious beliefs, it does provide reasonable and explicit support for teaching evolution and for not teaching creationism or intelligent design in the classroom.
Several statements are made in the report, acknowledging the fact that people may actually have religious beliefs that they are able to reconcile in their own minds with the scientific record of the evolution of life on earth. There are even quotes form religious leaders in "support" of the concepts of evolution.
Nevertheless, the message is clear that creationist teachings of any flavor do not belong in public schools. It can only be hoped that the days are numbered for the likes of Governor Fob James and the Alabama Inserts as well as for Intelligent Design proponents of the Dover Board of Education.
The report can be downloaded free on the National Academy Press website at:
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
Originally posted by scottishinnzSaltation as far as I can tell was brought up here by you not me. I
No, but when I've explained exactly how the process is postulated to work by the people who study it, you cannot come in and claim that they are saying something else.
You are simply trying to disprove saltation. Guess what? I'm not disagreeing. Saltation is rubbish. But saltation isn't evolution, so stop claiming it is.
have not brought this up, didn't even make an argument close to this
for or against, the only ones I have been making were about small
changes over time making huge leaps in life as far as structure, stop
and starts, and so on. Can we at least put this one to bed as no one
was making this claim for or against, and let it go as a misunderstanding?
Kelly
To those who argue that the odds that we would exist by pure chance are ridiculous, a few points:
1) we are not perfect, we cannot fly, dogs smell, and hear better than us, hawks see better than us, cheetahs run faster than us, alligators have tougher skin than us...and so on! There are countless numbers of ways we could have evolved, it just so happens that circumstances over billions of years led to the form we have now. Hell, we could have had eyes in our arses and our hands attached to our genitalia had circumstances been such that a creature who's properties closest resembled such traits were more likely to survive than those that didn't.
2) Suppose I start throwing paint about my room and it makes some sort of mess on my wall, now consider the odds that:
i) I would be in the room at that time (hell consider the odds of me being born!)
ii) I would also have a bucket of paint on me
iii) The paint was a certain colour
iv) That I wanted to throw paint around my room (surely for most people this is very improbable in itself!)
v) Most importantly that no matter how close you zoom in on any section of wall it made *a particular pattern*
Are we to assume that since the odds of paint ending up on my wall the way it did are so statistically improbable that we must assume it was God that painted the wall???
3) Read through what is contained within the pages of this link...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/coretierra.html
If nothing else it shows how change and mutation happens independently of any interaction other than some simple rules.
Originally posted by KellyJayI think I see where the issue lies.
Before you get to deep into your explanation why don't you tell me
what "YOU" mean when you say the word evolution?
Kelly
You are saying that you accept 'small changes' but do not accept that these can sum to 'large changes'; and that this is because there has not been enough time?
ie you think 'micro' evolution is ok, but 'macro' evolution is not ok , it that it?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWe are talking about two different things here, the start of life from
I think I see where the issue lies.
You are saying that you accept 'small changes' but do not accept that these can sum to 'large changes'; and that this is because there has not been enough time?
ie you think 'micro' evolution is ok, but 'macro' evolution is not ok , it that it?
non-life and evolution.
For the start of life from non-life the amount of time is important,
but it does not start even counting until all the conditions are in place.
If for example the universe as is, is so harsh life can not only not
start much less be maintained it does not matter if there are trillions
of years taking place time does not over come that. So the window
of having all the conditions in place is going to much smaller than
just the time everyone things we had, no matter how old you think
the universe or earth is!
With evolution, building a complex system that has many internal
systems all working together with starts and stops, balancing material
and energy is a struggle with billions of dollars and thousands of
bright people all working towards a single goal. What evolutionist
say is that all living systems evolved without any plan purpose or
design in place, only the natural laws and natural selection in play.
There are so many things that just smack as NO WAY, it blows me
away so many bright people here buy into it hook line and sinker.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat do you think of this document?
We are talking about two different things here, the start of life from
non-life and evolution.
For the start of life from non-life the amount of time is important,
but it does not start even counting until all the conditions are in place.
If for example the universe as is, is so harsh life can not only not
start much less be maintained it does not ma ...[text shortened]... as NO WAY, it blows me
away so many bright people here buy into it hook line and sinker.
Kelly
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
Originally posted by KellyJayThing is Kellyjay, firstly, consider that this planet supporting life is a necessary condition for life to exist, thats why we are here talking about it...Further more there is likely to be a huge number of planets in other galaxies that also support life in some way.
We are talking about two different things here, the start of life from
non-life and evolution.
For the start of life from non-life the amount of time is important,
but it does not start even counting until all the conditions are in place.
If for example the universe as is, is so harsh life can not only not
start much less be maintained it does not ma ...[text shortened]... as NO WAY, it blows me
away so many bright people here buy into it hook line and sinker.
Kelly
Now consider that on each planet, the same processes may be occuring to facilitate what you call first life. As a collective of planets, all the processes that occur at a vast multitude of locations on such planets over a number of trials orders of magnitude higher than any number you could possibly conceive for each planet makes it somewhat less unlikely that the conditions for life to get started will manifest on at least one planet.
Also I ask again, take a look at this...you don't need to be a computer scientist to understand it, just spend 5 mins of your time reading through, and perhaps you'll gain some enlightenment with respect to un-guided evolution vs design.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/epgp.html
Originally posted by KellyJayOk, if I misunderstood that then I apologise.
Saltation as far as I can tell was brought up here by you not me. I
have not brought this up, didn't even make an argument close to this
for or against, the only ones I have been making were about small
changes over time making huge leaps in life as far as structure, stop
and starts, and so on. Can we at least put this one to bed as no one
was making this claim for or against, and let it go as a misunderstanding?
Kelly
But, for the sake of clarity, you accept that big changes (like a whole new organs appearing de novo) don't happen - only small ones.
You also seem to accept that small steps (like in a marathon) can lead to a big change over time.
Thus, I'm not seeing your problem here.
Originally posted by KellyJayCan each part not be made or form independently? Evolution stipulates that they do. Each one is comparatively simple.
With evolution, building a complex system that has many internal
systems all working together with starts and stops, balancing material
and energy is a struggle with billions of dollars and thousands of
bright people all working towards a single goal. What evolutionist
say is that all living systems evolved without any plan purpose or
design in place, ...[text shortened]... as NO WAY, it blows me
away so many bright people here buy into it hook line and sinker.
Kelly
If you are talking about the whole system evolving in one fell swoop (as would have to happen for a complex organism evolving from zero to complexity in a short time period, say a couple of generations) that'd be saltation, which neither of us accept.