RE: The failure of Natural Selection (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drmark -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 10:45:21 AM)

quote:

Scientism is all the stuff that contradicts the Bible.
Encouraging, Method. Then you realize that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientism.



Method -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 11:01:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Scientism is all the stuff that contradicts the Bible.
Encouraging, Method. Then you realize that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientism.


According to creationists, yes. However, there is no methodological difference between the theory of evolution and every other theory that you gladly accept. You, like other creationists, reject any evidence or theories that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. It is biblically enforced ignorance.



drmark -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 11:46:31 AM)

quote:

However, there is no methodological difference between the theory of evolution and every other theory that you gladly accept.
I give up! Time after time I ask for one tiny piece of observational data to show any evidence of evolutionary fact and all you can do is spout off "scientific" references already assuming evolution as fact in their preconceived interpretations of the data. Surely a microbiologist of your stature understands the difference between methodology proving the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and philosophical conjecture hypothesizing the common descent of all life! If not, our discussion has ended.



Method -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 12:06:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
I give up! Time after time I ask for one tiny piece of observational data to show any evidence of evolutionary fact and all you can do is spout off "scientific" references already assuming evolution as fact in their preconceived interpretations of the data.


I keep giving you evidenc which you then ignore. I just started a thread on Exons and Introns which presents yet another piece of evidence. I also linked to a great essay written by Francis Collins, an evangelical christian and head of the NIH Human Genome Project.

quote:

Surely a microbiologist of your stature understands the difference between methodology proving the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and philosophical conjecture hypothesizing the common descent of all life! If not, our discussion has ended.


There is no difference. The theory of evolution is used to determine the events which lead to antibiotic resistance and virulence.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 6:25:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
I give up! Time after time I ask for one tiny piece of observational data to show any evidence of evolutionary fact and all you can do is spout off "scientific" references already assuming evolution as fact in their preconceived interpretations of the data. Surely a microbiologist of your stature understands the difference between methodology proving the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and philosophical conjecture hypothesizing the common descent of all life! If not, our discussion has ended.


I already told you drmark, if there is any scientific evidence for UCD, they would have presented it by now. Thus far, the only thing they have presented is very poorly interpreted philosophical arguments.



Method -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 6:33:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I already told you drmark, if there is any scientific evidence for UCD, they would have presented it by now.


I already have presented the evidence, multiple times. Are you an amnesiac?

I also started another thread which may interest you.
http://forums.christianity.com/Introns_and_Exons/m_3468701/mpage_1/tm.htm#3469515



Bettawrekonize -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 6:57:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
I already have presented the evidence, multiple times. Are you an amnesiac?


We've already refuted your alleged evidence several times on these forums. You just keep ignoring the refutations. For example, there is no reason to believe that commonalities are evidence for UCD. Just because cars share commonalities does not mean they share a common ancestor. I suppose the only reason why you present non - evidence for UCD and then claim it's evidence for UCD is because you don't have any real evidence for UCD. Otherwise, you would have presented it by now. I predict that you are going to keep insisting that commonalities are evidence for UCD since you don't have any real evidence. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to resort to insisting such nonsense.

Then again, I guess statements like,"Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?: by gluadys helps demonstrate the failure of your (plural) arguments and how immune you (plural) are to good reasoning.



swan42 -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 7:38:37 PM)

quote:

Just because cars share commonalities does not mean they share a common ancestor.

They do actually, from a certain point of view.



gluadys -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 7:47:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
I already have presented the evidence, multiple times. Are you an amnesiac?


We've already refuted your alleged evidence several times on these forums. You just keep ignoring the refutations. For example, there is no reason to believe that commonalities are evidence for UCD. Just because cars share commonalities does not mean they share a common ancestor.


Cars can't be classified in a unique nested hierarchy either, much less starting from two different data points.

There is more to biological relationships than commonalities. Commonalities are only evidence if they fit a particular pattern. The common dynamic shape of dolphins and tuna for example does NOT imply close kinship, though that of dolphins and whales does. Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that dolphins have more commonalities with hippos than with tuna.

So it is not just commonalities; it is how many commonalities, how deep the commonalities run, what differences accompany the commonalities. When does a commonality indicate relationship and when does it not?

btw DrMark hasn't answered the question yet, so I can also pose it to you. Do you understand what the D in UCD stands for?



Method -> RE: The failure of Natural Selection (5/28/2008 7:50:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
We've already refuted your alleged evidence several times on these forums. You just keep ignoring the refutations.


Do you and your siblings share the same codon usage? Yes. Is this because you and your siblings were magically poofed into being from a pile of dust by a supernatural deity? Nope. It is due to common ancestry. Therefore, shared codon usage is evidence of common ancestry, and all life shares codon usage.

quote:

For example, there is no reason to believe that commonalities are evidence for UCD.


Then how in the world do paternity tests work?

quote:

Just because cars share commonalities does not mean they share a common ancestor.


Cars do not reproduce.

quote:

I suppose the only reason why you present non - evidence for UCD and then claim it's evidence for UCD is because you don't have any real evidence for UCD.


The theory of evolution predicts a specific pattern of commonality, and that pattern is observed. How is that not evidence?

quote:

I predict that you are going to keep insisting that commonalities are evidence for UCD since you don't have any real evidence.


The pattern of commonality is the evidence. However, I will allow you to redeem yourself. If chimps and humans do share common ancestry what genetic evidence should be observed?

quote:

Then again, I guess statements like,"Maybe it was the flowers adapting to the mouthpieces of insects rather than vice versa?: by gluadys helps demonstrate the failure of your (plural) arguments and how immune you (plural) are to good reasoning.


I wasn't aware that gluadys spoke for me. The false assumption is that these mouthpieces of insects were not adapted to non-flower plants.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI