Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

    For Jorge,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVo7l...ukTekgSRZrjadw
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

  • #2
    Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

    That will likely be difficult for anti-evolutionists to parse.

    Anyone more articulate than me want to explain that?

    K54

    Comment


    • #3
      I sinceriously doubt anyone can be that articulate, even in principle. After all, one is trying to explain to someone who isn't listening!

      I doubt even creationists (at least not Jorge) doubt that species change over time. Some even concede that new species do arise from time to time. But some I'm familiar with deny any possibility of new species, and only grant minor cosmetic change from one generation to another. For this last group, trying to explain the distinction between facts and explanations of the facts is a lost cause. It probably makes little sense to search for a set of mechanisms causing something that does not happen. Others, I guess, demand a mechanism to explain the mind-boggling explosion of new species in the post-Phlud radiation -- a speciation rate which would require speciation to happen fast enough to watch it in real time, as an afternoon's entertainment.

      So it's not just that the word "evolution" has been overloaded, to apply to both a set of observations and a set of mechanisms causing those observations. Most of the problem is that creationists don't agree on what the word is supposed to mean. My reading is, a majority of True Creationists use the word as a grab-bag term holding everything they reject, from abiogenesis to the big bang. Since all of reality was recently poofed into existence in one essentially atomic act of creation, there simply is no difference between origin of the universe, origin of life, and origin of species. All are aspects of the same event.

      To give Jorge credit here, he is always careful to distinguish between evolution (the observation of change) and evolutionism, the belief that such changes have natural causes. I suggest that this is a useful distinction, since it's between the facts and the mechanisms underlying the facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video. But that's okay because I did not need any more than that to determine that both of those guys -- especially the scary-looking "all-knowing guru" who resembled a common depiction of Satan (goatee, eyes rolled over towards the top of his skull, etc.) -- did not address the crux of the matter and so ended up wasting most of our time.

        I have stated this here on TWeb more times than I care to remember and so I'll be ultra-brief:

        There are TWO (2) 'evolutions'. The first, 'evolution', is bona fide science and is a fact. Specifically, it is undoubtedly true (verifiable, testable, observable) that allele frequencies in populations change over time and that these genetic changes are manifested in physical variations within a species. That 'evolution' is FACT.

        Then there's the 'Evolution' (note the upper-case 'E') that says that "every living organism today has a single common ancestor that through unguided random mutations and natural selection diversified into tens of millions of species of flora and fauna over a history totaling billions of years".

        That 'Evolution' is NOT science - it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not verifiable and, last but not least, it does not logically result when we apply everything that verifiable science knows today. That 'Evolution' is nothing more than a theoretical construct obtained from extrapolating observations beyond all reason and mixing those unrestricted extrapolations with beliefs.

        That 'Evolution' is actually part of a metaphysics/ideology/worldview known as Materialism. The problem - a highly sophisticated intellectual fraud - is that 'evolution' and 'Evolution' are purposefully and deceptively intermixed and packaged as a single enterprise which is then labeled as "science". Then, this "science" is fed to the unsuspecting masses through the "education" and media systems. The vast majority of people don't have the education, the interest, the time or the intellect to see through this fraud and so they swallow the 'package' hook, line and sinker not realizing the deadly poison that they are ingesting.

        It is up to you to either seek the truth in this matter or to willfully remain in your ignorance. In this post I've given you a pretty good start towards the first option.

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video. But that's okay because I did not need any more than that to determine that both of those guys -- especially the scary-looking "all-knowing guru" who resembled a common depiction of Satan (goatee, eyes rolled over towards the top of his skull, etc.) -- did not address the crux of the matter and so ended up wasting most of our time.
          Ok, so you don't know that about the 9-minute mark AronRa actually did mention the distinction you claim was not addressed, citing Dembski and Johnson, and returned to that point at around the 21-minute mark. And you don't know that the reason he didn't cover it in more depth was that OFNF rejected even the level of evolution that you concede is verifiable, testable and observable.

          It is up to you to either seek the truth in this matter or to willfully remain in your ignorance. In this post I've given you a pretty good start towards the first option.
          And by incorrectly guessing at the contents of a video clip you couldn't be bothered to watch to the end, you've firmly cemented yourself in the second option.

          Roy

          P.S. Don't think that your lie that observable evolution only leads to "variations within a species" wasn't spotted.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

          Comment


          • #6
            A long time ago, I also accepted the idea of (for example) a pre-cursor of the cat family adapting and diversifying to become all the varieties of cat now known.
            But I did not consider that acceptable evidence existed for the idea of non-cat becoming cat.
            Then some years ago I came across the paleontological trace of non-whale becoming the pre-cursor of whales. The evidence could not be refuted - the geological record is as close to conclusive as anyone could reasonably hope for. (The linked article isn't as thorough as the one I found so long ago, but I don't have a copy of that one available.)
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

              That will likely be difficult for anti-evolutionists to parse.

              Anyone more articulate than me want to explain that?

              K54
              Evolution is a fact in that it does take place. The theory of evolution attempts to explain this fact. Stephen Jay Gould had an article called Evolution as Fact and Theory

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video.
                Jorge, you missed the best bit – about the recurrent laryngeal nerve – at 13:40 - guaranteed to blow the mind of even the staunchest creationist. Your cup is half full. Good luck.
                Last edited by firstfloor; 08-06-2014, 08:04 AM.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Then there's the 'Evolution' (note the upper-case 'E') that says that "every living organism today has a single common ancestor that through unguided random mutations and natural selection diversified into tens of millions of species of flora and fauna over a history totaling billions of years".

                  That 'Evolution' is NOT science - it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not verifiable and, last but not least, it does not logically result when we apply everything that verifiable science knows today.
                  A universal common ancestor is most certainly testable. Every genome we sequence, every sample from anywhere we culture, gives us the opportunity to determine if there is a species that falls outside the known range of variation. (i.e., uses some fundamentally different chemistry or mechanism for basic metabolism, replicating DNA, etc.). It's important not to confuse "not yet falsified" with "cannot be falsified."
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    To be frank, I could only stomach the first 8 minutes or so of the video. But that's okay because I did not need any more than that to determine that both of those guys -- especially the scary-looking "all-knowing guru" who resembled a common depiction of Satan (goatee, eyes rolled over towards the top of his skull, etc.) -- did not address the crux of the matter and so ended up wasting most of our time.

                    I have stated this here on TWeb more times than I care to remember and so I'll be ultra-brief:

                    There are TWO (2) 'evolutions'. The first, 'evolution', is bona fide science and is a fact. Specifically, it is undoubtedly true (verifiable, testable, observable) that allele frequencies in populations change over time and that these genetic changes are manifested in physical variations within a species. That 'evolution' is FACT.

                    Then there's the 'Evolution' (note the upper-case 'E') that says that "every living organism today has a single common ancestor that through unguided random mutations and natural selection diversified into tens of millions of species of flora and fauna over a history totaling billions of years".

                    That 'Evolution' is NOT science - it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not verifiable and, last but not least, it does not logically result when we apply everything that verifiable science knows today. That 'Evolution' is nothing more than a theoretical construct obtained from extrapolating observations beyond all reason and mixing those unrestricted extrapolations with beliefs.

                    That 'Evolution' is actually part of a metaphysics/ideology/worldview known as Materialism. The problem - a highly sophisticated intellectual fraud - is that 'evolution' and 'Evolution' are purposefully and deceptively intermixed and packaged as a single enterprise which is then labeled as "science". Then, this "science" is fed to the unsuspecting masses through the "education" and media systems. The vast majority of people don't have the education, the interest, the time or the intellect to see through this fraud and so they swallow the 'package' hook, line and sinker not realizing the deadly poison that they are ingesting.

                    It is up to you to either seek the truth in this matter or to willfully remain in your ignorance. In this post I've given you a pretty good start towards the first option.

                    Jorge
                    Do you understand with difference between fact and theory?

                    Could you give us your definition of "theory" so that we know you understand it and don't talk past each other?

                    K54

                    P.S. Stock response of a Presuppositional Apologist duly noted.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      A long time ago, I also accepted the idea of (for example) a pre-cursor of the cat family adapting and diversifying to become all the varieties of cat now known.
                      But I did not consider that acceptable evidence existed for the idea of non-cat becoming cat.
                      Then some years ago I came across the paleontological trace of non-whale becoming the pre-cursor of whales. The evidence could not be refuted - the geological record is as close to conclusive as anyone could reasonably hope for. (The linked article isn't as thorough as the one I found so long ago, but I don't have a copy of that one available.)
                      Yes ... I see ... it takes a microgram of "evidence" to convince you of what you wish to believe, while 30 metric tons of flaws with that "evidence" are insufficient to get you to renounce that belief.

                      Yeah, now I get it!

                      If you are interested in getting at the truth of this matter, instead of remaining COZI (my term, it means "within your comfort zone of ignorance") then I suggest that you research your whale-evolution "evidence" much deeper than you have.

                      Otherwise, don't worry about being lonely with those beliefs, lots of like-minded folk here on TWeb.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        Jorge, you missed the best bit – about the recurrent laryngeal nerve – at 13:40 - guaranteed to blow the mind of even the staunchest creationist. Your cup is half full. Good luck.
                        [sigh ...] I guess I'll have to take some Pepto and watch Satan's look-alike some more.
                        Oh well ... another 14 minutes of my life wasted!

                        ***************************

                        EDITED TO ADD:

                        Okay, so I watched it to the end (21:50 - when the music started, I stopped).

                        It was worse than I dared imagine. This 'Ra' critter (first time I know of him) is a character so full of himself that I'm surprised he managed to fit on the screen. That's not surprising to me - I always say, "deny God and you make yourself one" (another story).

                        Anyway, I checked your 13:40 laryngeal nerve segment and nearly fell off my chair. The number of logical atrocities committed by 'Ra' were legion - it would take me a week to address and destroy them all. 'Ra' is like essentially all Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists - he has no real comprehension of the connection between logic and evidence or even what those things are. He sounds authoritative (as do most A/TE) but scratch just below the surface and one finds that he has nothing of substance - all he does is parrot the same old nonsense.

                        The laryngeal nerve example:

                        At 16:46 to 17:10 he provides computer graphics and a narration that take us from a fish to a giraffe showing the laryngeal nerve progressing through each evolutionary step as his "evidence". Do I really need to tell you what is painfully obvious, namely, that computer-generated graphics and narrations of just-so stories do not constitute "evidence" for Evolution nor does it support 'Ra's' position? Had I been present, 'Ra' would have had to wait until I stopped laughing.

                        If you're basing yourself on sheer stupidity such as this 'Ra' video then I'm afraid you're being led down a path of destruction. I say again, seek the truth in this matter. Do not take my word on any of this - seek for yourself.

                        Jorge
                        Last edited by Jorge; 08-06-2014, 02:38 PM. Reason: To add ...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Speaking of a microgram of evidence opposed to 30 metric tonnes of flaws - how's the whole YEC interpretation of the creation account (Genesis 1, contrasting Genesis 2) working out for you? Does the 12 hour day, evening to morning really stack up? Shouldn't it be morning to evening? Evening to morning is after all, a night, not a day. And how does YEC reconcile the Genesis 1 account of separate days for the creation of plants, animals, and man with the Genesis 2 account of "the day in which all of those were created." It must be quite a difficult task trying to make a natural reading of Genesis fit with a 6 day creation.
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            Yes ... I see ... it takes a microgram of "evidence" to convince you of what you wish to believe, while 30 metric tons of flaws with that "evidence" are insufficient to get you to renounce that belief.

                            Yeah, now I get it!

                            If you are interested in getting at the truth of this matter, instead of remaining COZI (my term, it means "within your comfort zone of ignorance") then I suggest that you research your whale-evolution "evidence" much deeper than you have.

                            Otherwise, don't worry about being lonely with those beliefs, lots of like-minded folk here on TWeb.

                            Jorge
                            You still don't get the concept of consilience, do you?

                            If you claim you do, please do define it for us right here and now.

                            Thanks!

                            Roger

                            P.S. It looks like Jorge's trying a new reptilian debate method -- Using the projection of "anti-consilience" AGAINST evolution!

                            Anyone else notice this?
                            Last edited by klaus54; 08-06-2014, 02:23 PM. Reason: p.s.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              You still don't get the concept of consilience, do you?

                              If you claim you do, please do define it for us right here and now.

                              Thanks!

                              Roger

                              P.S. It looks like Jorge's trying a new reptilian debate method -- Using the projection of "anti-consilience" AGAINST evolution!

                              Anyone else notice this?
                              I have noticed that you are just as big a troll as Jorge is. Congratulations.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, Yesterday, 04:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              18 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X