I'm willing to go to one major animal phyla every 3 million years. That's my final offer. Take it or leave it...
evolution: 1 creationism: 0
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
I'm willing to go to one major animal phyla every 3 million years. That's my final offer. Take it or leave it...
LOL! Shoe you just BLEW it.
Previously you said:
Secular estimates for the time window for this event are between 5 and 50 million years!
Let's choose the bigger number to give NeoDarwinism every advantage. Stop and think about what this says:
1. In 50 million years, 70+ new animal came into existence!
Now you say:
I'm willing to go to one major animal phyla every 3 million years.
Since we know there is nothing to prevent these animal phyla
to evolve in parallel, each animal phyla therefore has
5-50 million years ***EACH*** to evolve.
That is well *OVER* your final offer of 3 million years!!!
Glad to see you CAME AROUND and agree with the secularists
peace
axeman
Previously you said:
Secular estimates for the time window for this event are between 5 and 50 million years!
Let's choose the bigger number to give NeoDarwinism every advantage. Stop and think about what this says:
1. In 50 million years, 70+ new animal came into existence!
Now you say:
I'm willing to go to one major animal phyla every 3 million years.
Since we know there is nothing to prevent these animal phyla
to evolve in parallel, each animal phyla therefore has
5-50 million years ***EACH*** to evolve.
That is well *OVER* your final offer of 3 million years!!!
Glad to see you CAME AROUND and agree with the secularists
peace
axeman
Probably because strawman is the most common fallacy employed by weak debaters. I hear them over and over and over again in these evolution/creationsim "debates": Evolution is just a "theory"; the fossil record doesn't "prove" anything; how can evolution explain the diversity/order of nature? None of these things are at the heart of the debate yet they're trotted out time and again like an old whore. Bah. It's not worth the effort.
The heart of the debate is that we have a theory being used to counter a belief system.
In other words, we have one belief group claiming their belief is superior to another belief group's system.
If you took all the known facts, and added them up, you would not reach a proof of evolution.
Yet people accept evolution as an explanation for the origin of man to be true.
That is "scientific and logical?"
At least in the soft sciences they admit that they are "soft."
This argument from conclusion of evolution to cause is nonsense and evidence of anything but objective critical thinking.
In other words, we have one belief group claiming their belief is superior to another belief group's system.
If you took all the known facts, and added them up, you would not reach a proof of evolution.
Yet people accept evolution as an explanation for the origin of man to be true.
That is "scientific and logical?"
At least in the soft sciences they admit that they are "soft."
This argument from conclusion of evolution to cause is nonsense and evidence of anything but objective critical thinking.
Speaking of definitions:
theory
[Show phonetics]
noun [C/U]
something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation
Adele took a course in modern political theory.
I have a theory (= an opinion) about why everybody in the city is in such a hurry.
They could, in theory (= possibly), have been paid twice if someone hadn't caught the error.
theoretical
[Show phonetics]
adjective
based on theory or on possibilities
The president does not want to answer any theoretical questions.
We can just as easily call it the:
approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot, speculation, stab, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
of evolution.
What we can't call it with mathematical certainty is:
THE FACT OF EVOLUTION AS THE ONLY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF MAN'S EXISTENCE.
theory
[Show phonetics]
noun [C/U]
something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation
Adele took a course in modern political theory.
I have a theory (= an opinion) about why everybody in the city is in such a hurry.
They could, in theory (= possibly), have been paid twice if someone hadn't caught the error.
theoretical
[Show phonetics]
adjective
based on theory or on possibilities
The president does not want to answer any theoretical questions.
We can just as easily call it the:
approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot, speculation, stab, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
of evolution.
What we can't call it with mathematical certainty is:
THE FACT OF EVOLUTION AS THE ONLY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF MAN'S EXISTENCE.
Eh, no. We have one group saying that the best scientific theory to date to explain our existence is evolution and one group saying they think a man in the sky created the cosmos. BIG difference. Evolution is not a "belief." It is the best scientific theory on the subject. Could it be wrong? Of course. But to date, sorry, it's what we know to be the truth. It's not "belief."
Sorry but there is the so-called Multiverse hypothesis in Cosmology that would suppose that there is NO DESIGN because Universe would be a RANDOM ACCIDENT between multiple trials see here
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=425056&highlight=multiverse#post425056
"There is another BELIEF which is that the existence of the FINE TUNED CONSTANTS by some SUPERIOR BEING or THING or CONCIOUSNESS may be an appearance if the Universe has been selected among many other POSSIBLE RANDOM UNIVERSES: this is called the "Multiverse" hypothesis which is indeed an ATHEIST hypothesis. But this "Multiverse" hypothesis is very recent and not yet widespread among the scientific community so at the moment of History in Science, the balance is more in favor of a DESIGNER if you don't like the term GOD but this DESIGNER has FINE TUNED the CONSTANTS OF UNIVERSE than in favor of a creation of our current Universe by several RANDOM ATTEMPTS so that our universe is just a happy ACCIDENT"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=425056&highlight=multiverse#post425056
"There is another BELIEF which is that the existence of the FINE TUNED CONSTANTS by some SUPERIOR BEING or THING or CONCIOUSNESS may be an appearance if the Universe has been selected among many other POSSIBLE RANDOM UNIVERSES: this is called the "Multiverse" hypothesis which is indeed an ATHEIST hypothesis. But this "Multiverse" hypothesis is very recent and not yet widespread among the scientific community so at the moment of History in Science, the balance is more in favor of a DESIGNER if you don't like the term GOD but this DESIGNER has FINE TUNED the CONSTANTS OF UNIVERSE than in favor of a creation of our current Universe by several RANDOM ATTEMPTS so that our universe is just a happy ACCIDENT"
From Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=8&catID=2
"should you <font color=RED>believe</FONT> [I put in red the verb BELIEVE since some people pretend that Science contains no BELIEF] in parallel universes? The principal arguments against them are that they are wasteful and that they are weird. The first argument is that multiverse theories are vulnerable to Occam's razor because they postulate the existence of other worlds that we can never observe. Why should nature be so wasteful and indulge in such opulence as an infinity of different worlds? Yet this argument can be turned around to argue for a multiverse. What precisely would nature be wasting? Certainly not space, mass or atoms--the uncontroversial Level I multiverse already contains an infinite amount of all three, so who cares if nature wastes some more? The real issue here is the apparent reduction in simplicity. A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. "
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=8&catID=2
"should you <font color=RED>believe</FONT> [I put in red the verb BELIEVE since some people pretend that Science contains no BELIEF] in parallel universes? The principal arguments against them are that they are wasteful and that they are weird. The first argument is that multiverse theories are vulnerable to Occam's razor because they postulate the existence of other worlds that we can never observe. Why should nature be so wasteful and indulge in such opulence as an infinity of different worlds? Yet this argument can be turned around to argue for a multiverse. What precisely would nature be wasting? Certainly not space, mass or atoms--the uncontroversial Level I multiverse already contains an infinite amount of all three, so who cares if nature wastes some more? The real issue here is the apparent reduction in simplicity. A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. "
You seem to know so much about fallacies.
Give us a definition of evolution. Please define it.
Whenever someone asks for it, you avoid it. What kind of fallacy is that? Can a topic be fairly debated if the terms aren't clearly defined?
I listed ten questions that should be asked of biology teachers.
Where is Gordon Gekko to jump in with his answers to those questions? Kind of quiet, eh Gordon?
I'm waiting for someone to respond. dougcs did respond, and I responded with a clear answer. The Miller-Urey experiment has been used to mislead the public, and no I didn't say Miller-Urey were trying to mislead. There is a big difference. It is rarely presented in popular media as a matter of controversy. It is still used in textbooks, and often with no mention of the controversy.
Is that education?
Why don't you educate us and give us a definition of evolution.
You probably don't even have one.
Give us a definition of evolution. Please define it.
Whenever someone asks for it, you avoid it. What kind of fallacy is that? Can a topic be fairly debated if the terms aren't clearly defined?
I listed ten questions that should be asked of biology teachers.
Where is Gordon Gekko to jump in with his answers to those questions? Kind of quiet, eh Gordon?
I'm waiting for someone to respond. dougcs did respond, and I responded with a clear answer. The Miller-Urey experiment has been used to mislead the public, and no I didn't say Miller-Urey were trying to mislead. There is a big difference. It is rarely presented in popular media as a matter of controversy. It is still used in textbooks, and often with no mention of the controversy.
Is that education?
Why don't you educate us and give us a definition of evolution.
You probably don't even have one.
I suspect you confuse knowing a truth with believing in a theory.
Science of the past "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth.
Did they know the truth?
Data points when strung together to provide some support for a theory are not truth per say. Especially when other data points counter the same theory.
Those who accept theory without absolute proof as truth are practicing a belief system.
Science of the past "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth.
Did they know the truth?
Data points when strung together to provide some support for a theory are not truth per say. Especially when other data points counter the same theory.
Those who accept theory without absolute proof as truth are practicing a belief system.