evolution: 1 creationism: 0

You seem to know so much about fallacies.
Give us a definition of evolution. Please define it.

Correction: I DO know a lot about fallacies. I aced my critical
thinking courses in college and have studied them in great length.

And what does knowing about fallacies have to do with evolution? Nothing.
Your demand for a definition because I know about fallacies is nonsensical.


Whenever someone asks for it, you avoid it. What kind of fallacy is that?

This is patently false. You have NEVER asked me for a definition.
You asked Gordon.
So dont pretend im avoiding anything. You are clearly wrong.

Here is your original post:
Gordon Gekko,
Why don't you help us all out and define evolution.
What is evolution?
Give us your best definition.



Secondly if you believe avoidance
is a type of fallacy, then state it. Surely you have the intellectual
ability to use google and do some research on fallacies??
Claim it is a fallacy and name it, or retract your assertion.


Why don't you educate us and give us a definition of evolution.
You probably don't even have one.

Neener neener neener! You dont have one, neener neener...
Are you serious???

Since you seem to be incapable of looking up a definition
of evolution, here are a couple for you from the talkorigins website:

1) Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

2) "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


In your previous post you said:

While you are at it, give us some kind of response to this quote from a real scientist. He admits his philosophical underpinnings, which many evolutionists don't even know exists.

Nobel laureate George Wald of Harvard admitted:

We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’ It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation (1954, 191:46).




Here you clearly reveal you have no idea what evolution is.
Evolution does NOT claim to explain the origin of life or
spontaneous generation.

Yet another strawman by you. It seems you are only capable
of debating with the use of fallacies.

Isnt also funny how these guys have to quote REALLY OLD crap?
Whats wrong? Have problems attacking MODERN evolution theory? :D
Oh thats right.... you seem to think evolution claims to explain
the origin of life. No wonder you are so confused.


Since you have shown you are completely ignorant on evolution,
I will not waste more time debating the same old creationist
garbage that we have been through so many times on other threads.


If you wish to believe in unsupported fairy tales, that is your right.
But if you wish to seriously debate evolution, go find a group
of hard core researchers, hold a formal debate, and send us
the video tape. It would truly be entertaining :D


peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:


Is 50 million not enough????
More...

Nope. And, seriously, read about the Cambrian Explosion and if you find commentary, you'll see that science is utterly baffled by this event. Noone is going to write in a prestigious journal or book, "And how in the crap could this have occurred?!? How could 70 complete animal phyla pop into existence out of almost thin air in an abyssmally small time?!?"

But that's what they're all thinking....
 
You assert that "science is utterly baffled by this event", but I have never found this to be the case.

Seems like yet another strawman.
Just more creationist trash, set up, so it can be easily torn down.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC320.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html


How could 70 complete animal phyla pop into existence out of almost thin air in an abyssmally small time?!?"

Abyssmally small time? Fabricated nonsense. Reality seems
to contradict your notion.

You have no authority to claim this wasnt enough time.
You have never proven this assertion. You can only post opinions.


Weak...very weak.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Nope. And, seriously, read about the Cambrian Explosion and if you find commentary, you'll see that science is utterly baffled by this event. Noone is going to write in a prestigious journal or book, "And how in the crap could this have occurred?!? How could 70 complete animal phyla pop into existence out of almost thin air in an abyssmally small time?!?"

But that's what they're all thinking....
More...
 
SHOE,

Find me 3 modern day evolutionist PHD's, who are not hard
core theists to support your claim this was definitely not enough time.


peace

axeman
 
Quote from harrytrader:

That evolution doesn't explain creation doesn't imply obligatory Creationism thesis. For example I have already posted an article against Evolution Theory as incomplete theory from Wolfram but it doesn't mean that it demonstrates God:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=378894&highlight=Wolfram#post378894

Wolfram http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html

"One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay
Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are
thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual
shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there
are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world.


In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few
robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms
available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destiny—and
Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural
selection is not all that important."

" He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological
software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you
understand it, it's actually very simple."
More...

Interesting posts, harry. I'll definitely look them over. But notice something important here. All the posts given do not address the issue of increasing compliexity and information storage as far as I can tell.

The idea of a metaprogram is fascinating, but I find it hard to swallow when it comes to increased cognition and morphogenesis. I can see it transforming a shell - that's close to microevolution. But to build a mammal's thermoregulatory , circulatory, nervious, auditory, etc. systems is unimaginable to me in the short time frames given from this mechanism.

Let's face it: the mutation rates aren't there to support Gould's peripatric speciation as well.

But keep posting the links, etc...
 
Noone is going to write in a prestigious journal or book, "And how in the crap could this have occurred?!? How could 70 complete animal phyla pop into existence out of almost thin air in an abyssmally small time?!?"


Now SHOE is really reaching with conspiracy theories :D


But that's what they're all thinking....

But WAIT! It gets worse. He can read minds too! :p


peace

axeman
 
>But WAIT! It gets worse. He can read minds too!

Not only writers of prestigious journals and books, but the all the guys minds at NASA as well.

JB
 
Interesting. 17 pages of posts and not one example of "proof" of evolution. I'm done. Belief in something without proof is faith.


Have you ever wondered how many squirrels jumped out of trees before one realized it could "fly"? And then how did it pass this new found ability on to it's offspring?
 
Quote from Turok:

>But WAIT! It gets worse. He can read minds too!

Not only writers of prestigious journals and books, but the all the guys minds at NASA as well.

JB
More...

If you read on this stuff much, you'll find that I'm more right than wrong.

If you won't believe me, then read NASA's own publications. Look at the bottom where it basically says that 1) we should consider panspermia and 2) Mars materials need to be studied to investigage the likelihood of interplanetary transport of life. You may want to look at some of the NASA Goals as well - you'll find them surprisingly honest about their viewpoints.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/goals/g1_life_arose.html

Here is an official NASA site that actually proposes the idea of panspermia:

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/goals/g1_life_arose.html

Here's an article describing a NASA experiment that transported microbial life in space to check for interplanetary survivability.

Here's another NASA article discussing panspermia and even suggests that it has gained support recently:

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1124

The following NASA link states clearly that one of the key objectives of astrobiology is to investigate panspermia.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=581

NASA is also intimately tied to SETI research.

Here is a statement from the following link that states that Project Phoenix came from NASA staff.

http://www.setileague.org/general/whatinst.htm

"The SETI Institute was the institutional home, via a cooperative agreement research award, of much of the late NASA SETI effort. Upon Congressional cancellation of the NASA SETI program in October, 1993, many former NASA staff found themselves continuing their work through the Institute's privately funded Project Phoenix.Theirs is a highly professional organization operating with the utmost of scientific rigor. The SETI Institute does more than just a radio search for signals; it is also the home for over three dozen first rate scientific and educational projects involved in many aspects of the Drake Equation. Its Project Phoenix search is conducted by trained radio astronomers on a full-time basis."

Also, if you look at Project Phoenix, you'll find that all the lead scientists come from NASA:

http://www.seti-inst.edu/seti/meet_our_researchers.html

Below is a link where the top NASA official in charge of exploring moon and planets states that they are going to look for the "seeds of life". We all know what that means:

http://www.space.com/news/moon_mission_040205.html

Just look around and, again, you'll see that NASA as an organization is HIGHLY interested in both panspermia and SETI research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top