|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Junior wrote: |
]How long are you going to wait exactly? Its been about 150 years already. Still nothing.
Since Darwin multimillions of fossils have been unearthed, from all rock strata, all around the world. None of those numerous, abundant fossils show what you would expect if darwinism was true. |
Scientists went right to work, and they are still hard at work today.
In 1961, just two years after Origin of Species was published, the Archaeopteryx was discovered in Germany.
In 1869, Cro-Magnon Man was discovered.
In 1874, the eohippus, or early horse, was discovered.
In 1891, Java Man, or homo erectus was discovered.
In 1922, an ancestor of the triceratops was discovered.
In 1932, the ichthyostega, or intermediary between a fish and an amphibian, was discovered.
In 1947, the pre-Cambrian Ediacaran fauna was discovered.
In 1971, the Pakicetus, or whale ancestor, was discovered.
In 1973, Lucy was discovered.
In 1987, another intermediary between a fish and an amphibian, the Aconthostega, was discovered.
In 1994, another whale ancestor, the Ambulocetus, was discovered.
In 1996, a dinosaur-bird intermediary called the Sinosauropteryx was discovered.
In 2001, a four-legged ancestor of the manatee was discovered.
In 2003, a feathered but wingless dinosaur, believed to be capable of gliding, was found by Xu, Zhou et al.
In 2006, still another fish-amphibian called the Tiktaalik was discovered.
In 2009, a dinosaur with vestigial digits was found.
Maybe what you mean is "None of those numerous, abundant fossils show what you would expect if Darwinism was true and and it was possible to convince Creationists."
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| You do realize you can just make up absolutely anything when it comes to faith, right? |
| Junior wrote: |
| You do realize you can just make up absolutely anything when it comes to evolution, right? |
Either Evolution is either better substantiated or better organized than faith
Most Evolutionists seem to agree on most important points on the Tree of Life.
In fact, they even agree when the frames of reference are different--fossils, embryonic development, vestigial organs, and biochemistry all tell the same story.
But when it comes to faith, we get completely different Creation myths from different parts of the world.
| Quote: |
| Actually it is you who lacks adequate cranial capacity. |
I thought this thread was about Evolution.
If you want to talk about Evolutionists, start a thread about Evolutionists.
| Quote: |
| Sorry but e.g. natural selection does not create new genetic information. |
What does "genetic information" mean?
Creationists have been kicking that term around ever at least since Sarfati started using it.
If a population of dark-colored bears evolves into polar bears, then they must have had the necessary "genetic information."
If country moths change color for living in the grungy city, then they must have had the necessary "genetic information."
All we see in these cases is a posteriori reasoning.
What does genetic information look like under a microscope?
Is it possible to dissect an organism living today and determine what genetic information that organism has?
| Quote: |
| Simply spamming with a load of links is just laziness. I'm not about to read a PhD dissertation just for your sake. |
The link which I once gave you was one which I had written myself.
Your excuse that time was that you were afraid of catching a computer virus.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Creationist geology starts with a belief of a world-wide flood, then hand-picks whatever it feels is necessary to prove that pre-conceived belief. |
Here, Brento is probably being not fair, but generous.
I haven't seen ANYTHING put forth by the Creationist to affirm Creationist geology.
| Julius wrote: |
| The vast, overwhelming majority of the millions upon millions of fossils we find-globally appear to have been rapidly buried by catastrophic flood. |
Spherical objects would also settle the fastest. That explains why kites are thin and flat, and that explains why paper airplanes are thin and flat.
So why are flat, thin graptolites found in Paleozoic soil?
Larger objects should be found in deeper soil. We find this on the beach, where the boulders are buried underneath the sand.
In the geologic column, however, we find the exact opposite.
Whitcomb & Morris, in their book The Genesis Flood, predicted that species living in a lower elevation would be found in deeper soil.
Then marine fossils should be found deeper than land animals and plants. Such is not the case.
The densest objects should be found in deepest soil.
Yet we don't find trees in the highest layers and corals and shells in the lowest layers.
Whitcomb & Morris, in their book on the World Flood, predict that the species which could run the fastest would be the ones running uphill in a vain attempt to escape the Flood. Therefore, goes their reasoning, the fastest running species would be found in the most shallow soil.
But plants can't run at all! Why haven't we found any plants in Cambrian and pre-Cambrian soil?
| Quote: |
| Absolutely: this is an obvious fact. Do a simple googlesearch if you want to find out about how archaeology confirms the bible at every turn. |
So anything which mentions actual places and actual people is factually correct?
South Park, Colorado is an actual place, and the celebrity visitors in the cartoon series are actual people.
Does that mean that all the episodes on the cartoon series are true?
Last edited by pucciniphile on Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Soth
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, Junior, how do *you* explain all these fossils?
New species coming into existence and old species going extinct. Again and again and again, for millions and millions of years. Stop telling us how evolution can't explain this, and start telling us how *you* explain it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brento1138 wrote: |
| You have misunderstood my original comment in the first quotation you highlighted. |
Don't place your failings at my feet. If you didn't mean to say 'the proof points towards [God being a creation of man],' then you should have used different words and/or syntax.
| Quote: |
| I never claimed that there is scientific proof that God doesn't exist, just that all of the evidence (or lack thereof) points towards (or suggests) that conclusion. |
Then you clearly don't understand what you're typing. Neither logic ("simple" or otherwise) nor a lack of evidence will ever suggest the existence or absence of a divine being.
| Quote: |
During discussions, theists often say the following, "You can't disprove God or show that he doesn't exist! Prove that God doesn't exist!"
This is a logical fallacy known as attempting to shift the burden of proof.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. |
You also apparently don't understand what you copy and paste. No positive assertion about the existence of God was made until YOU made the comments I originally responded to.
If, in addition to fallacies and proof, you are rusty on the meaning of irony, I suggest you reread your posts and the above quote.
| Quote: |
| Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. |
In case this is the segment that confused you, I never asserted "that something is true unless proven otherwise." I merely countered your attempt to dismiss something without the evidence necessary to do so. I.e., something is not false unless proven so.
| Quote: |
Prove that ogres don't exist. Prove that faeries don't exist.
You simply can't do this. Since we see no evidence or good arguments for the existence of ogres and faeries, we should not accept the claim that they exist. |
| Quote: |
| Back to how I said God probably doesn't exist. Although there is no way to disprove them, fairies, unicorns, orcs, Jedi, and God all fall into the same category. I am pretty damn sure that there are no real Jedi out there, or fairies, even unicorns! |
Ah, yes, the pseudo-intellectual conceit of the anti-theist, taking something that no one holds belief in and using it to disparage something that well over 90% of the world does believe in. That's every bit as illogical and disingenuous as someone claiming that because well over 90% of the world believes in a divine power, the atheists must be wrong.
| Quote: |
| I can say, as a sane person, that they probably don't exist. I can say exactly the same thing about God, and not be considered "silly." |
You can say that all you like, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. Probability is based on statistical evidence and/or frequency of events, so either you don't understand how probability works or you're using a very strange definition.
| Quote: |
| Remember: the burden is on the religious to show us the evidence of a God, not on us to disprove. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
The burden of proof is only on the religious when the religious say things like "God exists" or "God probably exists," just like the burden of proof is on the nonreligious when the nonreligious say things like "God doesn't exist" or "God probably doesn't exist." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Soth
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The burden of proof is only on the religious when the religious say things like "God exists" or "God probably exists," just like the burden of proof is on the nonreligious when the nonreligious say things like "God doesn't exist" or "God probably doesn't exist." |
I am not so sure about that. Does anyone need to disprove each of 100s thousands of gods that human imagination created over the course of history?
What about unicorns, elves, do one need to disprove any supernatural idea that ever existed? Not really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Soth wrote: |
| I am not so sure about that. Does anyone need to disprove each of 100s thousands of [interpretations of the divine proposed] over the course of history? |
Fixed. Do you still want to ask that question?
| Quote: |
| What about unicorns, elves, do one need to disprove any supernatural idea that ever existed? Not really. |
I addressed that already... in the very same post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Soth
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Soth wrote: |
| I am not so sure about that. Does anyone need to disprove each of 100s thousands of [interpretations of the divine proposed] over the course of history? |
Fixed. Do you still want to ask that question? |
Nice try, but is Sun (as god in primitive cultures) or Thor or Allah or Jehova or Jesus interpretation of same entity? Really, does it even make sense?
God of Abraham and Jesus is apparently same 'person', how would you rephrase your argument, when anyone clearly see that those gods have absolutely nothing in common. Those are simply different ideas with same sticker, same name does not make them same and certainly does not prove anything. And I picked up just two from same religion here. Share number of gods that exist in human mythology makes good argument for nothing else, than that human imagination is something really impressive and that is a gift that we got from evolution. The gift that we used 'wisely' to (brutally) outperform other human species, like for example the Neanderthal.
Last edited by Soth on Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brento1138 wrote: |
Rather than looking at the actual evidence and then coming to conclusions from hard evidence, creationist geology starts with a belief of a world-wide flood, then hand-picks whatever it feels is necessary to prove that pre-conceived belief. Creationist geology is not science, it is an extension of religion. It's a pseudo-science.
. |
I think it is just the "young-earth" creationists who believe in the Noah's Ark story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The burden of proof is only on the religious when the religious say things like "God exists" or "God probably exists," just like the burden of proof is on the nonreligious when the nonreligious say things like "God doesn't exist" or "God probably doesn't exist." |
I don't follow you on that one.
I don't know whether God exists or not, so I say "God probably exists" and "God probably doesn't exist."
How is the burden of proof on me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Soth wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| It's also an oversimplification of both the religious and scientific perspectives. |
I really fail to understand how one can oversimplify religious perspective. |
| Soth wrote: |
Nice try, but is Sun (as god in primitive cultures) or Thor or Allah or Jehova or Jesus interpretation of same entity? Really, does it even make sense?
God of Abraham and Jesus is apparently same 'person', how would you rephrase your argument, when anyone clearly see that those gods have absolutely nothing in common. Those are simply different ideas with same sticker, same name does not make them same and certainly does not prove anything. And I picked up just two from same religion here. Share number of gods that exist in human mythology makes good argument for nothing else, than that human imagination is something really impressive and that is a gift that we got from evolution. The gift that we used 'wisely' to (brutally) outperform other human species, like for example the Neanderthal. |
There you go, my friend. You just demonstrated how it's possible. Although to to honest, you did much more than oversimplify it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Soth
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| There you go, my friend. You just demonstrated how it's possible. Although to to honest, you did much more than oversimplify it. |
LOL - in my opinion Ive made it too complicated, but then Im more than sure we wont find common ground, so its just waste of my time. Thx to my parents I probably wasted enough time on religion already...
...and we all need to keep in mind that I did not get any response to evolution of the whales argument, guys, was that too simple as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
You're at more like 0.1% of the answers.
|
Even if that were the case, at least we would have 0.1% of the answers. It is a whole lot better in my mind to have 0.1% of the correct answers about the universe than simply get all of our knowledge from centuries old books written by an ancient tribe that did not understand how the world works because they lacked the ability to understand it through science.
| Junior wrote: |
Thats not what happens though, is it? All the evidence already clearly indicates that it is an ape. It is only your wishing that it was something else that makes you pretend that an alternative possibility still exists.
|
Untrue. The scientific consensus on the issue is that there is no consensus. I do not particularly lean towards any side, I am open-minded and believe it could be a chimp, or an ape-man. We just do not know yet.
| Junior wrote: |
Of course. Nothing is ever allowed to threaten your beloved theory. If it does, it simply gets stifled, dicarded, discredited, reinterpreted, or whatever.
The self-serving network of evo-lutioniary fantasists are so committed to the idea of evolution that even when the evidence contradicts them ..they automatically assume the evidence must be wrong.
|
I would be happy to discard, or leave behind evolution if the evidence showed so. Unfortunately, it doesn't. I would love for the biblical tales to be true, that a loving God created us in his image. Although that would be nice and peachy, no evidence points towards it. Your above quotation could simply be altered to more accurately represent creationists.
| Junior wrote: |
There are no transitional forms. If evolution were true, most fossils would in fact be of transitional forms. Sorry but the real world evidence says that evolution didn't happen.
|
You still haven't read the basic FAQ I have sent you, no?
| Quote: |
| Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. |
Click here for more information on the subject:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
| Junior wrote: |
You do realize you can just make up absolutely anything when it comes to evolution, right? For example look below at another of your imaginative artworks.
|
Actually, evolution as I've noted many times is not a fantasy dreamt up from nothing. It's based on observable data. We cannot just make up "anything" because it wouldn't fit the current information we already have.
| Junior wrote: |
Actually it is you who lacks adequate cranial capacity.
There is nothing demonstrated in any research to show that a single-celled organism could be capable of ultimately morphing into a whale. No such mechanism has ever been demonstrated. If you think one has, please do spell it out.
|
You cannot expect us to actually see a cell transition into a whale right in front of our very eyes.
Here is a quote from the evolution FAQ:
| Quote: |
| Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. |
Check it out at: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe [/quote]
| Junior wrote: |
I'm not about to read a PhD dissertation just for your sake.
|
Nice choice of words, but you've actually been refusing to read the links I am sending you because you refuse to look at the evidence. Nothing new is going on. You are doing nothing more than a ritual dance -- nothing more. There is no science going on or anything genuinely interesting. All of the arguments you bring up have already been debunked several times on that talkorigins.org website. If anything, I am doing you a favor so that you can better prepare yourself for "debate" in the future. I put quotations on the word debate because the word "debate" infers that both sides are equal. Lurkers reading our "debate" may get the wrong impression that you are informed and "cutting-edge." What I am trying to demonstrate is that it's all been done and said before. Your refusing to read and respond to my rebuttals makes you look illiterate and naive.
| Junior wrote: |
Don't you know what you believe? I asked for a yes/ no answer. How hard can it be? or are you backing out now.
|
As the hypotheses and scientific consensus support all multi-cellular life having evolved from single-celled organisms, I will answer that yes, I think it is very probable.
| Junior wrote: |
So...umm...do you believe that humans came from apes? or not.
Yes or no?
|
Yes, again, as the scientific consensus goes, I choose to agree with the majority of specialists and agree that humans evolved from an ape-like species which has since gone extinct.
| Junior wrote: |
So why do "evolutionists" approach new evidence with a whole set of pre-suppositions and preconceptions? They are assuming evolution (-an unproven hypothesis) at every step. |
Again, quoted from the FAQ you refuse to read:
| Quote: |
| Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. |
Click here for more information: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would just like to reiterate to the lurkers here, that the "debate" you are reading is a tactic by creationists to appear like there really is a debate. Actually, the so-called "debate" is over. It's all been said and done before. I thought I could persuade my "debators" to actually read and look at the evidence that is out there to research but I was wrong. They are not interested in the science, but more interested in maintaining their beliefs. Remember, there is nothing informed, cutting-edge, new, or scientific when it comes to creationism. Again, I emphasise that nothing new is going on.
If you have the time, read up on talkorigins.org and make up your own mind.
http://talkorigins.org/
Here is the link to the FAQ:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's stop all this talk about religion before the mod's zap this thread.
Most of you may not remember, but there was a 200-page thread on this subject which the mod's zapped because we delved too much in religion.
Check this:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=169449 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pucciniphile wrote: |
| Scientists went right to work, and they are still hard at work today. |
...Seeing what they want to see.
Imposing preconceptions on the evidence...in order to conform to a theory that satisfies their deep-seated atheism...and placate the establishment to which they belong and by which they make a livelihood.
Do you really think that if an evolutionist sponsored by Darwinism.Inc suddenly admits he doesn't believe in the theory that he will continue to recieve funding to pay his bills and feed his family?
| Tomato/Pucciniphile wrote: |
| In 1961, just two years after Origin of Species was published, the Archaeopteryx was discovered in Germany. |
I dealt with this earlier in the thread- the supicious and highly dubious facts surrounding the convenient "discovery".
| Quote: |
In 1869, Cro-Magnon Man was discovered.
In 1874, the eohippus, or early horse, was discovered.
In 1891, Java Man, or homo erectus was discovered.
In 1922, an ancestor of the triceratops was discovered.
In 1932, the ichthyostega, or intermediary between a fish and an amphibian, was discovered.
In 1947, the pre-Cambrian Ediacaran fauna was discovered.
In 1971, the Pakicetus, or whale ancestor, was discovered.
In 1973, Lucy was discovered.
In 1987, another intermediary between a fish and an amphibian, the Aconthostega, was discovered.
In 1994, another whale ancestor, the Ambulocetus, was discovered.
In 1996, a dinosaur-bird intermediary called the Sinosauropteryx was discovered.
In 2001, a four-legged ancestor of the manatee was discovered.
In 2003, a feathered but wingless dinosaur, believed to be capable of gliding, was found by Xu, Zhou et al.
In 2006, still another fish-amphibian called the Tiktaalik was discovered.
In 2009, a dinosaur with vestigial digits was found. |
Puccinifile we both know that none of those ridiculous fabrications stand up to closer inspection.
What you have there is an assortment of extinct species at best, or a set of wilfully misidentified bone fragments at worst. They are wishful reconstructions, fudged interpretations.
Sorry but if you find a microscopic bit of bone, it does not give you the right to make a huge creature out of it to conform to what you want to see.
But evolutionists get a lisence to make stuff up all the time it seems.
Do you really want me to go through that list and embarass you all over again?
I can't even believe that you are parading tiktaalik all over again. Ludicrous. How many times do I have to utterly destroy that for you?
| Quote: |
| Maybe what you mean is "None of those numerous, abundant fossils show what you would expect if Darwinism was true and and it was possible to convince Creationists." |
If evolution on the widespread, grand scale you claim was true then the vast majority of the worlds fossils would be of transitional forms. We have unearthed multimillions of fossils. They are all of current living species (unchanged) or of extinct, separate species. None of them are clearly or undeniably transitional. If your ideas about massive change were correct then we'd only have to dig down a few feet to find "almost rabbits" or "nearly elephants". A few feet further would find "not really elephants" and so on.
There are many species that are abundant and seem to have always been so. None of them show any change. They're all the exact same as they were billions of years ago.(if we accept your dates for the rocks).
| Quote: |
| What does "genetic information" mean? |
You mean you don't know what dna is? Genomes, chromosomes, genes, and the instructions they contain?
| Quote: |
| If a population of dark-colored bears evolves into polar bears, then they must have had the necessary "genetic information." |
Sure, they had the pre-existing information already- every organism has vast amounts of unexpressed or junk dna.. It was simply a matter of expression when needed. But superficial differences in fur coloration don't really mean anything. It is just the inherent variety within any species. Maybe you have blue eyes and your brother has brown. That does not make him a different species. if there was no variety within a species then we'd all be clones.
What evolutionist claim is a radical, massive change from a single celled organism to something like a whale. A incredible, theorized increase in complexity, gain in functions, organs and body parts. of course no mechanism to produce such a thing has ever been demonstrated. But fanciful pipe-dreams are really all it takes to win over the gullible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
