Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan2 said:
It may not be perfect, but it gives a good presentation if current thinking if the subject. From there we can debate if that thinking is valid or not. But if you refuse to consider it, then you cannot say your opposition is based on science.
Click to expand...
My refutations are based on current science and have consistently shown them for many years. You are not allowing for the changes to current thinking. Everyone here should. We have learned so much more in the last two decades.
 
You quoted someone who died almost 2 decades ago, and your basis is on the last 2 decades. Okā€¦

Sorry, I donā€™t follow all if these threads, do you have an exampke that actually meets your criteria?
 
tafan2 said:
Fine, no need to argue that. The question is why one are not willing to consider it at all, yet makes the claim their position us scientificly based.
Click to expand...
Considered and rejected. Macroevoluiton does not meet the scientific requirements for consideration as a hypothetical. See my previous post. Speculation? Yes. Hypothesis? No.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
Thereā€™s never been a miracle that couldnā€™t be debunked. Thatā€™s the problem.
Click to expand...
One can deny anything supernatural if they are clever. However, that does not mean it really did not happen.
Click to expand...
Sure. Of course.

But what it also means is that the event didnā€™t require a miracle to happen.
buffalo said:
You are going to rest your argument on the ark? So answer - if I show you it could be done will you convert?
Click to expand...
I can only be ā€œshownā€ by doing it.

Build an ark using the same dimensions presented in Genesis and with the same materials.

The ships in the modern age that approached that size required pumps and steel bracing. They were larger than wooden ships could safely be made, you see. They needed pumps to offset the continuous leaking and bracing because at that size the wood couldnā€™t hold itself together on its own.
buffalo said:
BTW, God is not restricted to using only the supernatural. He can use the natural.
Click to expand...
Of course he can, but then weā€™re free to deny that a god did it.
 
Last edited:
You actually read the article? Or you saw the title and that was the consideration?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, it was anither poster who quoted Goukd. My bad. Anyway, please provide me with a good scientific paper to read supporting your position. Sorry if you have before, but I might have missed it.
 
Hume said:
The ships in the modern age that approached that size required pumps and steel bracing. They weā€™re larger than wooden ships could safely be made, you see. They needed pumps to offset the continuous leaking and bracing because at that size the wood couldnā€™t hold itself together on its own.
Click to expand...

Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists (big ships)​

http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus5b.html
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
You actually read the article? Or you saw the title and that was the consideration?
Click to expand...
As a believer in macroevolution, why donā€™t you just provide the answers to the standard science questions that serve to qualify a proposal as scientific hypothesis from mere speculation? (Linking to a Wikipedia article just wonā€™t do for one who claims to hold an advanced degree.)
o_mlly said:
  • What evidence?
  • Macroevolutionā€™s explanatory power of observed complexity in living beings is grossly inadequate.
  • How many microevolutions eventuate in a macroevolution?
  • What is the precise definition of ā€œspeciesā€?
  • What predictions of speciation have macroevolutionists made that have come to be true?
  • What mathematical equations does macroevolution offer that support a speciation event?
  • What schemes does macroevolution offer for verification?
  • What test methods does macroevolutionists offer that can support the hypothesis?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I donā€™t care. You wonā€™t discuss what I gave as a starting point. So now I am offering you to. I cannot imagine how I could try to be a more gracious person in thus discussion. You arenā€™t interested in my info, so letā€™s try yours. ā€œOh,there us just too muchā€.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
The ships in the modern age that approached that size required pumps and steel bracing. They weā€™re larger than wooden ships could safely be made, you see. They needed pumps to offset the continuous leaking and bracing because at that size the wood couldnā€™t hold itself together on its own.
Click to expand...

Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists (big ships)​

Athenaeus: Deipnosophists - Book 5 (b)
Click to expand...
Hey, deflect all you want.

The biggest wooden ship ever built that we can actually verify was 350 feet long if you didnā€™t count the jib and spanker (I doubt the ark had such things) and it was an absolute mess to keep afloat. Steel cables ran throughout.

On the decks, it was 350l x 50w X 30h, in feet.
Noahā€™s Ark, for comparison, was at least 450l x 75w x 45h, also in feet.

Not possible.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
ā€œThe long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologistsā€ Stephen J Gould
Click to expand...
Indeed it has. It was recognised by Darwin:
But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

ā€“ Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four
Click to expand...
For example, whales appear abruptly in the fossil record over most of the world. It was only when a certain area in Pakistan was excavated that their ancestors were discovered. Homo sapiens appears abruptly in the American fossil record. Is that because humans were specially created in America, or is it because humans migrated to America from elsewhere?

A species that evolves in one place and then spreads over a larger range will appear abruptly in the fossil record everywhere except that one place where their ancestors lived.
 
I hold an advanced degree in science. I think that article provides a good basis point for a discussion.in particular it gave several pieces of evidence for your very first question.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top