Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

Noose001:

not transitional body parts.

Of course it wasn’t transitional to them! It’s transitional to what came later. Do you really not understand this? We are transitional to whatever we will be in 100,000 years yet we are complete as we currently are.

Is there any plant or animal living today that is NOT fit for its environment ?

If we can equate relevant knowledge to fitness and this thread to an environment then I think it’s quite plain for all to see that there are a few.

 

[Techno2000]

mutation that helps it adapt (beneficial)

How is that going to help,when it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?

 

[Pattylt]

Please quit trying to sound idiotic. It’s working.

 

[Freddy]

Please quit trying to sound idiotic. It’s working.

It’s so frustrating that I can only give that one ‘like’…

 

[o_mlly]

If we continue to have ice melt at the North Pole, then the Polar bear may become extinct. Any life that is living in an environment different than when it evolved into that environment is at risk or has become extinct. Do you think no life has become extinct?

Better run that story by Rossum. The polar bear is a microevolution event.

Evo’s claim the polar bear is a descendant of the brown bear. The two can reproduce in the wild, pizzlies. So the horrors of global warming will not cause the polar bear to become extinct. The bear will mate quite well with the brown bears and regain its ability to produce brown pigment for its fur.

Loading…

www.pbs.org

(The PBS article got the fur detail incorrect. The polar bears’ fur is transparent.)

Loading…

www.loc.gov

A tip of the hat to @Buffalo for calling this one correctly: the polar bear is an example of devolution, a loss of function, that turned out to be an advantage.

o_mlly:

How will we [macroevolution] be able to control nature to our benefit?

Maybe you haven’t checked the news for a few days. … what we know about evolution and how viruses evolve will help us ‘control nature’ to design a vaccine …

Can you spell MICROEVOLUTION?

 

[o_mlly]

That is how grossly wrong your source is. The question needs to include all the details of the relevant environment for millions of years into the future.

Ahemmm. That works in the other direction as well.

That is how grossly wrong your source is. The question needs to include all the details of the relevant environment for millions of years into the future past.

The fairy tales that macroevolutionists imagine about the past presume that which they wish to be true, as true. Their errors in the circularity of their reasoning that only serves to affirm the consequent do not help their credibility.

 

[rossum]

Ahemmm. That works in the other direction as well.

Ahemm. We have geology to tell us that. You on the other hand have nothing. You do not even have an explanation for the presence of rabbits on earth today.

 

[o_mlly]

We have geology to tell us that.

No, you don’t. Indirectly guessing at the age of the rock does not “include all the details of the relevant environment for millions of years”.

 

[rossum]

No, you don’t. Indirectly guessing at the age of the rock does not “ include all the details of the relevant environment for millions of years ”.

We can tell if rocks are igneous, sedimentary or sub-aerial. We can often see where rocks have been eroded. We can date rocks by various independent means.

You are not just rejecting evolution, but rejecting whole areas of science. By rejecting radiometric dating you are also rejecting great swathes of sub-atomic physics.

Despite rejecting all that well established science you still have no explanation for rabbits existing on earth. Not a good position to be in.

Science provides explanations; you have zilch.

 

[o_mlly]

We can tell if rocks are igneous, sedimentary or sub-aerial. We can often see where rocks have been eroded. We can date rocks by various independent means.

So, all you have are have estimates on ages of rock in the past. But you require others to "include all the details of the relevant environment for millions of years”. Doesn’t sound fair to me.

Despite rejecting all that well established science …

There you go again, back to the macroevolution’s playbook. Rebuke any skeptics as complete “science-deniers”.

… you still have no explanation for rabbits existing on earth. Not a good position to be in.

Will someone please go down the rossum-rabbit-hole and help him find his missing rabbit. While you’re down there, it would be helpful if you found a few of those missing transitional fossils. The fossil record could really use something that showed mutation rather than stasis.

Science provides explanations; you have zilch.

As scientists, we both have zilch. Since I don’t suffer from scientism, I can go elsewhere. You, not so much.

 

[rossum]

As scientists, we both have zilch. Since I don’t suffer from scientism, I can go elsewhere. You, not so much.

From what I can see, you are not a scientist. You have unsupported opinions and zero evidence. That puts you outside science.

I am glad to see that you admit to having zilch.

 

[o_mlly]

From what I can see, you are not a scientist. You have unsupported opinions and zero evidence. That puts you outside science.

From what I can see, you are not a scientist. You have unsupported opinions and zero evidence. That puts you outside science.

 

[rossum]

From what I can see, you are not a scientist. You have unsupported opinions and zero evidence. That puts you outside science.

Project much? You have no explanation for the origin of rabbits and are frantically thrashing around trying to distract from your complete lack of an answer.

I have a BSc in Mathematical Physics, and the last time I looked, Mathematical Physics was a science discipline.

Now, back to those rabbits. What is your answer?

 

[o_mlly]

… frantically thrashing …

Me? Methinks that would be you. When arguers turn to fallacies rather than meaningful replies, they display, along with a lack of other arguments, their emotions. You have a long list of fallacious replies from strawmen, ad hominems and now an appeal to your own authority. We’re looking for facts, not fallacies. We’re looking for valid reasoning, not irrational speculations.

I realize, as a materialist, that questioning the reality of macroevolution may appear to you as an attack on a core article of the faith fundamental to your worldview. Sorry about that but we want to know the truth. Please keep your emotions in check.

 

[rossum]

I realize, as a materialist…

I am Buddhist, not materialist. There is nothing in evolution that contradicts Buddhist scriptures so I do not have a problem with evolution. There is a potential problem with cosmology, since Buddhist scriptures talk about an oscillating material component of the universe, and so far cosmology has not made up its mind on that.

You would do well not to speculate on what I am thinking, beyond the obvious fact that you have nothing positive to offer, not even an explanation for the origin of rabbits.

 

[o_mlly]

I am Buddhist, not materialist.

I did not invoke Buddhism as constraining, rather an apparent worldview constrained by scientism: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

 

[rossum]

I did not invoke Buddhism as constraining, rather an apparent worldview constrained by scientism: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

You invoked materialism as a worldview. That was an error, and hence not applicable to me. In case you forget, just look at my avatar picture.

You still have not provided any explanation for the existence of rabbits. Whatever your worldview is, it appears to be sadly lacking in explanations.

 

[o_mlly]

You still have not provided any explanation for the existence of rabbits. Whatever your worldview is, it appears to be sadly lacking in explanations.

Your explanation for the existence of rabbits is a fiction. You believe rabbits evolved from bacteria, right? But you have no evidence. And you want another fictional explanation? Your fiction is as good as any other. The problem is not that science needs a better fiction, the problem is science needs more facts and better reasoning.

The standard playbook for macroevolution advocates to repel legitimate criticism is as follows:

“We saw you near a church once so you must be a creationist.”
“You’re a science-denier.”
“You’re stupid.”
“You’re evil.”
“You don’t know how science works.”
“What’s your alternative?”

You’re down to your last play in your standard playbook in a prolonged attempt to deflect from answering questions posted early in this thread.

Show me that macroevolution is more than imaginative speculation, a fiction, and we may make some progress. Show me that the rationale, which in the absence of convincing evidence, is necessarily metaphysical , that leaps from microevolution to macroevolution is valid.

 

[Freddy]

The standard playbook…

“We saw you near a church once so you must be a creationist.” - that would be a silly argument.
“You’re a science-denier.” - quite often the truth.
“You’re stupid.” - I have seen some comments from some people that might lead to that conclusion.
“You’re evil.” - that would be a nonsensical argument.
“You don’t know how science works.” - proved all too often, I’m afraid.
“What’s your alternative?” Ah yes. The great Unanswered Question.

 

[ImQuiet]

rossum:

I am Buddhist, not materialist.

I did not invoke Buddhism as constraining, rather an apparent worldview constrained by scientism: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

And you’re accusing @rossum of ad hominem? How is this relevant to the discussion at hand at all?
Now can you please answer the questions that have been posed in this thread or are you going to google some fallacies again and smugly wave them in out faces claiming you made a point?