Page 786 of 955 FirstFirst ... 286686736776784785786787788796836886 ... LastLast
Results 7,851 to 7,860 of 9549

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #7851
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,897
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 894 Times in 755 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    When you are right, you are right, which aint often.


    Uh Oh, you may get your first "dishonest" claim! Be on the lookout.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  2. #7852
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,897
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 894 Times in 755 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Well, honestly, nobody says the "bang" created order. Order doe spontaneously emerge from chaos under a variety of circumstances, tho.

    I've yet to see a creo concede or understand that, but perhaps I missed something.


    Can you offer an example or two of that phenomenon?
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ShelbyGT For This Useful Post:

    Dottie (05-21-2017), mikeboll64 (05-24-2017)

  4. #7853
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,469
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked 2,276 Times in 1,935 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Uh Oh, you may get your first "dishonest" claim! Be on the lookout.
    Nope.

  5. #7854
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,469
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked 2,276 Times in 1,935 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Can you offer an example or two of that phenomenon?
    Think how a typhoon forms, or a tornado, either of which involves concentrating
    energy and organizing it.

    For something more tidy, there is a crystal growing from solution.

    Or perhaps, raindrops falling quite randomly over a plain, then organizing into
    rivulets, cutting intricate channels with all the features of cut banks, meanders,
    etc; from there to form a river with all of its features.

    The rather untidy mess in one's stomach which is organized into all manner of molecules and on to an entire human.

    Its not hard to come up with them.

  6. #7855
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,965
    Thanks
    2,661
    Thanked 1,583 Times in 1,218 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    You should not claim that there are any number of ways for life to begin and then claim that you cannot offer any alternatives other than the two mentioned. Either life began naturally from non-life or supernaturally.
    so far so good...

    Once we've established that there are only two choices then if one is falsified the other must be true.
    yes...
    You may now begin to see the implications of evolution falling into disrepute. What is left? The only other alternative that there is - special creation by an eternal spiritual being who has necessary life, that is, life in and of Himself.
    Crash and burn!
    No doubt you'll say that life from non-life was proved impossible by Pasteur - and that is as creaky a canard as everything else creationism is based on.
    It has been dealt with so many times that to keep resurrecting it is ghoulish.
    It's dead.
    It's buried.
    To pretend it is isn't is either an act of dishonesty or one of fatuous denial.

    Your only alternative is only plausible provided there is some way of demonstrating the reality of this spiritual being (and why did it enjoy the smell of burning fat and require that small boys have their sexual organ mutilated?) without falling back on the self-validating assertions that we know it exists because the universe exists, and because the universe exists, we know it exists.

    That establishes nothing at all beyond the futility of circular reasoning.
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

  7. #7856
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,897
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 894 Times in 755 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    so far so good...

    yes... Crash and burn!
    No doubt you'll say that life from non-life was proved impossible by Pasteur - and that is as creaky a canard as everything else creationism is based on.
    It has been dealt with so many times that to keep resurrecting it is ghoulish.
    It's dead.
    It's buried.
    To pretend it is isn't is either an act of dishonesty or one of fatuous denial.

    Your only alternative is only plausible provided there is some way of demonstrating the reality of this spiritual being (and why did it enjoy the smell of burning fat and require that small boys have their sexual organ mutilated?) without falling back on the self-validating assertions that we know it exists because the universe exists, and because the universe exists, we know it exists.

    That establishes nothing at all beyond the futility of circular reasoning.


    So then we have discovered life from non-life? How did I miss this?! Please share it with us all!
    You want to talk about denial, if you can't demonstrate life from non-life then your claims are simply a denial of reality.
    I understand that you desperately want there to be life from non-life but unless you can provide documented evidence then science is just not your friend. Sorry, but that's the hard cold truth.

    Thanks for the shout out of being dishonest although Don may get upset about his buzz word being used without his permission.

    Seriously, proof that spontanious generation does not occur isn't a nail in the ToE coffin? Really?
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ShelbyGT For This Useful Post:

    mikeboll64 (05-24-2017)

  9. #7857
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,979
    Thanks
    1,474
    Thanked 1,156 Times in 988 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    Remind us Mike - when was it you read Origin of Species (I mean the book, not just the title or little bits picked out of it)?
    I read Origin right along with you, Stephen. Remember? I made it a few weeks (4 chapters?) before I realized that he hadn't yet said a dang thing about how species originated. Remember? At that point, I asked you and anyone else still following along with your thread to let me know if and when Charlie ever got around to providing observational evidence to support the title of the book. Remember? (I've also read the entirety of chapter 9 on my own many times, and other snippets here and there.)

    But since nobody ever got back to me about the part where Darwin actually begins to demonstrate observational evidence for how species originated, I deducted that it was because there isn't one iota of observational evidence for UCD in the entire book. (Of course I already knew this going in, from many other sources, and from my own observations that the entire idea is absurd in the highest degree, and will therefore never have any unequivocal scientific evidence to validate it.)

    Now if there is unequivocal scientific evidence to validate UCD in that book, here is your chance to make me look foolish by presenting it. Of course you won't, because actual observational evidence is something that simply doesn't exist in Origin.

    So when you ask me if I've read Origin, the honest answer is "Yes... with you." If you ask if I've read every single word of the book, the answer would be "No."

    So right now you can either present the evidence I've asked for from that book, or you can continue trying to divert attention away from the fact that the book contains no evidence of that sort by running around calling me a liar. I know what choice you will make... and I know why.
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  10. #7858
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,469
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked 2,276 Times in 1,935 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post

    Seriously, proof that spontanious generation does not occur isn't a nail in the ToE coffin? Really?
    Why would it be?

  11. #7859
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,979
    Thanks
    1,474
    Thanked 1,156 Times in 988 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    If the Sun comes up tomorrow, that would be a natural event. If the Sun does not come up tomorrow, that would be an unnatural event.
    And did the Sun come up the day of the BB event?
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  12. #7860
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,965
    Thanks
    2,661
    Thanked 1,583 Times in 1,218 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    I read Origin right along with you, Stephen. Remember? I made it a few weeks (4 chapters?) before I realized that he hadn't yet said a dang thing about how species originated. Remember? At that point, I asked you and anyone else still following along with your thread to let me know if and when Charlie ever got around to providing observational evidence to support the title of the book. Remember? (I've also read the entirety of chapter 9 on my own many times, and other snippets here and there.)

    But since nobody ever got back to me about the part where Darwin actually begins to demonstrate observational evidence for how species originated, I deducted that it was because there isn't one iota of observational evidence for UCD in the entire book. (Of course I already knew this going in, from many other sources, and from my own observations that the entire idea is absurd in the highest degree, and will therefore never have any unequivocal scientific evidence to validate it.)

    Now if there is unequivocal scientific evidence to validate UCD in that book, here is your chance to make me look foolish by presenting it. Of course you won't, because actual observational evidence is something that simply doesn't exist in Origin.

    So when you ask me if I've read Origin, the honest answer is "Yes... with you." If you ask if I've read every single word of the book, the answer would be "No."

    So right now you can either present the evidence I've asked for from that book, or you can continue trying to divert attention away from the fact that the book contains no evidence of that sort by running around calling me a liar. I know what choice you will make... and I know why.
    I read the book. All of it.
    Here I reproduced a portion of it, waiting for people to discuss the issues raised.
    No one did.
    Every attempt to promote a discussion failed.

    Were you paying attention?

    You gave no hint of it.

    And no, you have not read The Origin of Species.
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •