The Scientific Method (Page 12) zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Darwin wasn't aware of genes, at the time, he didn't know what the mechanics of it was, just that something was there. So in a sense both are right" Yeah--that thing known as heredity. Darwin's main contribution was to pretend evolution is real (when it isn't) and imagine unknown mechanism could mysteriously cause transformations between different kinds of creatures over zillions of yrs--but, disclaimer alert--he did have the intelligence to realise if there weren't zillions of transitional fossils then his theory was worthless. Never fear, when atheists take up your mantle, they will defend to the grave that unrelated fossils ARE the ancestors of modern creatures (think extinct chimps that unscientifically morph into humans & hippo-like creatures that unscientifically became whales) Forget the fact that there is no way to prove such moronic claims--just promote your misleading creative drawings & illogical stories for people as dumb as you to believe in & then later agree it is FACT!  @ the idiocy of such evolution chumps!(Edited by zeffur)  kittybobo34: Zeff,, Yep, even without having any idea how traits are passed on, he came up with the theory. Pretty awsome. Now that we do know about genetics, we can understand how new traits are presented Even though many transitionals have been found, the creationists just claim its some other species. If one is found that is so close its relationship can't be denied then the creationist says its just a mutant,, so in effect, there is no proof that would satisfy them. zeffur: In reality--there IS no real evidence for evolution--it's all just supposition & belief--no compelling/convincing evidence or proof & cogent explanation has ever been offered--just ridiculous unsubstantiated claims like "Ancestors of mankind crawled out the oceans & 'evolved' into mankind over millions of years." kittybobo34: Saw a show on the Amazon river otters, 6' long, broad flat tails. Looks like they are on the same evolutionary trajectory as the early whales. kittybobo34: Just making an observation,, I do not expect him to say anything other than to deny evolution again, as his norm.  AchillesSinatra: Er, you got me all wrong. What I'm saying is, you might as well sing to a cow than try to persuade a brainwashed lost cause. (no names mentioned) kittybobo34: Totally agree, however,,, I don't see this so much as a debate to convince the other side, but as a trading of information and view points. zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Saw a show on the Amazon river otters, 6' long, broad flat tails. Looks like they are on the same evolutionary trajectory as the early whales." Why not use the platypus as your pretend original common ancestor--surely with so many features that defy classification you can imagine all sorts of pretend things about the past & about the future of evolution--that is after all the ONLY real thing (i.e. ...imagine...) evolutioners do, right? kittybobo34: Zeff,,, mostly because of the shape of the original Cetaceans (per fossils found) was otter like in appearance. They were in a similar environment, a sequestered sea, shallow and feed by numerous rivers. The Amazon is 15 miles wide at some points, and also feed by 1000 tributaries, and mixed with ocean water. (Edited by kittybobo34) AchillesSinatra: Got any evidence on the evolution of talking donkeys? Was there a time when they were speechless? zeffur: "Intelligent design theory can be logically defended , while scripture not so much. It is wise in a debate to focus on the weakest elements of your opponents argument , if your intention is to persuade your audience . Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on Youtube. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is." -- William Springer (Edited by zeffur) AchillesSinatra: This thread is not about Intelligent Design or talking donkeys. Stay on topic or fuck off. AchillesSinatra: Last warning, imbecile. Get on topic or be zapped. I've had just about enough of brainwashed cretins pushing their agenda and sticking their providential feet in my door. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
