• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

I'm surprised no one has tried to properly address my main points of empirical productivity and practical applications, yet.

For ALL of the huffing and puffing of Evolution's detractors, what do have they to show for it?

Honestly, I would like to know!!
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
I'm surprised no one has tried to properly address my main points of empirical productivity and practical applications, yet.

For ALL of the huffing and puffing of Evolution's detractors, what have they to show for it?

Honestly, I would like to know!!
Click to expand...

When you take a philosophically pragmatic stance in young earth creationism vs evolution arguments you will always win.
 
Sideroxylon said:
When you take a philosophically pragmatic stance in young earth creationism vs evolution arguments you will always win.
Click to expand...

Even if we ignore the "practical applications" part, the whole point of doing science is to gain more empirical knowledge about something.

What new empirical knowledge can be gained from insights into Creationism or Intelligence Design research?

What hard-won facts has any anti-evolution stance gained us, that we would never have fathomed, otherwise?!
 
Wowbagger said:
Even if we ignore the "practical applications" part, the whole point of doing science is to gain more empirical knowledge about something.

What new empirical knowledge can be gained from insights into Creationism or Intelligence Design research?

What hard-won facts has any anti-evolution stance gained us, that we would never have fathomed, otherwise?!
Click to expand...

I have empirically determined my creationism source material (the Bible) is very good for keeping my favorite rough stone bookend 1" away from other books and keeping the covers from getting scuffed. Beyond that it makes a nice soporific. If I had a nail to pull it would probably be an adequate fulcrum.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Another basic misunderstanding that creationists have of the TOE is that they seem to see it as a normative process; and, by that misunderstanding, in competition with god, who is "normative" personified (actually, I guess, "deified"). It's not; evolution is a process that has outcomes only, no goals- man is no more an aim of evolution than a hurricane is an aim of weather processes. And it's this misunderstanding that leads to the natter about "losing genes," as opposed to "gaining genes," proving that evolution can't work; that's only so on the assumption that evolution is only possible in the one normative direction of "gaining." Actual, non-normative change is only change, no matter how it comes about it.
Click to expand...

It took me a while to finalize the verbiage in a way that your average Creationist should be able to understand it, but whenever "information" is raised (and it's "gain" or "loss"), I ask what I think is a pretty simple question:

Can you please provide a quantifiable metric by which we might measure genetic "information" and thus determine if a "gain" or "loss" has occurred?​

There has yet to be a satisfactory response.
 
justintime said:
Foophil, here is a link to a site that also argues against evolution being a science. It goes beyond your friends 10 point creationists views by producing actual Evolution frauds, fossil gaps and list of unconvinced scientists. Maybe your friend is not aware of this site.

http://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/
Click to expand...

Bahahahah! Every one of those has been addressed ad nauseum on the Internet.

Haeckel's Embryo drawings:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf

Piltdown is much more complex than any Creationist ever presents ( though I will give this author the credit of actually mentioning the British chauvinism angle). There were a number of contributing factors.
- In 1912 there were two hominan finds, Neanderthal and Java. Others were being made and one of the reasons Piltdown was finally reevaluated was the legitimate finds looked nothing like it.
- The question of bipedalism first or big brain first was still be answered, and while Dart's discovery of Taung Child in 1924 should have ended the discussion, it persisted.
- As the author notes
.At the time that the discovery of Piltdown Man was announced, it was believed that the remains of the Neanderthals that had been found in Germany were ape-men and it was believed that the cave paintings that had been found in France had been painted by ape-men. The British evolutionists, however, had other ideas. They believed that apes had evolved into humans in the UK—preferably in England. Piltdown Man was ‘proof’ that the first ape-man lived in the garden of England!​
Of course the most-advanced primitive man should be English. He couldn't possibly be French or, heaven forbid, German.

- Nebraska Man was not a pigs tooth, but a peccary molar and porcine molars do look a lot like human molars. The blog author ironically spreads a number of lies in this entry:
To find a “Missing link” in the USA is a big thing for a start as most humanoids were thought to be from Africa. Another example of “we will take any proof of evolution”.​
That it was found in North America was the primary reason many paleontologists rejected the find out of hand.
This Nebraska man tooth was the reason that evolution started to be taught in schools. Before Nebraska man evolution had a hard time getting taught in schools but such was the fanfare of Nebraska man that evolution became the excepted norm.​
Absolute lie.
The pig it belonged too is a species of pig called “prosthennops serus”, this pig was found still alive in Paraguay in 1972.​
Absolute lie. Prosthennops serus was a peccary and is extinct.

Java Man was an H. erectus. Just look at how the Wadjak skill cap matches up with Turkana Boy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html

You can summarize the Neanderthal section with this quote:
According to the World Net Daily Web site,​

I love the way he claims that "evolutionists are clueless" in the "Lucy" section... and then goes on to post a photo of Selam's skull, not Lucy.

"Orce Man" is pretty ironic too because in 1984, one of the greatest hominan finds was discovered - Turkana Boy.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
It took me a while to finalize the verbiage in a way that your average Creationist should be able to understand it, but whenever "information" is raised (and it's "gain" or "loss"), I ask what I think is a pretty simple question:

Can you please provide a quantifiable metric by which we might measure genetic "information" and thus determine if a "gain" or "loss" has occurred?​

There has yet to be a satisfactory response.
Click to expand...

A sad fact for all their name dropping of Claude Shannon.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
It took me a while to finalize the verbiage in a way that your average Creationist should be able to understand it, but whenever "information" is raised (and it's "gain" or "loss"), I ask what I think is a pretty simple question:

Can you please provide a quantifiable metric by which we might measure genetic "information" and thus determine if a "gain" or "loss" has occurred?​

There has yet to be a satisfactory response.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty well-phrased question; I may use that, even though I have my doubts as to whether they really understand the word "metric," much less the need for it that they themselves have unnecessarily introduced. The usual answer would be something like "it's obvious!" which just tells me that they don't know the difference between a subjective quality and an objectively-measurable quantity.
 
ThunderChunky said:
Dean Kenyon is not a world leading evolutionary biologist. Why are you constantly lying?
Click to expand...

It is mentioned in the video. Dean H Keyon is a biologist and taught evolution.

"After a hearing, Kenyon "won the right to teach his iconoclastic view of the evolution of life."[16][17] Kenyon claimed objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science." wiki
 
UnrepentantSinner all the missing links have been rejected with equal vigor.

Have we found the missing link?

How could so many articles reporting finding the "missing link" in prominent newspapers and magazines be wrong? That is an interesting question that begs for an answer. It turns out that all of the assertions that missing links have been found have been identified as false or discredited. Let's examine the most common ones. - See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm#sthash.wXIwTv7t.dpuf
Click to expand...

Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man and Lucy (Australopithecus was an tree swing ape) have all been rejected as possible missing links candidates.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm

Shakeups Continue among Human Evolutionary Candidates
http://www.icr.org/article/5473/372/
 
justintime said:
UnrepentantSinner all the missing links have been rejected with equal vigor.

Have we found the missing link?



Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man and Lucy (Australopithecus was an tree swing ape) have all been rejected as possible missing links candidates.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm

Shakeups Continue among Human Evolutionary Candidates
http://www.icr.org/article/5473/372/
Click to expand...

Missing link is a silly term. Transitional fossils are ubiquitous:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
 
Gawdzilla said:
I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Actually... at last check, he's not completely wrong on that point, though he seems to be on so many others. The "Eve" in question was part of a population of her species, though, and it's more a case of everyone being able to trace their lineage back to her, whereas not everyone is able to trace their lineage back to the rest of the population. There was supposedly an "Adam," too, estimated to have lived during a completely separate period of time.
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
Even if we ignore the "practical applications" part, the whole point of doing science is to gain more empirical knowledge about something.

What new empirical knowledge can be gained from insights into Creationism or Intelligence Design research?

What hard-won facts has any anti-evolution stance gained us, that we would never have fathomed, otherwise?!
Click to expand...

Well, DUH: because Jeebas!
</creationmythicizerist>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom