Here comes another one...

[DutchLiam84]

 

[gilbo12345]

Its as I said before, evolutionists do not want to answer the tough questions... They either give the run around via changing the topic or asking irrelevant questions which never seem to deal with the issue at hand..

Now that I brought the topic back to my question, the one people are attempting to reply to. We yet again see a post which has no relevance to the issue, rather instead attempts to create insult rather than reasonable discussion.... This is the League of "Reason" right? Why can we not have a reasonable discussion?

So I ask yet again, what EXPERIMENTS have been done that validate the assumption that small changes do indeed lead to larger ones, or the EXPERIMENTS that validate the assumption "evolution did it" in regards to being the cause of fossil similarity, DNA similarity etc?


Also what happened to the discussion about Aron creating his own definitions and then forcing his opponents to use them? Does this mean I can create my own definitions and force him to accept them too?

If I were allowed to create my own dictionary and Aron use his how does that do anything to combat equivocation? In reality its actually creating issues since we can both cherry pick our definitions and thus talk past each other... It literally makes no sense.

Additionally one cannot say that a theist doesn't have evidence for their faith in God, there are many examples of evidence, (cosmological argument, ontological argument, et al.... Just not direct scientific evidence), and whilst Aron and other atheists may not accept these as valid it doesn't mean they can simply dismiss them and call them not evidence, and then use that to justify defining faith as not evidence based, since to do so would be to incorporate ones own bias into the definition which undermines the validity of the definition.... (Which is what I have been trying to tell him over and over...)

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

Your first premise attributed existence to only physical existence... Meaning you are claiming that only physical things exist.

No, I am claiming that there is no evidence of non-physical things existing. This does not rule out the possibility of non-physical things existing. It is not an assumption. It's what is known as the null hypothesis and if you understood logic and science as well as you to pretend to you would realize this.

Do you know what the Principle of Parsimony is?

You are assuming this, since in order to make such a claim / premise you would need to demonstrate that non-physical things do not exist

And here you shift the burden of proof.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Are you sure you're a science major?

Until you have some evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis you work from the null hypothesis. That is how science works. I would expect a biology major to understand this.

We know that laws of reality exist and whilst yes they are descriptive they exist none-the-less ergo I remain to conclude that your first premise is incorrect.

These laws you're referring to exhibit physical, quantifiable evidence of their existence. Their effects can be measured therefore we know they exist. They are a result of the physical properties of the Universe and not rules put in place by a Disembodied Cosmic Magician.

Gilbo, you do realize that the same arguments you have attempted to make against my syllogism can be used against your own logical arguments for the existence of God?

Take for instance the KCA. The first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Now, doesn't William Lane Craig expect us to accept this premise based on what we observe (reality) without making any assumptions? Couldn't I just claim that in order for his first premise to be correct he would have to prove that something cannot begin to exist without a cause? Or ask him to prove that an infinite regress isn't possible?

So if you want to claim that the "laws of reality" were put in place by God that's fine. But when you are the one proposing an alternative hypothesis it is your responsibility to prove the null hypothesis wrong. Good luck!

 

[Salsa]

Isn't posting a picture like that a little immature? Come on man, why not try to follow the forum guidelines:

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

 

[Salsa]

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Are you sure you're a science major?

Until you have some evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis you work from the null hypothesis. That is how science works. I would expect a biology major to understand this.

I can't see where Gilbo made the claim that the existance of non-physical things are scientifically demonstrable. Science does not deal with non-physical things, so questioning whether or not he is a biology major is a complete strawman. It is also circular reasoning in exactly the same way that "I believe in the Bible because the Bible tells me so" is.

 

[Inferno]

Isn't posting a picture like that a little immature? Come on man, why not try to follow the forum guidelines:

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

Actually, that's still pretty damn polite. If it we weren't as polite, we'd have to insult him for being such an ignoramus. We don't.

I can't see where the Gilbo made the claim that the existance of non-physical things are scientifically demonstrable. Science does not deal with non-physical things, so questioning whether or not he is a biology major is a complete strawman. It is also circular reasoning in exactly the same way that "I believe in the Bible because the Bible tells me so" is.

Actually, it's not a strawman at all. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's the erection of an easy-to-demolish, false argument that can be shot down instead of attacking the real argument. Is DaveB. doing that? No.
Instead, he's critiquing Gilbo's lack of scientific understanding.

 

[gilbo12345]

Isn't posting a picture like that a little immature? Come on man, why not try to follow the forum guidelines:

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

Thanks I'm not too worried about the immature pictures, objective readers can dismiss them as childish. What I am concerned about are the lack of replies to my questions

Gilbo wrote:

Your first premise attributed existence to only physical existence... Meaning you are claiming that only physical things exist.

No, I am claiming that there is no evidence of non-physical things existing. This does not rule out the possibility of non-physical things existing. It is not an assumption. It's what is known as the null hypothesis and if you understood logic and science as well as you to pretend to you would realize this.

Then why did you say?</COLOR>

1. Everything we know to exist exhibits physical, quantifiable evidence of its existence.

<COLOR color="#BFFF40">



Then if you are not ruling it out then what is your point? That there is no physical evidence of non-physical things... Isn't that the point?

Do you know what the Principle of Parsimony is?

Yes, limit the amount of assumptions one makes...

Creationists "assume"
1- God

Evolutionists assume
1- Evolution did it
2- Small changes lead to larger ones
3- The universe can come from nothing
4- Life can "evolve" despite no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell
5- Intergrated systems can "evolve" despite all the parts being required at once for a fitness benefit in order to drive selection of the system for fixation within the genome.
6- etc etc etc etc

You are assuming this, since in order to make such a claim / premise you would need to demonstrate that non-physical things do not exist

And here you shift the burden of proof.

Nope, just telling you that you are making an unfounded assumption for your premise. If you want your premise to be true then you need to support that assumption.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Are you sure you're a science major?

Sure do, its the hypothesis that nullifies the original hypothesis.

Hypothesis: If X occurs an increase in growth will be observed
Null-hypothesis: No increase will be observed

Until you have some evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis you work from the null hypothesis. That is how science works. I would expect a biology major to understand this.

Really? I thought you'd simply not know... (Argument from ignorance?) Since the null hypothesis is discussing the results of an experiment, not the current condition of unproven ideas...

So because there is no evidence that small changes do indeed lead to larger ones, (since there is no experiment supporting that hypothesis) can we then use the null hypothesis for that?

We know that laws of reality exist and whilst yes they are descriptive they exist none-the-less ergo I remain to conclude that your first premise is incorrect.

These laws you're referring to exhibit physical, quantifiable evidence of their existence. Their effects can be measured therefore we know they exist. They are a result of the physical properties of the Universe and not rules put in place by a Disembodied Cosmic Magician.

And? So the laws exist, yet the laws themselves are not physical, which debunks your premises...

Gilbo, you do realize that the same arguments you have attempted to make against my syllogism can be used against your own logical arguments for the existence of God?

Take for instance the KCA. The first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Now, doesn't William Lane Craig expect us to accept this premise based on what we observe (reality) without making any assumptions? Couldn't I just claim that in order for his first premise to be correct he would have to prove that something cannot begin to exist without a cause? Or ask him to prove that an infinite regress isn't possible?

I believe Craig already demonstrates how an infinite regress is logically impossible, additionally he does demonstrate how things that begin to exist do require a cause I suggest you listen to his material on the matter rather than dismissing it out of hand as many of his detractors do

So if you want to claim that the "laws of reality" were put in place by God that's fine.

I didn't say that... I was saying that the laws of reality exist but are also non-physical... Hence debunking your earlier premise

But when you are the one proposing an alternative hypothesis it is your responsibility to prove the null hypothesis wrong.

Alternative hypothesis to what? I was debunking your premises.... Shifting goal posts much?

Good luck!

Thanks, but I don't think I need it

Isn't posting a picture like that a little immature? Come on man, why not try to follow the forum guidelines:

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

Actually, that's still pretty damn polite. If it we weren't as polite, we'd have to insult him for being such an ignoramus. We don't.

So this is also polite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45MIjgTBUOQ

I can't see where the Gilbo made the claim that the existance of non-physical things are scientifically demonstrable. Science does not deal with non-physical things, so questioning whether or not he is a biology major is a complete strawman. It is also circular reasoning in exactly the same way that "I believe in the Bible because the Bible tells me so" is.

Actually, it's not a strawman at all. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's the erection of an easy-to-demolish, false argument that can be shot down instead of attacking the real argument. Is DaveB. doing that? No.
Instead, he's critiquing Gilbo's lack of scientific understanding.

It was a strawman since I never made that claim, a strawman is what you erect INSTEAD of the person's claim, (and is generally an easy to demolish one).

 

[Salsa]

Actually, that's still pretty damn polite. If it we weren't as polite, we'd have to insult him for being such an ignoramus. We don't.

So you have your own definition of politeness too? Whatever the case, it's childish.

Actually, it's not a strawman at all. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's the erection of an easy-to-demolish, false argument that can be shot down instead of attacking the real argument.
Is DaveB. doing that? No.

Yes he is. He set up the easily-to-demolish, false argument that Gilbo's argument for the existence of non-physical things was based on science. I shot down that argument. OK?

Instead, he's critiquing Gilbo's lack of scientific understanding.

Well there you go then, it's an ad-hominem too.

 

[australopithecus]

It's not an ad hom if his lack of understanding of the subject is pertinent. It's a statement of fact that his understanding of the subject is lacking.

 

[Frenger]

Creationists "assume"
1- God

They also assume that God is infinite, timeless, spaceless and has the capabilites and desire to create a physical Universe. They then assume that a god who created the Universe would fill the expanse with billions of galaxies and stars, (most of which have died), in order to plant life on an insignificant spec of dust in a pointless part of the Universe. Only one of the millions of species would gain self awareness and the abilities to question their origins. They would then fight over the cause of their existance due to the extraordinary amounts of evidence god planted against the "truth" such as fossils, retroviruses and Ray Comfort.

All this, so he can tell us not to jack off or we'll go to hell.

Seems legit.

Evolutionists assume
1- Evolution did it

In terms of biological diversity, yes.

2- Small changes lead to larger ones

We see small changes in the lab, and we see huge changes in the fossil record. Not to mention the variation of dogs we've able to breed in just 10,000 years. I'd say, with all that, plus the fact that no mechanism has been found which could possibly stop the gradual accumulation, it's a fair assumption.

3- The universe can come from nothing

This is cosmology, but it's reassuring to know that you have no clue in that branch of science either. No where does anyone say "the Universe came from nothing". What they do say is we can trace the Universe back to what seems like a single point. Before that however, we don't know.

4- Life can "evolve" despite no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell

Evolution explains the diversity of life from the first self replicating molecule, what you're talking about is abiogenesis. While this is still in it's early stages, we've managed to create organic molecules from inorganic matter. I'd say again, it's a safe assumption.

5- Intergrated systems can "evolve" despite all the parts being required at once for a fitness benefit in order to drive selection of the system for fixation within the genome.

You're now talking about irreducible complexity, which was debunked. Unless you have something better than bacteria flagellum of course?

6- etc etc etc etc

This is correct, I do assume that.

 

[Visaki]

Well there you go then, it's an ad-hominem too.

No, not exactly.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Saying that Gilbo's arguments demostrates such lack of understanding of the scientific method that it's doubtfull that he's a biology major could, maybe, be considered an ad hominem if it was the only counter argument. But it's not. It's actually not even used as an argument, but noted as an observation.

What's next? Claiming that it's a red herring?

 

[australopithecus]

Isn't posting a picture like that a little immature? Come on man, why not try to follow the forum guidelines:

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

Firstly, welcome to the forum. Secondly, perhaps you should have read all the of forum guidelines, specifically:

You aren't a moderator, and acting like one isn't cool.

 

[gilbo12345]

Creationists "assume"
1- God

They also assume that God is infinite, timeless, spaceless and has the capabilites and desire to create a physical Universe. They then assume that a god who created the Universe would fill the expanse with billions of galaxies and stars, (most of which have died), in order to plant life on an insignificant spec of dust in a pointless part of the Universe. Only one of the millions of species would gain self awareness and the abilities to question their origins. They would then fight over the cause of their existance due to the extraordinary amounts of evidence god planted against the "truth" such as fossils, retroviruses and Ray Comfort.

All this, so he can tell us not to jack off or we'll go to hell.

Seems legit.

Evolutionists assume
1- Evolution did it

In terms of biological diversity, yes.

FINALLY YES!! Someone admits they are making this assumption!! Thank you for being the first honest evolutionist to actually answer my original question

2- Small changes lead to larger ones

We see small changes in the lab, and we see huge changes in the fossil record. Not to mention the variation of dogs we've able to breed in just 10,000 years. I'd say, with all that, plus the fact that no mechanism has been found which could possibly stop the gradual accumulation, it's a fair assumption.

AGAIN YES! Thanks for admitting that this is also assumed (I wasn't questioning whether its a fair assumption or not, but may do so later)

3- The universe can come from nothing

This is cosmology, but it's reassuring to know that you have no clue in that branch of science either. No where does anyone say "the Universe came from nothing". What they do say is we can trace the Universe back to what seems like a single point. Before that however, we don't know.

So Lawrence Krauss doesn't ring a bell?

4- Life can "evolve" despite no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell

Evolution explains the diversity of life from the first self replicating molecule, what you're talking about is abiogenesis. While this is still in it's early stages, we've managed to create organic molecules from inorganic matter. I'd say again, it's a safe assumption.

Thanks for admitting this assumption

5- Intergrated systems can "evolve" despite all the parts being required at once for a fitness benefit in order to drive selection of the system for fixation within the genome.

You're now talking about irreducible complexity, which was debunked. Unless you have something better than bacteria flagellum of course?

Try cellular respiration That one is my favourite though I do like to use the digestive system too. Could also use the immune system but I'm not that well versed in it.

6- etc etc etc etc

This is correct, I do assume that.

See people this is what I call progress When someone actually responds to my posts.

So do you guys agree with Frenger's admission that

"evolution did it" is assumed by evolutionists
"small changes to large changes" is assumed by evolutionists

It's not an ad hom if his lack of understanding of the subject is pertinent. It's a statement of fact that his understanding of the subject is lacking.

How can it be declared as fact when he's done no such thing... As I told you many times, asserting something is not demonstrating it. In fact I demonstrated Inferno's lack of understanding with my reply...


Inferno: Until you have some evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis you work from the null hypothesis. That is how science works. I would expect a biology major to understand this.

Me: Really? I thought you'd simply not know... (Argument from ignorance?) Since the null hypothesis is discussing the results of an experiment, not the current condition of unproven ideas...

So because there is no evidence that small changes do indeed lead to larger ones, (since there is no experiment supporting that hypothesis) can we then use the null hypothesis for that?

Additionally this was totally off-topic since we were discussing the invalidity of Inferno's premises... Premises are not hypothesises...

 

[Salsa]

Gilbo's understanding of the scientific method was attacked in conjunction with something that by definition cannot be proven using the scientific method, so who is it that doen't understand the scientific method?

 

[Salsa]

Isn't posting a picture like that a little immature? Come on man, why not try to follow the forum guidelines:

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

Firstly, welcome to the forum. Secondly, perhaps you should have read all the of forum guidelines, specifically:

You aren't a moderator, and acting like one isn't cool.

I merely gave Dutch a reminder, in case he forgot. People do forget. It was fresh in my mind because I just signed up and when I read that part of the guidelines it made me feel glad because no one benefits from reading a discussion that just turns silly.

 

[Frenger]

FINALLY YES!! Someone admits they are making this assumption!! Thank you for being the first honest evolutionist to actually answer my original question

I see deriving tone isn't in your repertoire of talents. Science doesn't work in absolute truths, instead we explain the data with the best possible model. These models are continually tested and revised as more data comes in.

This is what I mean. My saracastic tone was responding your absurd points regard what "evolutionists" believe. Such as the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with biology at all. Something you'd know as a biology major.

AGAIN YES! Thanks for admitting that this is also assumed (I wasn't questioning whether its a fair assumption or not, but may do so later)

Again, tone my dear boy. The evidence for this is so overwhelming and it's absurd, silly, batshit to believe or think otherwise.

So Lawrence Krauss doesn't ring a bell?

It does, and what he suggests is that "nothing" isn't possible. What physicists used to think of as empty space actually contains dark energy and in a vaccuum, due to quantum fluctuations, virtual particles can be created. But I'm sure this all rings a massive bell in your memory.

Thanks for admitting this assumption

Assumptions backed up with tests and evidence. How is the lab project to prove god coming along my little soldier?

Try cellular respiration That one is my favourite though I do like to use the digestive system too. Could also use the immune system but I'm not that well versed in it.

I'll look into these a little later babe, I just thought I'd quickly put you right concerning the tone of my reply.

See people this is what I call progress When someone actually responds to my posts.

And you then misunderstand sarcasm.

So do you guys agree with Frenger's admission that

"evolution did it" is assumed by evolutionists
"small changes to large changes" is assumed by evolutionists

I'm pretty sure most would agree that these points are (although "evolution did it" really? I can't believe an adult wrote this) backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence and data. THAT, was my point.

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

Then if you are not ruling it out then what is your point? That there is no physical evidence of non-physical things... Isn't that the point?

The point is that based on what we observe about reality it is not very likely that God exists.

1- Evolution did it

Yes. It's called inductive reasoning and if you had any scientific training whatsoever you would understand this. When ALL of the evidence points towards a particular conclusion most moderately intelligent people tend to accept this conclusion as the most probable explanation of observed phenomena.

2- Small changes lead to larger ones

All of the evidence suggests this to be true.

3- The universe can come from nothing

You are well aware that this is a straw man.

4- Life can "evolve" despite no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell

Argument from incredulity. We may not know how abiogenesis could have occured but we do have evidence to show that it is possible. On the contrary, we have no evidence that you can create life from dirt, ribs or the breath of an invisible being.

5- Intergrated systems can "evolve" despite all the parts being required at once for a fitness benefit in order to drive selection of the system for fixation within the genome.

It has been demonstrated how complex systems can evolve. If you have an "irreducibly complex" system in mind why don't you propose it here so it can be discussed?

 

[Salsa]

The point is that based on what we observe about reality it is not very likely that God exists.

That's a bit circular Dave since you are implying that "reality" = that which is physical.

 

[ldmitruk]

Just jumping in after lurking for some time. I thought this article posted in Nature had a bit of bearing on the evolution of fish and how small changes lead to large changes.

My main point, (which you refuse to quote and discuss) is how the assumption that small changes leads to large-scale structural change is not based on experimentation and is simply assumed on faith. Where are the experiments? I refuse to get caught up in games of semantics.

Cheers!

 

[Dave B.]

Salsa wrote:

Gilbo's understanding of the scientific method was attacked in conjunction with something that by definition cannot be proven using the scientific method, so who is it that doen't understand the scientific method?

My reply was in response to Gilbo's claim that:

Gilbo wrote:

demonstrating something is logically incoherent is evidence against that thing

He asked for evidence and I provided him with that evidence. I even gave him the opportunity to provide evidence for God but he since he has no evidence.... well you get the point.