|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2007 : 13:30:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
In reguards to the Dr. Mab post, yes it is an inherited position. If you create your own universe, complete with life and everything, then you get to create the laws that govern that universe as well. |
And if you don't, your earlier question is meaningless.| Can the created trump, or even challange, the creator? Obviously not. |
Except that we've got real-world examples of just that happening all the time. Once again, Bill, you require an exception to the general rule in order to squeeze God in. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 15:01:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
Now then, because I think that the micro/macro lables on evolution are a fat, steaming pile of crap, and it's all just plain, old evolution, I'd like to ask: How many, in your opinion, Bill, 'micros' would it take to make a "macro?'
Y'know, I've asked that question many times and have yet to get a coherent answer. Suprise me, Bill.
|
How about you surprise me first and fill me in on your requirements for events throughout history to be reported on as actual. What makes you think, or convinces you, that people and events in history actually happened?
|
Like water off a duck's back.
Why didn't you answer filthy's question? In light of many of your posts, it seemed like a fair one. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 15:26:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
My point is that we, who think the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, think the Laws of Nature is "the designer". |
Who is the Law Maker that passed the Laws of Nature? |
Does it matter? Not for the scientist. Is it possible to scientifically find out who was the Law Maker? No, given our current understanding of the Laws of Nature, we will never be able to find out. This is a question of the Anthropic Principle.
What do I think? Maybe there is a Law Maker, maybe there isn't. We don't have any scientific evidence that points to there being one, at least no evidence left after the Big Bang. So if I assume that there was a Law Maker that created the Laws of Nature, I would be a Deist, probably not very different from Hal Bidlack I suppose. Listen to Hal Bidlack on Skepticality.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2007 : 15:40:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
Now then, because I think that the micro/macro lables on evolution are a fat, steaming pile of crap, and it's all just plain, old evolution, I'd like to ask: How many, in your opinion, Bill, 'micros' would it take to make a "macro?'
Y'know, I've asked that question many times and have yet to get a coherent answer. Suprise me, Bill.
|
How about you surprise me first and fill me in on your requirements for events throughout history to be reported on as actual. What makes you think, or convinces you, that people and events in history actually happened?
|
Red Herring, Bill; sorry, but I ain't chasin' it!
In your opinion, how many micros might it take to make a macro?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 16:58:26 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote;| How about you surprise me first and fill me in on your requirements for events throughout history to be reported on as actual. What makes you think, or convinces you, that people and events in history actually happened? |
Always a sucker for the scent of herring, I'll sniff a little ways down this trail.
Historians (at least the good ones) rely on what they call "primary sources." Rather than parroting other peoples' histories or earlier compilations of rumor and legend, they look for letters written by contemporaries, journals by witnesses, public records of the time, and sometimes archaeological evidence. In other words, they look for independent evidence from the time in question. The kind of primary source evidence that's so lacking with some legends.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/31/2007 17:02:32 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2007 : 03:53:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Always a sucker for the scent of herring, I'll sniff a little ways down this trail.
|
Bad boy! Don't let him get away with such trickery.
But I'd alter filthy's question a little bit, as it is too specific for my tastes. Can a series of micro evolutionary events accumulate over time in the same family tree to what you would call a macro evolutionary event? If not, why not?
|
Nah. All I'm asking for is an opinion. Bill doesn't have to give reference or anything of the sort. I just want to know what he thinks as to the ratio of micro evolving into macro. If he chooses to elaborate as to why he thinks thus & such, I'd be interested in that as well, but it's not necessary. I might ask about it later, but for now, casual numbers will suffice.
Something else I'd like to know, Bill, is your definitions of 'micro' and 'macro' as they relate to the theroy of evolution. If we have those, perhaps we'll be able to clear up some of those irritating confusions that so often arise from misunderstandings.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 04:50:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Again, and maybe I am not your typical Christian, but I have found it much more efficient at getting to the bottom of the facts by learning and teaching myself through my own research and experiences then counting on any pastor, including my home church pastor, to be my only teacher and sole source of information. Again, I will test any information given to me, even if the source is my pastor, and then I will hold onto what is true. |
Given the many posts you made here at SFN which contains gross caricatures and misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution, I have to say that your quest to teach yourself about the Theory of Evolution has failed miserably. The ideas you have posted so much resembles the garbage peddled by Answers in Genesis, I wonder if not most of the information comes from there. Have you really considered what bias your source might have?
Also, since you have been doing your study by yourself, it means that you haven't had anyone who can put the information you've gathered in its proper perspective and context. This also affects your understanding of the subject, as any conlcusion you draw will invariably be heavily coloured by your own bias.
Again, what it boils down to is, can your really rely on Christians to properly present the ToE?
Can you trust yourself to correctly interpret the conclusions that the ToE offer?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 05:24:30 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
| Red Herring Bill; sorry, but I ain't chasin' it! |
Oh RH my eye. I just spent the last 5-10 posts on why I believe JC to be the creator of our glorious creation and then presented a solid case for the historicity of the resurrection of JC as the capstone to his claim of divinity. Of which you address none only to say that you dismiss the divinity of JC and AtG and then you head off on some tangent about horseshoe crabs rather then address the issue of you rejecting the resurrection without even addressing the historical evidence I presented for you. Now I repeat, if you reject the historicity of the resurrection of JC then would you please explain to me on what basis you do except any claimed fact from ancient history?
| In your opinion, how many micros might it take to make a macro? |
Zero.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 05:32:32 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
Obviously not to some.
And that is my problem. Somehow this imaginary separation line between cosmology/evolution has established itself in the minds of these scientists. bio evolution 101 can not be mingled with cosmology 101, these are two separate topics, they say. They create this facade so that they may protect their delicate prize while attempting to save face:
Darwinian Evolutionist: Once up on a time back in the primordial haze of ancient earth there may have existed a warm little pond. And in this pond all of the diversity of life that we see before us may have originated here...
Evolution Skeptic: Where did this warm little pond come from? What about the life inside the pond that we are told is in there?
Darwinian Evolutionist: My silly little delusional creationist friend that is a cosmology question, not a bio evolution question.
Evolution Skeptic: O.K. then what does cosmology say about the origin of this warm little pond and the life inside it?
Darwinian Evolutionist: Well, not much.
Is it possible to scientifically find out who was the Law Maker? No, given our current understanding of the Laws of Nature, we will never be able to find out. This is a question of the Anthropic Principle. |
In light of the case that I put forth on what basis do you reject the resurrection of Christ? I say that you can come to a scientific understudying of who the creator is.
| What do I think? Maybe there is a Law Maker, maybe there isn't. We don't have any scientific evidence that points to there being one, |
Well we do have the creation itself. I would say that would be evidence for a creator and therefore a Law Maker. Surly you do not believe that the Earth was just here, do you?
| at least no evidence left after the Big Bang. |
Yes, can you tell me more about this BB as well when you give me your summarized version of bio evolution? And please try and tie the two togather.
| So if I assume that there was a Law Maker that created the Laws of Nature, |
So are you assuming there is one?
Just so I understand right, you believe that the creator, who ever he/she may be, set the creation in motion and then has been absent from the daily goings on ever since?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 08/01/2007 05:50:43 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 05:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Always a sucker for the scent of herring, I'll sniff a little ways down this trail.
|
Bad boy! Don't let him get away with such trickery.
But I'd alter filthy's question a little bit, as it is too specific for my tastes. Can a series of micro evolutionary events accumulate over time in the same family tree to what you would call a macro evolutionary event? If not, why not?
|
Here I will make this simple for you. I reject the notion that all life on earth can be traced back to one warm little pond. I believe cows were created as cows and man was fully created as man. If you want to call a beetle becoming tolerant of pesticides as micro or macro evolution I do care as they are still beetles. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 05:52:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Bill wrote;| How about you surprise me first and fill me in on your requirements for events throughout history to be reported on as actual. What makes you think, or convinces you, that people and events in history actually happened? |
Always a sucker for the scent of herring, I'll sniff a little ways down this trail.
Historians (at least the good ones) rely on what they call "primary sources." Rather than parroting other peoples' histories or earlier compilations of rumor and legend, they look for letters written by contemporaries, journals by witnesses, public records of the time, and sometimes archaeological evidence. In other words, they look for independent evidence from the time in question. The kind of primary source evidence that's so lacking with some legends.
|
And then so you reject the resurrection of Jesus Christ because why?????? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 05:56:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
Again, and maybe I am not your typical Christian, but I have found it much more efficient at getting to the bottom of the facts by learning and teaching myself through my own research and experiences then counting on any pastor, including my home church pastor, to be my only teacher and sole source of information. Again, I will test any information given to me, even if the source is my pastor, and then I will hold onto what is true. |
Given the many posts you made here at SFN which contains gross caricatures and misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution, I have to say that your quest to teach yourself about the Theory of Evolution has failed miserably. The ideas you have posted so much resembles the garbage peddled by Answers in Genesis, I wonder if not most of the information comes from there. Have you really considered what bias your source might have?
Also, since you have been doing your study by yourself, it means that you haven't had anyone who can put the information you've gathered in its proper perspective and context. This also affects your understanding of the subject, as any conlcusion you draw will invariably be heavily coloured by your own bias.
Again, what it boils down to is, can your really rely on Christians to properly present the ToE?
Can you trust yourself to correctly interpret the conclusions that the ToE offer?
|
Well here is your golden opportunity to cure me of my evil ways and show me the error of my ways. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 06:11:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Bad boy! Don't let him get away with such trickery.
But I'd alter filthy's question a little bit, as it is too specific for my tastes. Can a series of micro evolutionary events accumulate over time in the same family tree to what you would call a macro evolutionary event? If not, why not? |
Here I will make this simple for you. I reject the notion that all life on earth can be traced back to one warm little pond. I believe cows were created as cows and man was fully created as man. If you want to call a beetle becoming tolerant of pesticides as micro or macro evolution I do care as they are still beetles. |
Wow. Good job at completely not answering the question. Want to give it another shot?
|
| Wow. Good job at completely not answering the question. |
How so?
| Want to give it another shot? |
No.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com part 2
