toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Right Divider]

Why not?

Stuart

That you can ask this question shows that you have no sense whatsoever.

 

[Stuu]

That you can ask this question shows that you have no sense whatsoever.

That doesn't really answer my question does it. After all, I could say the same about your belief that a man walked again after he had been executed, or that he had only one human parent. That makes no sense whatsoever.

So, why can humans not be the result of random mutations being 'chosen'?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

That doesn't really answer my question does it. After all, I could say the same about your belief that a man walked again after he had been executed, or that he had only one human parent. That makes no sense whatsoever.

You are very selection (i.e., biased) in the way that you select evidence that you believe.

So, why can humans not be the result of random mutations being 'chosen'?

I thought that you were interested in science.

Mutations are mistakes and errors. They are highly damaging to the creature that gets hit by them. They are NOT a "creative force". This is scientifically verified.

 

[Stuu]

You are very selection (i.e., biased) in the way that you select evidence that you believe.

You have to admit that resurrection and virgin birth seem absurd. Most christians I have asked about this will openly say they agree. But you would say this is exceptional, right? This wasn't any old human, it was a special one.

Mutations are mistakes and errors. They are highly damaging to the creature that gets hit by them. They are NOT a "creative force". This is scientifically verified.

I agree it seems absurd. Big mutations will stop a new organism even developing. But this is a special mechanism. Many of the mutations are not damaging, and a small number are actually helpful. The mechanism keeps those and discards the damaging ones. That's why I wrote earlier you have to know how the choosing works. It is a perfect parallel to you saying that you have to know how the story of Jesus works.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

...each new discovery that has anything to do with how life works...

While you're at it, define "works".

Works v. 3rd person present (of a machine or system) [how it] functions, especially properly or effectively.

Who asked you to hand out a synonym of your word, "works"??
Define "functions".

 

[Stuu]

Who asked you to hand out a synonym of your word, "works"??
Define "functions".

Functions means 'works'.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

...supported by evidence that contradicts what I thought I knew.

In the first place, why would you have thought you knew something? When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

 

[7djengo7]

Functions means 'works'.

Stuart

So, what you've handed me is that, for you to define "works" is nothing more than for you to say that "works" means "works". Thank you, Professor. Useless, but thanks anyway.

 

[Stuu]

In the first place, why would you have thought you knew something? When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

Wow, first semantics now epistemology.

Tell me what you know about epistemology, and I'll tell you what I know, then we can skip out a whole lot of preliminary and cut to the chase (which in my case will be about the relative respect in which science is held).

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

So, what you've handed me is that, for you to define "works" is nothing more than for you to say that "works" means "works". Thank you, Professor.

You're welcome. Did it matter what 'works' means? Did you think I was trying to equivocate in some way?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

In the first place, why would you have thought you knew something? When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

Wow, first semantics now epistemology.

Tell me what you know about epistemology, and I'll tell you what I know, then we can skip out a whole lot of preliminary and cut to the chase (which in my case will be about the relative respect in which science is held).

Stuart

Question you've not answered:

Why would you have thought you knew something?

Question you've not answered:

When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

Why can't you answer these questions, Professor?

 

[Stuu]

Why can't you answer these questions?

I recommend not confusing ability with motivation.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I recommend not confusing ability with motivation.

Stuart

Where did I say anything about ability? I was talking about your inability to answer the questions I asked you. It is your inability to answer the questions I asked you (alongside your prideful delusion and dishonesty) which was your motivation to write, just now, "I recommend not confusing ability with motivation." You knew you couldn't answer the questions, but your pride urges you to react by writing something, just to try (in futility) to save face for your inability to answer the questions.

Question you still have not answered:

Why would you have thought you knew something?

Question you still have not answered:

When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

Why can't you answer these questions?

 

[Stuu]

Where did I say anything about ability? I was talking about your inability to answer the questions I asked you. It is your inability to answer the questions I asked you (alongside your prideful delusion and dishonesty) which was your motivation to write, just now, "I recommend not confusing ability with motivation."

Call me a pedant if you like, but given that you have now used inability which is the antonym of ability, and originally you used can't, which is synonymous with unable, I would say you very much have been talking about ability.

Why can't you answer these questions?

And you are still considering my ability even now.

I claim to be able to answer these questions in quite a reasonable amount of detail. However, providing evidence for that claim would require me to go to some effort, which would require some motivation. So, it is not ability that I lack, but motivation. My question back to you is, given that we have already spent energy on definitions that are so commonly known and accepted ('works') that seemed such a waste, why would it be helpful to me, or to you, for me to make the effort to answer your questions?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Easy. First, you don't start with gibberish. You start with existing genes.

Nope. Darwinists love ignoring the challenges they face.

The likelihood is a favorable mutation happening is exactly 1.

Nope. As you've learned, random changes are always bad for information. Always. You can hold up degradation as being "useful" in extremely limited and specific cases, but that, again, is to obfuscate and avoid the challenge.

Many creationists openly admit the fact of useful mutations.

Even if you weren't lying, this wouldn't be useful. So your contributions are dishonest and useless.

But that's not the only problem with this guy's blathering.

The probability of you, given the genomes of your great/great/great/great grandparents is so unlikely that it's essentially zero. And yet here you are.

Your comprehension of simple concepts is essentially zero. That means, they're not here.

I assume you consider yourself to be useful, but you'd be wrong.

If this puzzles you, we can talk about the math and the logic involved.

Evolution is not about the origin of life.

We know. God created all created life in six days about 6,000 years ago, as the Bible says.

If you cared about His word, you wouldn't reject it.

If you like, you can do what Darwin did,and just assume that God created the first living things.

Or we could stick with the Author's account. That way:

1. We don't have to deny His account, and
2. We don't have to hide from logic and the evidence.

Or you can believe that the Earth brought forth living organisms.

:darwinsm:

That's (probably unintentionally) hilarious.

Doesn't matter to evolutionary theory.

Actually, it doesn't matter to Darwinists, because they have no respect for the word theory and want everyone to bow to their religion at any cost.

 

[Stripe]

Stuu: It's a fact. Essentially, in science, it's the same thing.

Absolutely not. We must make very careful distinctions between facts and theories. Theories must be falsifiable and facts must be unfalsifiable.

Surely you understand that? :AMR:

I embrace opposing ideas when they are supported by evidence that contradicts what I thought I knew.

That wasn't really at issue. :idunno:

It is falsifiable.

Nope. It's a fact. Something is powering the lights over your head. You could claim it to be energy-free pixies, but that wouldn't be a theory.

You might have thought that the word fact applies to the pieces of evidence, but you can also say that it is a fact that electricity involves moving electrons, even though that is only the theory of electricity.

It's OK to refer to theories as facts if both sides agree to do so. However, that should be done with great care.

That 'only' is a bit redundant, isn't it. Just like change over time.

Not at all. I consider facts and theories to be very different things. When you claim evolution to be a fact, that eliminates the possibility that you might be wrong and insulates you against better ideas.

I was in Pak'n'Save yesterday. People were generally calm. I don't know how close my fellow shoppers were to rioting, but there seemed to be a feeling of philosophical resignation. Or maybe it's just too early ...

Have people been sympathetic at your end of things?

I was at work while the game was on. Had it going on a screen to the side while I punched out pages. The English colleague in my section was off on Saturday, luckily, but I did well to bottle my deep sense of shame as the South Africans and even an American shook their heads at me.

Then I went home and cried myself to sleep.

 

[7djengo7]

Call me a pedant if you like,

I guarantee you I'll not be calling you a pedant.

but given that you have now used inability which is the antonym of ability, and originally you used can't, which is synonymous with unable, I would say you very much have been talking about ability.

No pedant would say that the auxiliary verb, 'can't', is synonymous with the adjective, 'unable'. Try it in a sentence:

• Stuu can't answer the questions 7djengo7 asked him.
• Stuu unable answer the questions 7djengo7 asked him.

Now, since you say I have been talking about ability, then about whose ability would you say I've been talking?

And you are still considering my ability even now.

Whatever ability you may have, I'm not considering it. What I'm considering is your inability to answer the questions I've thrice asked you.

I claim to be able to answer these questions in quite a reasonable amount of detail. However, proving evidence for that claim would require me to go to some effort, which would require some motivation. So, it is not ability that I lack, but motivation. My question back to you is, given that we have already spent energy on definitions that are so commonly known and accepted ('works'), why would it be helpful for me, or to you, to make the effort to answer your questions?

Stuart

What is taking you effort--effort that is amusingly futile--is your attempting to come up with transparent, lame cop-outs to try to save face for your inability to answer the questions I've asked you--like the cop-out you just handed me.

Question you have not answered:

Why would you have thought you knew something?

Question you have not answered:

When you think you know X, why do you think you know X?

Why can't you answer these questions?

I give you a bit of credit though, for, by saying, "why would it be helpful for me, or to you, to make the effort to answer your questions?", you are honestly admitting that you have not answered them.

 

[7djengo7]

Nope. Darwinists love ignoring the challenges they face.

Actually, Stripe, I have to respectfully, slightly disagree with your wording, here. Darwinists hate that they are forced to ignore the challenges they face.

 

[Stripe]

Actually, Stripe, I have to respectfully, slightly disagree with your wording, here. Darwinists hate that they are forced to ignore the challenges they face.

I'm not sure they'd understand the distinction.

 

[Right Divider]

You have to admit that resurrection and virgin birth seem absurd.

Only when you blindly deny the Creator.

Most christians I have asked about this will openly say they agree.

Appeal to popularity.

But you would say this is exceptional, right? This wasn't any old human, it was a special one.

Indeed, many, many people witnessed Him alive after His resurrection.

I agree it seems absurd.

Of course you do. You've rejected the Creator of the universe and therefore must oppose just about anything that He does.

Big mutations will stop a new organism even developing.

The vast majority of mutations are disastrous.

The idea that a few "good mutations" here and there can create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body, is scientifically absurd.... particularly against the vast number of destructive mutations.

But this is a special mechanism.

:juggle:

Many of the mutations are not damaging, and a small number are actually helpful.

Not "helpful" in the sense that they can create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

The mechanism keeps those and discards the damaging ones.

Even if it does "keep the good ones", that's not nearly enough to create highly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

That's why I wrote earlier you have to know how the choosing works. It is a perfect parallel to you saying that you have to know how the story of Jesus works.

Stuart

Your ideas are anti-science.