Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 273
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    David,

    Your question exemplifies the fundamental creationist error. Creationism is based on GROSS IGNORANCE of science, plain and simple. They claim to understand the theory of evolution and to reject it because it is flawed on evidential grounds. But if they don't have a clue about anything the theory actually states they will be revealed to be fools of the first order. This is why I started the "What's the best evidence for ..." series. It reveals who is really seeking truth and who is just parroting talking points about things of which they are totally ignorant.

    Did you read my OP? Here it is again:
    This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

    This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
    Do you now understand my logic?

    All the best,

    Richard


    It's like some hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 but who confidently declares that calculus is bullshit. Why do I have to explain this?


    I am sorry Richard, I do not understand your logic. By the way you are responding to mine and others post's, I wonder if you are smoking some hallucinatory weed.

    From my reading about Evolution I have no best evidence for to give. I cannot understand why you think creationists can give you the best evidence for it.. You have phrased the title wrong in my opinion. If I wantd to contribute, I cannot. I will argue against Evolution, but I will not put up evidence for it, or from what I know of it, what I would consider to be the best evidence. It is Evolutionists who must say what is their best evidence, just as Christians might say the resurrection of Jesus is best evidence and give reasons why. This is what Evolutionists should be doing. When they do, I might be able to make comment on what is put forward as evidence.

    If you do not see the point I am making, there is no point replying and repeating yourself.

    Regards
    David

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I made no suggestion about God at all. There may or may not be a god. That doesn't have anything to do with scientific questions about observable reality. You don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator, do you?.
    Not sure what to make of the double negative in your question. Let me give it a shot, "I don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator". Perhaps I could agree with your position on this.

    Your friend

    John
    Last edited by jce; 06-28-2012 at 05:41 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am sorry Richard, I do not understand your logic. By the way you are responding to mine and others post's, I wonder if you are smoking some hallucinatory weed.

    From my reading about Evolution I have no best evidence for to give. I cannot understand why you think creationists can give you the best evidence for it.. You have phrased the title wrong in my opinion. If I wantd to contribute, I cannot. I will argue against Evolution, but I will not put up evidence for it, or from what I know of it, what I would consider to be the best evidence. It is Evolutionists who must say what is their best evidence, just as Christians might say the resurrection of Jesus is best evidence and give reasons why. This is what Evolutionists should be doing. When they do, I might be able to make comment on what is put forward as evidence.

    If you do not see the point I am making, there is no point replying and repeating yourself.

    Regards
    David
    David,

    I have no idea how it is possible that you failed to understand the point of this thread. I am not a Christian, but I can easily state the best evidence for Christianity. This is exactly what I did when I started the "What's the best evidence for Christianity" thread. This proves that I am open-minded and it supports my assertion that I have rejected Christianity because it fails on evidential grounds.

    Can you say the same thing about your stance on evolution? Absolutely not. If you are incapable of stating the evidence supporting evolution, then you can't present any legitimate arguments against it because you are totally ignorant, by your own admission, of the science.

    How is it possible that you don't understand these simple facts? Don't you understand that you must be able to articulate the view you reject? If not, then how do you even know what you are rejecting?

    This thread is a test to reveal who are blind dogmatists and who are true Truth Seekers.

    I think it would be great if you read the opening post again with an open mind. I know you have sufficient intelligence to understand the point I am making. The problem is that you are so deeply embedded into your dogmatism that you can't even consider the possibility that any other point of view might be right. I'm offering you a path to freedom from the blind dogmatism that has trapped your soul. Please try David. The fact that you cannot even state any evidence for evolution proves that your soul is currently in bondage that blinds your mind.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.

    This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.

    So get to it! What is the best evidence for evolution? And what are the reasons you reject that evidence?
    I would like to suggest that the Grand Canyon presents the best evidence for change over time, so I will submit the Grand Canyon as the best evidence for evolution. I will decline your invitation to submit reasons to reject my submission.

    Your competitor in the submission of evidence,

    John

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Not sure what to make of the double negative in your question. Let me give it a shot, "I don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator". Perhaps I could agree with your position on this.

    Your friend

    John
    Hey there John,

    You had asked: "By evolution vs creation are you suggesting that there is no creator for creation?"

    My answer was meant to be "No. There is no connection between evolution and the concept of a creator."

    Here's how you deal with double negatives:

    Consider a proposition P. If I say "You don't think P?" you only need to say ask "What is P?". P is the proposition that "electromagnetism suggests there is no creator." Do you agree with P? Of course not. There is no connection between the science of electromagentism and the idea of a creator.

    Therefore, you DON'T THINK P.

    Now just change "electromagentism" to "evolution." Do you agree that "evolution suggests there is no creator"? I hope not, since that would be a big mistake. The science of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there is a creator. Therefore, you DON'T THINK P.

    That was the answer I was trying to communicate. I guess I could have done it in a clearer fashion.

    But now I would really like to know if you have any opinion about evolution at all. If not, then you don't need to answer my opening post. But if you reject evolution then you must be able to state what the theory is and why scientists think it is valid. Otherwise, you will be exposed as an ignorant dogamatist. And that's good! Because understanding that you are believing something for no good reason other than ignorant dogmatism is the first step to FREEDOM! And that's what I'm hoping you will find.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #16
    Luke1978abc Guest

    What's the best evidence for evolution?

    Science shows the Universe to be about 13 billion years old and the earth 4 to 5 billion. Now a close look at the Big bang suggests that you actually need a concious observer as the sub-atomic particle will only be a wave unless observed. So all these sub-atomic particles in the hadron Collider that they like to smash together could not exist without an observer. Not so much that you have to physically observe but the act of measurement. On that point as the delayed choice quantum erasure shows us if you erase the which path information in the double slit experiment you go back to an interference pattern made by the waves of possibility(Superposition).

    It's the knowledge of the which way path that collapses the wave into a sub-atomic particle.

    So if there could be no big bang without a concious observer I'm not sure how anything could evolve without a concious observer as there would be no earth to evolve on.

    So yes evolution could occur with a concious observer guiding the process which still acts as a creation. However irreducible complexity seems to indicate we were created as we are by that concious observer(Creator).

    Obviously God is conciousness and that is why we are within him(Body of Christ).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I would like to suggest that the Grand Canyon presents the best evidence for change over time, so I will submit the Grand Canyon as the best evidence for evolution. I will decline your invitation to submit reasons to reject my submission.

    Your competitor in the submission of evidence,

    John
    I don't understand your answer John. Evolution is the science of how species change over time. It involves a lot of complex stuff like biology, DNA, fossils, and yes, geology. But there mere fact that a lot of time has passed is not evidence for evolution. Time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I don't understand your answer John. Evolution is the science of how species change over time. It involves a lot of complex stuff like biology, DNA, fossils, and yes, geology. But there mere fact that a lot of time has passed is not evidence for evolution. Time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution.
    Hi Richard

    Perhaps I didn't understand your question. I thought you were looking for the best evidence that presents change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution, if true, then the most obvious and perhaps best example of evolution is the Grand Canyon. Its there for everyone to see and who could refute the changes brought about by wind, water and time?

    Just trying to compete.

    John

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Hi Richard

    Perhaps I didn't understand your question. I thought you were looking for the best evidence that presents change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution, if true, then the most obvious and perhaps best example of evolution is the Grand Canyon. Its there for everyone to see and who could refute the changes brought about by wind, water and time?

    Just trying to compete.

    John
    I agree that the word "evolution" in the broadest sense means "change over time." When I was studying Quantum Physics (30 years ago! Egad! ) we used the "time evolution operator" to translate a quantum state from time 0 to time t. It looks like this:

    Name:  7edae5ccc54123893a8a3222be75f192.png
Views: 52
Size:  998 Bytes


    But since we know we are talking about biological evolution, I don't think we need to dig into Quantum Mechanics ... unless you really want to! <snicker>

    So what do you think of evolution? Do you have any understanding of the theory? Do you have any idea why it is accepted by approximately 98% of all working biologists? Don't you think they must think they have some evidence supporting the theory? Think about it ... what modern science could stand if it directly contradicted all the observations of thousands of working scientists on a daily basis?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke1978abc View Post
    Science shows the Universe to be about 13 billion years old and the earth 4 to 5 billion. Now a close look at the Big bang suggests that you actually need a conscious observer as the sub-atomic particle will only be a wave unless observed. So all these sub-atomic particles in the hadron Collider that they like to smash together could not exist without an observer. Not so much that you have to physically observe but the act of measurement. On that point as the delayed choice quantum erasure shows us if you erase the which path information in the double slit experiment you go back to an interference pattern made by the waves of possibility(Superposition).

    It's the knowledge of the which way path that collapses the wave into a sub-atomic particle.

    So if there could be no big bang without a concious observer I'm not sure how anything could evolve without a concious observer as there would be no earth to evolve on.

    So yes evolution could occur with a concious observer guiding the process which still acts as a creation. However irreducible complexity seems to indicate we were created as we are by that concious observer(Creator).

    Obviously God is conciousness and that is why we are within him(Body of Christ).
    Hey there Luke,

    Thanks for your interesting comments! I love physics. I specialized in Quantum Physics in grad school. I've seen your argument before. Some folks think it could be a "proof for God" since there has to be "someone" to collapse the state vector when no one else is looking. But that is a serious misunderstanding because if God was always looking the state would always be collapsed and Schroedinger's equation wouldn't work. The whole argument is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which introduced the idea of the "collapse of the wave-function." But it's not the only possible interpretation, and there are very big problems with it. First, science doesn't have a definition for "consciousness" and certainly has no way to measure it, so the assertion that "consciousness collapses the state-vector" is more of a philosophical than scientific statement. Another problem is that the idea of the "collapse of the state vector" contradicts Shroedinger's equation which governs the time evolution of the state vector. The technical term for issues relating to the "collapse of the wave function" is "The Problem of Measurement in Quantum Physics." It was a big part of my studies because I was working on the problem of temporal irreversibility.

    Now the speculations you offer about there being "no earth" if there were no God to observe is really quite off-topic. I'd be delighted if you want to pursue that in another thread. This thread is a little more "mundane." We begin with the assumption that reality exists and physical processes are going on all the time. The question then is this: What is the best evidence for the theory of evolution? There must be a reason thousands of working scientists are convinced it is a very good theory. They couldn't use it every day if it was constantly being contradicted by observation. So what do you think? What's the best evidence?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •