> Evolution could be proved wrong, if we found an animal that had, say, a diesel engine, or we saw a giraffe giving birth to a dolphin.
(source)
And to be pendatic, a giraffe cross-breeding with a dolphin is not the same as two giraffes creating a 100% dolphin via genetic mutation.
>"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Michael J. Вehe's book "Darwin's Black Box" seems to provide very compelling evidence that evolution is not possible.
I think there is a free downloadable pdf of his book just type in "Darwin's Black Box."
PS: I just want everyone to know that I have loved chatting with them and that I think more of them ,because of the discussions we've had. :)
Thankfully for me, a book I actually like called "The Science of Discword IV" contains a good enough rebuttal to Darwin's Blackbox for me to say in response to:
>Michael J. Вehe's book "Darwin's Black Box" seems to provide very compelling evidence that evolution is not possible.
No it does not.
"In the beginning, matthes created the planet. The Clonk planet."
But didn't clonks evolve from A.P.E.s?
And thus the golden wipf was born to satify us.
> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
It is important to note that it is incredibly hard to say what "slight" even means in this context. After all, genes change not only by mutation, but we also have cases where whole sequences are taken over from other organisms (bacteria do this a lot, afaik). Even more radical, with every one of us having two chromosomes, the amount of interaction between genes going on is enormous.
So a "slight" change might often be something like "take over this protein from this other animal, and reinterpret its function completely in the context of the new organism". There are a few examples where evolution has probably taken these "backdoor" paths - say with the citric acid cycle.
> Evolution can be observed quite clearly by examining the fossil record.
Dogs and other breeding efforts are much easier. From the point of view of the cattle, humans are just another factor in the environment creating evolutionary pressure. We don't like to think of ourselves that way, but evolution doesn't care.
1. create a complex simulation
2. insert a few different species that have the ability for "micro-evolution" (as you said you believe the scientists that a species can adapt to surroundings)
2.1 give those species surroundings that allows them to survive the way they are supposed to be (so they don't have to adapt)
3. run the simulation at the max of computation power you have available
4. observe
4.1 either you are right, there will always just be the species you inserted with minor modifications
4.1.1 i want to see those results and your setup
4.2 or you are wrong, there will be more or just different species than you started with
4.2.1 i want to see those results and setup, too, and probably never play another game and just meddle with that simulation :D
Just take comic 3: According to Christianity, we *always* have a choice, and god chooses to not influence us, so we can choose good or evil on our own. After all in contrast to animals we are intelligent, and should know to choose good, because it is right for the Universe (and the bible serves as an explanation of this). The whole thing with Jesus is even about that it doesn't matter whether we have sinned in the past - if we seek forgiveness, we can become a good person again. "Let's make sure he is never born" is really the last thing a true Christian believer would suggest.
Sorry, maybe have been reading too much /r/atheism - it gets on your nerves at some point ;)
> So now we just resort to bullying tactics
Let me get this straight.
After the discussion goes from "already bad" to "even worse", J. J. ceases to take part (e.g. "I will (...) reply to you later" - so where is the reply?), and the thread eventually dies for two months. Suddenly, he barges back in and rudely barks commands at people about stuff that only remotely has connections to the topic at hand.
Now you complain nobody licks his boots. Seriously?
We seem to be trying to ad-hominem ourselves out of this discussion, and that's intellectually lazy. There's a difference between licking other people's boots and pointing out poor discussion etiquette. If you want to claim moral high ground, you can't do so by kicking people in the balls.
> I'm not sure where the "rude" part comes in
Well, in a discussion people usually exchange arguments. To give and receive, so to say. Just demanding things to be done, no "please", "thank you", "sorry for the absence" or similar isn't what I'd call "nice".
> resorting to uncalled-for cheap blows
Agreed, simply pointing out some mistakes would have been nice. I don't agree it's uncalled-for, though.
> but in all fairness those are quite terrible straw-mans
Oh my. Extremely over-the-top parody doesn't depict the things it makes fun of accurately. This is outrageous!
>Evolutionist believe in the big bang and millions of years
Evolution does not mean you have to believe the Big Bang as having happened, and believing the Big Bang happened doesn't mean you have to believe in Evolution.
>Muslims believe Allah is god
Well, yes. "Allah" is Arabic for "the God". Muslims believe that God is god, the same one that Christians and Jews worship.
>Who we allow to influence us and what we allow to influence us will determine our point of view and our bias and belief (ie.religion).
Except that a lot of people don't get a choice on who they "Allow" to influence them. They do what their parents/government/whatever says, and they have horrible things done to them if they don't. See Asia/Africa/America/Europe/etc. for examples.
>So what is truth?
In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".
>Why are we here?
Why not? Where else would we be? Are we supposed to be somewhere else?
>What is our purpose?
Why are you assuming we have one?
>Does the Bible answer these questions?
It certainly does. "What God says" and "To worship God" aren't very good answers though, especially since they rely on the circular logic of "The truth is what God says" which you can prove because "God only speaks the truth" which you can prove because "The truth is"... etc. etc.
>Does evolution answer these questions?
Not the first one, you need a dictionary for that, but it does answer the other two.
>Do other beliefs answer these questions?
Belief doesn't answer questions ever. Belief is about which answer you choose to accept, and your reason for doing so.
>Which belief is the right belief?
Evolution isn't a belief anyway, it's more of a fact. Besides, the answer is Buddhism.
>What bias is the right bias?
What?
>What religion is the right religion?
Buddhism.
>And ultimately will we believe truth or falsehood?
In this case, it looks like most of us will believe truth, when we have good evidence to back it up.
>Evolution does not mean you have to believe the Big Bang as having happened, and believing the Big Bang happened doesn't mean you have to believe in Evolution.
Sorry, I meant in general.
>Why are you assuming we have one?
Yes, I am.
>Evolution isn't a belief anyway, it's more of a fact. Besides, the answer is Buddhism.
Evolution is believed by some to be fact, but others believe it is not, thus evolution is a belief.
>It certainly does. "What God says" and "To worship God" aren't very good answers though, especially since they rely on the circular logic of "The truth is what God says" which you can prove because "God only speaks the truth" which you can prove because "The truth is"... etc. etc.
Are you saying the Bible is true?
>What?
Do you know what bias is or did you have some other question about my question?
>Buddhism.
Why Buddhism?
>In this case, it looks like most of us will believe truth, when we have good evidence to back it up.
Then why do most people not believe the same thing?
>Sorry, I meant in general.
What?
>Yes, I am.
I was asking why you did that.
>Evolution is believed by some to be fact, but others believe it is not, thus evolution is a belief.
Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. You can believe it to be true or false, but that is your belief. Your belief does not change what evolution is.
>Are you saying the Bible is true?
No.
>Do you know what bias is or did you have some other question about my question?
It just didn't make any sense to me.
>Why Buddhism?
Jesus and Arnold Schwarzenegger came to me in a dream and told me so.
>Then why do most people not believe the same thing?
By "us" I meant "Most of of us on this site." We mostly do believe the same thing, at least as far as evolution is concerned.
>What?
Sorry, I didn't realize that in general is an American term. What I meant is that frequently that is what they believe.
>I was asking why you did that.
Why I did what? Do you mean why I think we have a purpose?
>Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. You can believe it to be true or false, but that is your belief. Your belief does not change what evolution is.
Fact?
>No.
Why not?
>Jesus and Arnold Schwarzenegger came to me in a dream and told me so.
I had a dream that I ran over a viking. So what dose that have to do with anything? :\
>By "us" I meant "Most of of us on this site." We mostly do believe the same thing, at least as far as evolution is concerned.
So do we have a forum were most people believe truth or do we have a forum were most people believe falsehood (ie. a lie).
So we are back to the question will we believe truth or falsehood.
>Fact?
I actually do believe in god an the creation of the whole universe. But this reporter is a complete moron.
No matter how convinced you are in what you believe, you always should have respect for other opinions.
>I actually do believe in god an the creation of the whole universe.
Good for you. \o/
>No matter how convinced you are in what you believe, you always should have respect for other opinions.
My opinion is that he does a good job, but that's my opinion. :)
>Why I did what? Do you mean why I think we have a purpose?
Why you assume we have a purpose.
>Why not?
Because it isn't concordant with reality.
>Fact?
Yes, fact.
>I had a dream that I ran over a viking. So what dose that have to do with anything? :\
My dream was divine inspiration. Jesus and Arnold came to me and told the that Buddhism was correct, and that every other religion was wrong.
>So do we have a forum were most people believe truth or do we have a forum were most people believe falsehood (ie. a lie).
Truth.
>So we are back to the question will we believe truth or falsehood.
No we aren't.
>Why you assume we have a purpose.
Why not?
>Because it isn't concordant with reality.
Why do you think that it is not in concordant with reality?
>Yes, fact.
Then give me an observable example of a kind of animal changing into another kind animal.
>My dream was divine inspiration. Jesus and Arnold came to me and told the that Buddhism was correct, and that every other religion was wrong.
Are you saying that my dream was not divine inspiration for me to run over a viking?
>Truth.
Then tell me what is truth?
>No we aren't.
Oh ,yes we are. :)
P.S.: Thank you for taking time out to chat with me. :)
You found the perfect way to "win" an argument:
>Why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
>Why do you think that it is not in concordant with reality?
Because of all the support for racism, slavery, homophobia, misogony, cruelty, evil, and intolerance and so on and so forth.
>Then give me an observable example of a kind of animal changing into another kind animal.
Have eight.
>Are you saying that my dream was not divine inspiration for me to run over a viking?
That's not what I was saying.
>Then tell me what is truth?
In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".
>Oh ,yes we are. :)
Oh, no we aren't.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill