scourge99

Let me narrow my line questioning, My previous questions were far too broad.

It seems that you've established some method in which you critique the world around you. That is, you have some methodology which you use to determine what things are true, false, or likely contain some truth or falsities. What I can't come to understand is that you would deny many of the findings of science yet simultaneously you undoubtedly accept the existence of God and the validity of the Bible? Your methodologies would dictate that if you deny belief in evolution and other scientific theories then you should also deny the belief in God and the Bible for these things are substantially less supported than anything scientists would claim. Could you entertain me with an explanation for such hypocrisy?

How is it that testimony surmounts inductively derived conclusions?
How is it that you can handicap yourself with the rules you stated yet simultaneously arrive at the conclusion that God is real and the Bible is true?

__________________
Petty Desire or Grand Ambition?

Proteus

Actually, I won the bet. What surprises me is that you don't even realize that everything you copy/pasted proves my point rather than refutes it. That's a pretty strange debate tactic:

You say 2+2=4? Horsefeathers...2+2=5-1.

Frank Talk

Fine, lets look at an earlier post you made about speciation:

We can take a geometric sequence and watch it evolve according to the equation a[sub]n[/sub]=ar[sup]n-1[/sup]. Does it give us any indication of where the initial values came from? No. Evolution explains how life became so diverse, it can be true whether or not we have a correct theory of abiogenesis. Do we know exactly how or universe came into existence? No. Does that mean the Big Bang Theory is wrong? No.

Great so Darwin proposed a theory of abiogenesis. It still does not mean that evolution explains how life started. Does mechanics make claims about optics because Newton laid the groundwork for both?

Who claims this?

How are the numerous link posted in this thread not speciation. How are the events discussed in this paper not speciation?

Science is agnostic on everything because it is impossible to observe all evidence. That is why those terms are used.

How is it not?
Artificial selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how you can dismiss a source by reading one line of the abstract. Cryptic species are when two species are genetically different but morphologically the same, it is not a cause type of speciation but a result.
Cryptic species complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a paper you can actually read discussing allopatric speciation.

Once again just by reading one line of the abstract you can determine it is fraud? The paper is discussing how there is less gene flow between the species in the north than between species in the south. It then discusses why this might occur, which it concludes may be the result of shorter breeding periods and colder weather in the north. Is th problem because it's not authoritative and it says "may"? There is no way it could be authoritative because there are many reason why this could be happening weather and breeding session are only two.


How do you know without reading the paper?

Good thing the main article is well-cited.
Sympatric speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It say that "In fact, it has been proposed that all of the existing plants and most of the animals are polyploids or have undergone an event of polyploidization in their evolutionary history." The idea of most plants and animals going through this speciation has been proposed, the validity of it is questionable but that does not mean the validity of evolution is questionable. Evolution WAS proposed and backed up by so much evidence that it is pretty much fact.

Hybridization can (and has) led to speciation. I don't think you know the difference between rare and nonexistent.

I

justone

The method is - follow the rules of the game you are playing - the rules of science, rules of chess, rules of football if you play football.
On a side track I informed you that your statement practically copied Aquinas’s proof of Christian God. This is what we Christian believe in and this is what the Bible says is God – the root cause proven by you. I also have been pointing that I refuse discussing religion or theology when I am talking about science, - I am following rules of the game. The fact that evolutionists always have to resort to discussion of beliefs is very telling. I beg you to give it a shot; try to stay within borders of science.
I never asked you to be silly. You have been always volunteering.

You assign knowledge a value. Any value exists only in a system of coordinates in a frame of reference. The value of knowledge may be determined in comparison with the value of ignorance as a reference. If the value of knowledge increases you can count its increase in reference to the value of ignorance. Since it has been observed that our cumulative ignorance increases with each increase of knowledge, you are getting nowhere; you are running on a treadmill. But again it is not science, it is math, logic. Try to stay on the subject.

Firstly I would appreciate if you could avoid signing ‘’posted by justone’’ when you re-quote yourself, I understand it was not intentional.., but..

I have been asking for real time observed events of evolution (speciation, genetic isolation) for 4 months. I have been asking not even for events, but for one justone event.


I have been trying greatly to avoid discussing religion but it seems evolutionists can’t do without going into religion and beliefs.

Using logic and empirical evidence I arrive at the conclusion that God is real and the Bible is true. It is like you and Aquinas arrive at the existence of the root cause a.k.a. the Biblical G-d. Such methodology, - logic based on empirical evidence does not comply with rules of science. It constitutes a hypothesis, a belief. You, on the base of your logic and your empirical evidence, arrive at your belief in evolution, and you have been discussing it as a belief. I have to repeat the 25th time I am not arguing logic or whose logic and evidence are more compelling; you believe in what you believe I believe in what I believe. Evolution is your hypothesis supported by empirical evidence, i.e. it is your belief, - I am not arguing whether it is wrong or right.

Bodhisattva

I am interested in how making something more convoluted makes it more true?
That, at least, looks like the what you are doing in order to make your point, whatever that is.
Just curious.

__________________

justone

I have expressed the reasonable request for you to look at my posts but not at a post. That would prevent you from repeating the same objections and I would be saved from repeating the same answers.
It is the same objection- you are trying to draw a parallel with math or science when you do not have a clue. It assigns meanings - as you can see from the equation, - because each of the symbols/values is assigned a meaning/values in a very strict way. AND AT ANY GIVEN VALUE (unless one is restricted by parameters of an equation) it produces a point in the system of coordinates. There is no analogy, moreover you yourself bring an example of a mathematical argument against evolution.

It is the same objection- you are trying to draw a parallel with math or science when you have no clue. Evolution does not even define what life is. Big bang theory is neither wrong nor it is right. It is a Hypothesis of a Primeval Atom supported by some evidence. Big Bang Theory is the name given to the Hypothesis by priests of the Church of Cosmology. Then I used to like the religion of Cosmology, at least, because they were logical… or may be they were like poets – I love poetry--- they have such a name – Big Freeze—for what we used to call with the boring name “’The 2nd law”… now they are getting boring – they produce too much of poetry for poets and go political… Cosmology does start from the state singularity – they do calculate how the universe came to existence, but they do not explain what did cause the singularity to break. They do have definitions. As all evolutionists you try to bring in physics when you have no clue. There is no analogy, moreover you yourself bring an example of an argument of mathematical physics against evolution. Biiig Freeezee.
Darwin exactly, as one can see, proposes how it started. His proposition can be called a “’theory’’ only by evolutionists. It is not even worth my time. Newton’s mechanics and optics are all correct, they both describe real time observations in forms of mathematical and geometrical equations. Oh my merciful gods, how many time do I have to quote Newton? And yes, Theory of relativity makes claims for both. There is no analogy, moreover you yourself bring an example of an argument of physics against evolution.
Different evolutionists have different claims, I do not keep a record but reading the debate you can see my proof, you all do.
Cannot follow the link – requires to sign up, but I have showed exactly how – none of the articles in a peer reviewed papers in this thread claims observed speciation.
Evidence has no relation to science. Read back why. Science do not use the terms quoted. Why did you skip my reference to the Einstein’s works? I suggested you to find such terms INCLUDING EVIDENCE in Einstein works. There is absolutely no evidence in one of the most edgy works of science.… It is getting quite sick… I cannot go in circles forever.
I had already addressed…
Thank you for clarification, though the last sentence makes no sense. Your link does not claim observed speciation, but only the result of an unobserved and untested but only proposed event – it does not change a thing.

I do not sign blindly. I am not discussing, I am asking for an observation.

Again I already addressed ‘’may’’ and other pseudo-scientific jargon and abstracts. Even such a scientist as my former friend SD didn’t come up with such a question about abstracts…. There are basics of basics you happily have no clue about…
You are repeating the same question the 3rd time. Do I have to post the same answer the 3rd time?

So –they did change the text recently… but they didn’t change the meaning - it does not claim observed speciation. The same pseudo-scientific jargon. It may and it may not … evolution is a fact… How is about peer reviewed ….. how many times would have to repeat…?

I do not doubt validity of any ideas or propositions, I am demonstrating the fact that Speciation including Speciation via polyploidization has never been observed. Also see my posts addressing the term evidence…
The article does not make such a claim.

I don't think you know the difference between rare and nonexistent.

If you think so, what could be a sense of posting such a long reply not addressing my statements and repeating very old and worn out objections refuted by me so many times just by quoting my previous answers repeated so many times?

justone

hey, have some mercy..


He is not arguing any points, just skip it....

scourge99

I showed that it is a plausible belief that God, a rock, a random event, or nothing at all is the cause of everything. You have taken this logical chain of reasoning and narrowly focused your beliefs on but ONE option from the MANY possible truths and stated such as fact, ipse dixit. Ridiculous.

Science is in the business of revealing truth. Its directly relates to the question of God, religion, and existence. Science, philosophy, and religion are NOT mutually exclusive, they are complimentary in many respects. To ignore science while answering philosophical or religious questions is to handicap ones ability to ascertain truth.

Close but WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Our cumulative knowledge increases. Our knowledge of our ignorance also increases. BUT, our cumulative ignorance decreases because the sum of knowledge within the universe is constant. Our knowledge increases with respect to the existence of all knowledge.

You arrive at nothing but a plausible answer. Your arrive at a plausible answer that has less truth-value than that of evolution. Evolution has empirical support. God and the Bible do not have empirical support for there supernatural (divine) claims. Yet you claim evolution should not be trusted yet belief in God should be. I've yet to see the reasoning in which you make such beliefs rational. Please do not disappoint.

When one wishes to critique claims based on empirical evidence and claims made from testimony the theories supported by empirical evidence far outweigh theories based on testimony in every respect. Testimony cannot invalidate contradictory empirical evidence. Empirical evidence invalidates contradictory testimony. Nonetheless, testimonial claims may be truth and empirically derived theories can be misconceptions.

It is hypocritical that you reject belief in evolution because of rule 4 but refuse to apply rule 4 when examining God and the Bible and other ill supported presuppositions you make when analyzing existence.

Proteus

It was sarcasm.

I thought that much was obvious...my bad.

Proteus

I'm willing to argue the point I've already made but you haven't yet addressed it. Instead you build up some ficticious strawman about how evolution has never been criticized before ID came along. I never suggested anything of the sort. I said I've never seen a single defense of ID that wasn't merely a criticism of evolution. And all you've done so far is prove me 100% correct...so thanks.