Darwin's theory

J C · 21-10-2014 10:26PM

Saganist wrote: »

Is that what you tell your doctor when he prescribes you a medicine that was produced via the study of evolutionary biology ?

Or do you take his word for it ? :pac:

I don't need to take her word for it ... I know all about the research underpinning it ... and its valid.

Saganist · 21-10-2014 10:29PM

J C wrote: »

I don't need to take her word for it ... I know all about the research underpinning it ... and its valid.

What's valid ?

J C · 21-10-2014 10:33PM

Saganist wrote: »

What's valid ?

The research on ab resistance and the role of NS and mutagenesis therein, for example.

Chunners · 21-10-2014 10:33PM

J C wrote: »

Fossilisation is a rapid process taking a few days in may cases ... and years at most. We find perfect fossils of leaves and skin and other things that wouldn't last more than a few hours before they would rot (or be re-cycled by being eaten by something.This indicates that they were fossilised very rapidly indeed.

We share the Earth with many other life-forms ... 'Aliens' are just more Divinely Created 'bio-diversity' that we are empowered to manage be custodians over.

It doesn't matter how rapid the process of fossilization is fossils are still aged at hundreds of thousands of years old, far older than your bible and your "6000" years

Why? why create a vast universe when all humans really need is a small planet? if it is intelligent design then why the waste of resources? why give lizards an x-men type power to regenerate limbs but not give it to humans who are suppose to be the at the top of your Gods creation abilities, why do cats exist? why do dogs exist? why does the duck billed platypus exist?

Saganist · 21-10-2014 10:34PM

J C wrote: »

The research on ab resistance.

What about the Flu virus ?

Tordelback · 21-10-2014 10:45PM

J C wrote: »

Fossilisation is a rapid process taking a few days in may cases ... and years at most. We find perfect fossils of leaves and skin and other things that wouldn't last more than a few hours before they would rot (or be re-cycled by being eaten by something.This indicates that they were fossilised very rapidly indeed.

There are many types of fossilisation, but all require very specific conditions, and all are rare events. One of the more general requirements is that subjects be rapidly buried, often in such a way as to retard decay or access by scavengers. Fossils generally form in the void or cavity left when the buried object eventually decays or its components are leached away: in effect they are a mineral cast of the shape of a vanished object. Fossilisation itself is not a rapid process, that's just the initial burial.

J C · 21-10-2014 10:45PM

Saganist wrote: »

What about the Flu virus ?

Vaccination after attenuation or inactivation is well established science ... the choice of which Flu strain(s) to use is the really difficult question.

Saganist · 21-10-2014 10:48PM

J C wrote: »

Vaccination after attenuation or inactivation is well established science ... the choice of which Flu strain(s) to use is the really difficult question.

Do they not re-engineer it every year due to the evolution of the virus, hence the need to get re-vaccinated every year ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

J C · 21-10-2014 10:48PM

Tordelback wrote: »

There are many types of fossilisation, but all require very specific conditions, and all are rare events. One of the more general requirements is that subjects be rapidly buried, often in such a way as to retard decay or access by scavengers. Fossils generally form in the void or cavity left when the buried object eventually decays or its components are leached away: in effect they are a mineral cast of the shape of a vanished object. Fossilisation itself is not a rapid process, that's just the initial burial.

Fine fossilised structures are often mineralised ... but many fossils still contain the actual bones/shells of the creature that was fossilised.

You're correct that they were rapildy buried and on a global scale ... which points towards a Global water-based catastrophe ... and not slow sedimentation in the bottom of a tropical lagoon over millions of years, as conventional geology would have us believe.

looksee · 21-10-2014 10:48PM

You do know that this thread will have to stop when you get to 10,000 posts, so you can't win the internet, there are several threads that have already got to the 10k.

J C · 21-10-2014 10:53PM

Saganist wrote: »

Do they not re-engineer it every year due to the evolution of the virus, hence the need to get re-vaccinated every year ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes the Flu virus changes continually ... but it always remains true to its Kind ... which is a virus.
... and the challenge is to predict which strains of the virus are going to be problematical ... and therefore requires vaccination against each year.

Chunners · 21-10-2014 10:54PM

J C wrote: »

Fine fossilised structures are often mineralised ... but many fossils still contain the actual bones/shells of the creature that was fossilised.

You're correct that they were rapildy buried and on a global scale ... which points towards a Global water-based catastrophe ... and not slow sedimentation in the bottom of a tropical lagoon over millions of years, as conventional geology would have us believe.

Would that be the bones of dinosaurs and pre bible sea creatures?

J C · 21-10-2014 10:55PM

looksee wrote: »

You do know that this thread will have to stop when you get to 10,000 posts, so you can't win the internet, there are several threads that have already got to the 10k.

Its not the winning, but the taking part, that I enjoy!!!:)

J C · 21-10-2014 10:56PM

Chunners wrote: »

Would that be the bones of dinosaurs and pre bible sea creatures?

It would be the bones of Dinosaurs, sea and land-based creatures.

Chunners · 21-10-2014 10:57PM

J C wrote: »

Yes the Flu virus changes continually ... but it always remains true to its Kind ... which is a virus.
... and the challenge is to predict which strain of the virus is going to be problematical ... and therefore requires vaccination against each year.

So what you are basically saying is it evolves? actually what you are saying is it has the ability to evolve in the space of a year, well done on proving God there

Chunners · 21-10-2014 10:59PM

J C wrote: »

It would be thee bones of Dinosaurs, sea and land-based creatures.

Oh I know it would but the bones of creatures that existed before 6000 years ago? does that not make your bible a lie?

Saganist · 21-10-2014 11:00PM

J C wrote: »

Yes the Flu virus changes continually ... but it always remains true to its Kind ... which is a virus.
... and the challenge is to predict which strain of the virus is going to be problematical ... and therefore requires vaccination against each year.

There are no "kinds" in evolution. Stop saying that.

The rest sounds like you agree that evolution is true.

Saganist · 21-10-2014 11:04PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Oh this is nothing, over in A&A he was using evolution to disprove evolution.

Probably wouldn't have bothered entering the "debate" had I know that.

J C · 21-10-2014 11:04PM

Chunners wrote: »

So what you are basically saying is it evolves? actually what you are saying is it has the ability to evolve in the space of a year, well done on proving God there

Many things 'evolve' in the sense of NS acting on pre-existing genetic diversity. However, the fact that the genetic diversity is CFSI means that it has an ultimate intelligent source ... and that is where the real debate is at ... and I believe that it has been settled in favour of ID.
The lack of any scientifically valid criticism on this thread of the basis for ID also supports this conclusion.

J C · 21-10-2014 11:06PM

Chunners wrote: »

Oh I know it would but the bones of creatures that existed before 6000 years ago?

How do you know that?

kingchess · 21-10-2014 11:07PM

The taking part is a lot of fun for me as well.I had heard of ID before this thread but did not really know about it or the science behind it, but now-thanks to J C- I have looked into it in more detail and discovered that there is no science behind it, so a big thank you to you, JC.

Saganist · 21-10-2014 11:08PM

J C wrote: »

Many things 'evolve'

Just this statement makes you look foolish...

ID has no credibility whatsoever.. It's just simple Creationism wrapped up in a semi-smart sounding name.

J C · 21-10-2014 11:08PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob
Oh this is nothing, over in A&A he was using evolution to disprove evolution.

Proves that I have no bias against evolution per se ... I just have problems with the logical inconsistencies between different kinds of 'evolution'.

wrote:

Saganist
Probably wouldn't have bothered entering the "debate" had I know that.

Please don't start 'chickening out' on me.
We have a hypothesis to evaluate.

Saganist · 21-10-2014 11:13PM

J C wrote: »

Please don't start 'chickening out' on me.

Sorry, but, this is why I think you are a troll.

J C · 21-10-2014 11:17PM

Saganist wrote: »

Just this statement makes you look foolish...

Why?

I accept that 'evolution' occurs in the sense of 'genetic drift' within populations under the influence of NS of pre-existing genetic diversity.
All we're arguing over is the source of this diversity.

Saganist wrote: »

ID has no credibility whatsoever.. It's just simple Creationism wrapped up in a semi-smart sounding name.

ID has scientific merit.

Who or what the intelligence(s) was/were is unknown ... but intelligence seems to have been the prime motor for the existence of life.

housetypeb · 21-10-2014 11:18PM

J C, Boards equivalent of a certain chess playing pigeon.

J C · 21-10-2014 11:23PM

Saganist wrote: »

Sorry, but, this is why I think you are a troll.

You have said you were not going to take any further part in the thread twice.
You are quite entitled to do so ... but it is a bit like 'chickening out' when you use excuses for leaving like a disagreement over whether rocks are 'dead' or 'inanimate' ... and now because somebody told you that I used the logical basis for one type of evolution to argue the invalidity of another type of evolution.:)

Brian Shanahan · 21-10-2014 11:24PM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ah the virgin birth, or how one woman's attempt to cover up a child born out of wedlock spiralled wildly out of control.

Actually it's more a case of godbotherers not being able to translate from Aramaic to Greek properly. The Aramaic word "almah" used in the relevant prophecy the Jesus followers were trying to use to prove his divinity, could possibly mean "virgin" in some extremely constrained and specific circumstances, but not in those of the original old testament prophecy where it translated in the more common usage, as "young woman" (the prophecy had nothing to do with fortelling Jesus, but assuring a Jewish king that he would outlast his enemies). So the whole problem with the virgin birth is simply due to a number of Greek converts (which were by far the majority of early christians) not knowing their Aramaic properly when they tried to retcon their messiah into Jewish tradition and prophecy.

PopePalpatine · 21-10-2014 11:25PM

If Darwinism is dead, does that make creationism a lonely sperm that didn't even make it to the egg?

5uspect · 21-10-2014 11:25PM

J C wrote: »

Proves that I have no bias against evolution per se ... I just have problems with the logical inconsistencies between different kinds of 'evolution'.

Please don't start 'chickening out' on me.
We have a hypothesis to evaluate.

And yet you haven't shown these claimed errors in the scientific literature when invited, numerous times. Not a single paper. But that's okay, nobody believes your a real scientist anyway.

Darwin's theory

Comments