Darwin Devolves - Another Huge Advance Against Darwinism and for Intelligent Design

[r_speir]

@r_speir

but your guess is wrong

Ok, I already know I will get in trouble for that last phrase. Strike that last part. So I end with this:

“All you can do is guess”

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

False. You missed it. See #2 above.

You dodged the question again. “It’s my interpretation of the Bible” doesn’t give you any authority to speak for God. Try again.

Also you have quite a few outstanding questions waiting for your answers on your “YEC” thread. Do you have any intention of answering them or will your flounce-out be the end of discussion?

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

“It’s my interpretation of the Bible”

Interpretations are one thing. Insertions are another. Evolution is not just an insertion, but a foist.

@Timothy_Horton

have any intention of answering them

No I don’t look at those.

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

Interpretations are one thing. Insertions are another. Evolution is not just an insertion, but a foist.

Thanks for admitting you were just blowing smoke when you claimed to speak for God.

@r_speir

No I don’t look at those.

Thanks for admitting your YEC claims are bunk and you can’t support them so you won’t even try.

That was a rather productive post by you.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

There are three basic things the evolutionist must overcome in order to be heard.

1. The reality of the presence of one transcendent in ability, intelligence, and self-sufficiency
2. The fact that that one called himself God and told us how he did it
3. The simple ability for the rest of us to disbelieve what you are saying

Those are three things you need to prove.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Interpretations are one thing. Insertions are another. Evolution is not just an insertion, but a foist.

Would it be accurate to say that you will reject everything that is presented as evidence for evolution because you feel it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible?

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

interpretation of the Bible?

I just addressed your view of interpretation and now you re-use the same argument? Evolution is not an interpretation of the Genesis text. It is a complete re-write. …one that creationists are legitimately allowed to reject.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Evolution is not an interpretation of the Genesis text. It is a complete re-write. …one that creationists are legitimately allowed to reject.

How is it legitimate to reject scientific conclusions based on an interpretation of a sacred text?

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

a sacred text?

And here is what guides and misguides your entire worldview. It is not a sacred text. It is THE sacred text. In it, the creator of everything first, defines himself and next, exactly how he employed his creative abilities. There is not a text in existence like it. You need a new worldview of what you are dealing with here.

Give me another text like it. Give it to me.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

And here is what guides and misguides your entire worldview. It is not a sacred text. It is THE sacred text.

Many other religions would disagree.

@r_speir

In it, the creator of everything first, defines himself and next, exactly how he employed his creative abilities. There is not a text in existence like it. You need a new worldview of what you are dealing with here.

You need to prove this claim is true instead of just asserting it. First off, the Bible was written by humans according to all of the 3 major Abrahamic faiths. You need to remember this. Also, you need to demonstrate that the Creator of the world even inspired the Bible.

You also won’t answer my simple question. Will you reject any evidence that contradicts what you think the Bible says?

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

It is not a sacred text. It is THE sacred text.

You’re still pushing your human interpretation of it.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

You need to prove this claim is true instead of just asserting it.

So here we reach the infamous impasse. I answered you already and you did not believe me. But we are off-topic anyway.

Back on topic, I refer you to the three things you must overcome as an evolutionist

1. The reality of the presence of one transcendent in ability, intelligence, and self-sufficiency
2. The fact that that one called himself God and told us how he did it
3. The simple ability for the rest of us to disbelieve what you are saying

I simply do not have to believe a thing you are saying and I have manuscripts that pre-date you and your ideas by millennia that back me up. What do you have?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Back on topic, I refer you to the three things you must overcome as an evolutionist

1. The reality of the presence of one transcendent in ability, intelligence, and self-sufficiency
2. The fact that that one called himself God and told us how he did it
3. The simple ability for the rest of us to disbelieve what you are saying

1. You have not demonstrated the reality of any such transcendent one.
2. The Bible was written by humans according to the very culture that Genesis came out of.
3. Your ability to disbelieve is not a reflection of what is true.

They have been overcome.

@r_speir

I simply do not have to believe a thing you are saying and I have manuscripts that outdate you and your ideas by millennia that back me up. What do you have?

I have observable facts. You don’t have to believe a thing I am saying because you can look at the facts yourself.

I also don’t see what the age of a manuscript has to do with its accuracy. Can you explain that?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I don’t think arguing against @r_speir’s religious beliefs is helpful. Science is neutral about these things. The bigger objection I have is to how he reads evidence, and how he reads his own interpretation into Scripture. The rest seems to be worse than a red herring. It will just retrench him.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

I have observable facts.

You do not have facts of evolution. Like I said, Lenski pointed to some pretty cool aspects of life. I think we can all agree with that and mutually be amazed. What we cannot do, and you in specific cannot do, is to jump to the conclusion that the dynamics he found - or I mean - the experiment found, is that evolution is a fact.

@swamidass

how he reads his own interpretation

Here you have Dr. S agreeing with you about ‘interpretation’. So what more could you ask for?

We have reached our ever present, ever defining, impasse. Good luck with your views. They are far from substantiated, however.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

You do not have facts of evolution.

Sure I do. You can read about some of them in this thread:

Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry

In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.

@r_speir

What we cannot do, and you in specific cannot do, is to jump to the conclusion that the dynamics he found - or I mean - the experiment found, is that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The facts are the data that support the theory.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@r_speir

I simply do not have to believe a thing you are saying and I have manuscripts that pre-date you and your ideas by millennia that back me up. What do you have?

@r_speir

What you don’t have is an explanation for why mammalian cows, rhinos and sloths all avoided drowning and burial longer than the greatest marine reptiles that ever existed… when these marine giants should have survived drowning just as well as mammalian whales…

All these large mammals are found in the rock layers only long after every last dinosaur supposedly drowned… including Brontosaurs and massively tall creatures who should have been able to “dance on water-logged the graves” of every cow and zebra in existence.

Further, these mammals don’t leave a trace until smaller versions of themselves suddenly appear (over the heads of the dinos)… and THEN we get the fossils of mammals in the forms we know today.

This fits just one model: the evolutionary model.

And unless you think marsupial moles dug underground all the way to the massive island of Australia, only Evolution can explain these marsupials and closely related cousins who, despite their close genetic relationship, pursue very diverse styles of life: carnivorous marsupial predators and omnivorous marsupial Kangas!

[r_speir]

@gbrooks9

What you don’t have is an explanation for why mammalian

Yes I do.

It all had to do with a creature’s ability to regulate body temperature. Just put 2 and 2 together. As volcanic ash and gases around the globe darkened the sun during pre-Flood eruptions (perhaps meteorite impacts also contributed), the ambient temperature dropped and so did the mobility of reptiles. What followed was a natural sorting of reptiles and mammals as the Flood kill-off ensued.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@R_speir

“Body temperature regulation”? What you have is a SLOGAN!

Temperature regulation kept millions of mammals from drowning at the same time as giant dinosaurs? Hardly.

And if humans were the main target of God for extermination … they would have had body temperature regulation, but we don’t find ANY human fossils mixed in with the old-school mammals. The Nile Valley should have been chock-full of humans and animals mixed together… and we have no mixing.

Give it up. It’s kind of sad seeing you spin your wheels like this.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

It all had to do with a creature’s ability to regulate body temperature. Just put 2 and 2 together. As volcanic ash and gases around the globe darkened the sun during pre-Flood eruptions (perhaps meteorite impacts also contributed), the ambient temperature dropped and so did the mobility of reptiles. What followed was a natural sorting of reptiles and mammals as the Flood kill-off ensued.

Then why do we find warm blooded birds buried below cold blooded land dwelling dinosaurs? Why do we also see dinosaurs buried below the first fossil evidence of grasses? Are dinosaurs slower than grass?