Facts of Evolution. ( Title edit by Admin) - Page 1

Watch and learn:

 
Admin edit. Title changed as original was member baiting. mrdarcy

I can play the same game lol

Moons.

Shtal, you obviously didn't watch or understand the video I posted.  Each and every one of the "arguments" brought up in your video have been addressed there.  As usual, yours is filled with long debunked fallacies, but you won't dig further than your favorite haunts, will you? 

Things were starting to lighten up around here, there's nothing left of that dead horse but you can't let it go.
 

I'm certainly not going to defend the creationist videos, but by admission, the Cassiopeia video was necessarily selective in scope.  Why... because it's solid, reasonable method.  What does that mean then?  It means that unequivocally, we are wanting in our scientific understanding.  So much so, that our current models break down at a singularity, illustrating the fact that our science is perhaps little more than a moderately useful way of explaining our cosmic fishbowl.

wrong carlin, science by definition continuously tries to prove itself wrong. it is not a "break down" it is a re-understanding at a deeper level, to break the surface sometimes you have to scratch at it and get rid of some of the old skin .

there is not even 1000 humans alive  (work that as a percentage of the human race)  that have the intelligence to follow the
maths thru in the most promising theories explaining much of the observed data. i am not one of them but i know that and i know i'm not the likes of shtal and yrself who don't even know where the real debate is.


the validity of science is best critiqued by scientists you know, that's a tough one. 

"illustrating the fact that our science is perhaps little more than a moderately useful way of explaining our cosmic fishbowl."


that is ignorance laced with denial and arrogance of a very limited thinker - smash yr dam computer now, throw yr car keys in the bin and give yrself polio and never use a phone or fly in a plane again...generally go live in a cave and rub sticks together if all you get out of science is the above statement. 


don't get me started.
 

You're going to have to do a little better than that my friend; your blanket generalizations aren't worth the cyberspace they're printed on, and your record here as a "rocket scientist" definitely finds you wanting.  Your complete lack of specificity betrays you every time.  I could take your last post apart piece by unsubstantiated piece, but honestly, since you're not here to learn and grow, it would probably be a waste. 

arguing would be a waste for sure - because we would be both arguing about something neither of us are qualified to do, if you want worthy adversary go write some technical papers and have them published in the mainstream maths/physics academic literature.

if you got something proving anything already there wrong you will be applauded and offered jobs and given grants. if you come up with something new you will be given tenure and more grants and the military and big business will compete to get you on their team.


kent hovind, shatl, gouda... and anyone else for that matter can do the same, you will get no resistance regarding any personal views on religion or politics even if it conflicts with yr pro research - cos nobody in science cares or gets paid to care about such personal beliefs in business hours, believe what you want no prob, one top shelf guy does happens to be totally into transcendental meditation, no problem.

come up with a single compelling argument that could change something and you will get the job, that simple. 
 

GSDtravels,

I was busy all day and I didn't watch it completely I will try to watch it for the next couple days when I will have free time, right now I am busy with other stuff but what I can tell you is this your video speaks theories but the question is if you have any scientific publication you want to discuss about how too few mutations occur for evolution to be possible? If it is even going to be a point with a discussion about it I mean. Then we can look at more publications in that matter. And no I don´t mean any interpretation of some publication. I mean a publication where it is specifically claimed that too few mutations occur for evolution to be possible; that there would be a point with having a discussion about; here is a good example when creationist asked this question to Richard Dawkins. You see a new trait is not the same as new genetic information. No new genetic information was produced spontaneously by science. In fact, it would be impossible for such information to be produced.


 

I think it is interesting evolution so argue against design, using arguments they designed, think about that one.
Think about how complex living system cannot evolve piece by piece, there are too many interconnecting parts that depend on each other. If we use the illustration of the mouse-trap with five basic parts, you have to have at least those five parts, you remove anymore and it ceases to function; your car has thousands of parts, some you can live without / run without and some simply cannot run without.


Edit: I want to add my old post about DNA because it adds good example what I said above:
DNA and how it is opposes the theory of evolution. I want to explain that we are not talking about just little words or couple words together in our DNA but we are talking about entire chapter that work forwards and backwards it is measurably complex. And the other thing overlapping instructions and example to give weird sentence here, I like chocolater that evening, the reasons weird – is we have to phrases here that overlap. We have I like chocolate which is true and we have later that evening and they overlap here in the middle these four letters. So if we introduce another random changer, we make a substitution this time, we change an E into an H. It no longer spells I like chocolate and also it doesn’t spell later that evening, so random change here actually destroying it. So that it the third level of complexity just one little mutation is going to destroy right now up to three level of complexity of the information. Reality of DNA we are not talking about short of little phrase overlaps but we are talking about actually again entire chapter of overlapping information, and it just boggles the mind to think of the complexity there in the DNA. We are going to remember that this is just a simplified analogy of what DNA actually is…Is in it so - and in fact you know, you have both together the things going forward and backward…Overlapping and all of it complexity that involves.