Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[UppsalaDragby]

If you're going to offer "design" as a scientific alternative, then it falls on you to explain it and present it's supporting evidence. It certainly isn't on me to support your arguments.

Just as I pointed out, you are in no position to make demands unless you have fulfilled those demands yourself. The fact that both more digits, less digits, and the same number of digits can be considered "valid" pretty much nullifies your claims.

In other words, I am asking YOU to support YOUR arguments, not MINE!

As I explained earlier, it's the specific mechanism and pathway by which organisms gain and lose digits. If it were what you described above, then you would have a point. Since it's not, what you said above is irrelevant.

Since the "specific mechanism and pathway" is merely assumed after the fact it doesn't hold any weight at all. Anyone can pretend that there is a specific mechanism and pathway that would explain either loss, gain or stasis or the number of digits. So what you said above is irrelevant.

So your alternative is supernatural creation by God. Can you explain how that alternative can be investigated using science?

Alternative to what? Creation by nothing? Why are you constantly trying to shift the burden on me when it is quite obvious that you haven't provided a single minute shred of evidence, or even the slighest explanation that creation could have been been possible without God. And since you too are a believer then I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you trying to say that God did NOT create the universe?

Again, if anyone had argued "we can classify them, therefore evolution" you'd have a point. But since I specifically said the opposite, I'm not sure who you think your point is for. And again, appealing to imaginary hypotheticals is not compelling.

Well, aren't you the one that claimed that "tetrapods descended from fish" in an attempt to "validate" evolution? But OK, you fill in the blanks "...., therefore evolution".. or "..., therefore UCA.

Wow. For what feels like the billionth time....I'M NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE CREATION BY GOD. So you can stop asking me "How do you know they weren't designed that way".

And for the trillionth time I am not saying that you are!!! What in the text you quoted caused you to start shouting???

You were the one that pointed out the fact that there are biological patterns and structures as though the ONLY explanation for the things you pointed out. I simply pointed out an alternative explanation for the existence of these biological structures without saying anything about whether or not you were trying to disprove creation by God. Get it? So please try to get a grip on yourself and simmer down.

Are you saying that God couldn't create a "structureless blob"?

No, don't be so utterly silly. I already pointed out that structureless blobs exist, so the fact that you are you even asking that question seems to indicate you are either not paying attention, or purposely trying to distort and twist my words around. Obviously, just as I think I pointed out, if everything in the universe was structureless, messy, and unfathomable then one would have good reason to question whether or not anything was the result of an intelligent designer, which is what I pointed out in response to your question. The mere existance of structureless blobs does not nullify my argument because structure would only be necessary where required.

What I pointed out is that if your claim (it all comes down to worldviews) were true, then we would expect all "evolutionists" to be very similar in their worldviews. The fact is, we see the exact opposite. "Evolutionists" come from pretty much every worldview out there. Now to explain this to you again....I'm not saying "evolutionary scientists come from diverse worldviews, therefore evolution is valid". I'm saying "evolutionary scientists come from diverse worldviews, therefore the argument that their acceptance of evolution is based on worldview is false".

I hope you are able to grasp the difference.

world·view (wûrldvy)

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

re·li·gion (r-ljn)

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Nowhere in the definition of wordview is there any indication that it is confined to one religious, or non-religious belief, and neither is there any indication that a mixture of such beliefs nullifies it from being a worldview.

What "worldview" do you think is being used here?

Used where?

Great....so that was a complete waste of my time. I spent all that time doing exactly what you asked, and you respond with "It's just dogma, and I didn't really read it anyways"?

I hope you understand why I won't do anything like that for you again.

Well boo hoo hoo... I certainly didn't ask you to waste any time, just as I didn't ask you to spit out about fifty lines of evo-babble! If you want to discuss specific points then do so in a manner that is easily discussed, rather than just dump out heaps of dogmatic statements and expect me to meticulously sift through them and go to the tedious trouble of providing creationist answers to all of them. You don't want to waste time? Then neither do I!

You do what ALL proponents of evolution do. You read the dogma presented by one side and then you think you know it all. There are countless issues in this debate, and yet all you do is present the doctrine of your belief system as though that was the only "valid" explanation for what we see. I see very little evidence that you have the slightest clue as to what creationists have to say about the things you listed in your post. So if YOU can't be bothered reading up on what they say concerning these things, then don't whine on about what I need to read and "study".

So your response is basically "God made it that way", just as I said from the outset.

My conviction, of course, is that God "made it" the way he said he did in Genesis, which includes creation of life in separate families. So what's the problem?

I spent all that time writing up a layperson friendly description of some of the data....at your request

Oh no no no! Please don't distort things here. I asked you for data, not the dogmatic evolutionist interpretation of that data!

"Yeah, well why can't you explain the evolutionary history of tetrapods to me, with all its supporting data, and in a way that I can understand without doing any work?"

???????????????????????????????????????????

Who on earth are you quoting here?

Oh.... I see,... in order for you to get your point across you need to pretend I said something I didn't.

What I ACTUALLY asked was this:

"What data? No one is denying any data here. When, however, you interpret data through a certain worldview then what point is there in appealing to "data"?"

In other words, what data can you provide that supports your argument and is not dependent on a worldview (you know, "the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world")?

I hope you are able to grasp the difference!

So what do you think is going on in evolutionary biology then? Are these scientists just really bad at their jobs?

Since we have already been through that discussion before, my only conclusion is that you are repeating that question in order to perpetuate a silly strawman.

We don't know; scripture doesn't say. But it does say God created organisms by letting the earth bring them forth.

What an incredibly evasive answer! I didn't ask you whether or not we knew, and I didn't even mention scripture.

I asked you what you think God did and whether or not he was involved.

It's a simple question, so why are you trying to dodge it.

Do you believe God was involved in creating the universe or not?

Did he say he "let" it happen, or did he create it?

 

[River Jordan]

Just as I pointed out, you are in no position to make demands unless you have fulfilled those demands yourself. The fact that both more digits, less digits, and the same number of digits can be considered "valid" pretty much nullifies your claims.

In other words, I am asking YOU to support YOUR arguments, not MINE!

So you're not offering "design" as a scientific alternative. Please keep that in mind.

Since the "specific mechanism and pathway" is merely assumed after the fact it doesn't hold any weight at all. Anyone can pretend that there is a specific mechanism and pathway that would explain either loss, gain or stasis or the number of digits. So what you said above is irrelevant.

You misunderstood the data. We know the specific mechanism and pathway by which some tetrapods lose digits. They all develop 5 digits as embryos, and then some of them undergo cell death later on in embryonic development, which reduced the number of digits.

Alternative to what? Creation by nothing? Why are you constantly trying to shift the burden on me when it is quite obvious that you haven't provided a single minute shred of evidence, or even the slighest explanation that creation could have been been possible without God. And since you too are a believer then I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you trying to say that God did NOT create the universe?

We're just going in circles here. When I explain the scientific basis for common ancestry of tetrapods, you keep saying things like...

"you still haven't provided anything that cannot be equally explained by the existence of a designer"

"from my point of view, each and every animal has exactly the number of digits it requires in order to get by wherever God designed them to live"

"If God created a universe with patterns and structures then why wouldn't he create life in a similar manner."

I know you disagree with this, but IMO your responses are categorically no different than a believer in Last Thursdayism responding "How do you know God didn't just make it that way" whenever he's presented with evidence of a history prior to last Thursday.

All I can say is that if you're looking for anyone to present you with data that proves God didn't create things the way you think He did, it's not going to happen. First of all it's a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). If you believe all organisms are distinctly separated according to "kinds", then the burden is on you to support that belief. Second, since we're talking about God here, it's absolutely impossible for anyone to ever prove that God didn't create everything one way or another. No matter what data is presented, it fits in with "That's how God made it".

So from where I sit, you're kind of playing a safe little game, where you don't have to support anything you say, you demand I support everything I say, you don't have to do any work to understand the subject matter, and no matter what I present you can just wave it away by saying "But you still haven't proved that God didn't create all that". While I understand how that's safe, it also strikes me as rather cowardly.

Well, aren't you the one that claimed that "tetrapods descended from fish" in an attempt to "validate" evolution? But OK, you fill in the blanks "...., therefore evolution".. or "..., therefore UCA.

There's no way I'm wasting more of my time writing up explanations that you can't be bothered to read.

You were the one that pointed out the fact that there are biological patterns and structures as though the ONLY explanation for the things you pointed out.

No, I said that evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for what we see. I specifically repeated and emphasized that several times. Are you disputing that? If so, what other scientific explanation do you think equally or better explains the data?

No, don't be so utterly silly. I already pointed out that structureless blobs exist, so the fact that you are you even asking that question seems to indicate you are either not paying attention, or purposely trying to distort and twist my words around. Obviously, just as I think I pointed out, if everything in the universe was structureless, messy, and unfathomable then one would have good reason to question whether or not anything was the result of an intelligent designer, which is what I pointed out in response to your question. The mere existance of structureless blobs does not nullify my argument because structure would only be necessary where required.

So back to the original point....nothing potentially invalidates design by God. And since God is not investigable or testable scientifically, then "God made it that way" is not a scientific alternative.

Used where?

In biology. I get the impression that you've been arguing that the reason biologists have been reaching the same conclusions about the history of life on earth for the past 150+ years is because of some "worldview" they all adhere to. I'm wondering what you think that "worldview" is?

Well boo hoo hoo... I certainly didn't ask you to waste any time, just as I didn't ask you to spit out about fifty lines of evo-babble! If you want to discuss specific points then do so in a manner that is easily discussed, rather than just dump out heaps of dogmatic statements and expect me to meticulously sift through them and go to the tedious trouble of providing creationist answers to all of them. You don't want to waste time? Then neither do I!

Well that'll teach me a lesson I guess. The next time you say "Just break it down for me... if possible" I'll know that you really don't want that (and I won't waste my time).

You do what ALL proponents of evolution do. You read the dogma presented by one side and then you think you know it all. There are countless issues in this debate, and yet all you do is present the doctrine of your belief system as though that was the only "valid" explanation for what we see. I see very little evidence that you have the slightest clue as to what creationists have to say about the things you listed in your post. So if YOU can't be bothered reading up on what they say concerning these things, then don't whine on about what I need to read and "study".

How do you know what I have or haven't read from creationists?

My conviction, of course, is that God "made it" the way he said he did in Genesis, which includes creation of life in separate families. So what's the problem?

I don't recall any mention of "life in separate families" in scripture. Where is that?

???????????????????????????????????????????

Who on earth are you quoting here?

Oh.... I see,... in order for you to get your point across you need to pretend I said something I didn't.

What I ACTUALLY asked was this:

"What data? No one is denying any data here. When, however, you interpret data through a certain worldview then what point is there in appealing to "data"?"

In other words, what data can you provide that supports your argument and is not dependent on a worldview (you know, "the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world")?

I hope you are able to grasp the difference!

Like I said, I now know that when you say....

"If, for example, it has to deal with similarities between the genetic sequences of organisms belonging to diffent taxonomic classifications, then that shouldn't be too hard for you simplify and describe, should it? And if it has to do with something other than that then why don't you just say so? Why pretend that it is somehow hidden in the details? If primeval, and even fairly advanced organisms have hardly changed after million of years whereas others have undergone incredible changes that render them practically unrecongnizalbe from their predecessors, then what evidence have you seen under the microscope that proves that this has actually happened? Just break it down for me... if possible."

....you don't really mean it, and if I actually try and "break it down" for you, you won't bother to read it. It's ok...I understand now.

I asked you what you think God did and whether or not he was involved.

It's a simple question, so why are you trying to dodge it.

Do you believe God was involved in creating the universe or not?

Did he say he "let" it happen, or did he create it?

I believe God created the universe and everything in it by creating a set of parameters and letting them work as He intended and when He commanded.

Letting things happen at one's command and creating something are not mutually exclusive. Just as God allows plate tectonics to create mountains, he allows evolution to create species. In both cases God creates the processes and then commands them to work.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So you're not offering "design" as a scientific alternative. Please keep that in mind.

That's not what I said and you know it, so why don't you put aside the infantile games? I thought we agreed to clean this discussion up, lose all the foolish rhetoric and other antagonistic debating tactics, and concentrate on the bones of what is being discussed, and yet here you are again repetedly, and increasingly, distorting my comments and trying to frustrate me with comments that you know yourself are not honest and truthful.

Perhaps you should reread my comment and come back to me when you understand it. Until you give scientific (i.e. observed, repeated, and tested) evidence that the number of digits of an animal is the result of evolution rather than something inherently designed then you don't have anything that I need to provide an "alternative" for.

On my part, I have pointed out that designers use design patterns. The fact that intellegent minds use such patterns IS something that has been observed, repeated and tested. So there is your scientific alternative.

You misunderstood the data. We know the specific mechanism and pathway by which some tetrapods lose digits. They all develop 5 digits as embryos, and then some of them undergo cell death later on in embryonic development, which reduced the number of digits.

And? How is that supposed to be evidence for the kind of evolution (fish to tetrapods) that you claim has happened? And why do you claim that cell death is a "pathway"? That it is a pathway from an embryo of a tetrapod with 5 digits to become an adult tetrapod with 4 digits sounds OK to me, so why should I have any problem with it. Perhaps there were adult tetrapods that once had 5 digits which by some detrimental mutation were somehow subject ot a loss of information during the embyonic stage. What does that prove?

I know you disagree with this, but IMO your responses are categorically no different than a believer in Last Thursdayism responding "How do you know God didn't just make it that way" whenever he's presented with evidence of a history prior to last Thursday.

Well, let me explain exactly WHY I disagree with that.

To start with, I don't believe God created the universe last thursday, although of course such a thing is entirely possible from a philosophical point of view. Is this something I am advocating? NO!!! Someone who holds that view believes that God could have created the universe ANY day of the week, month, or year. I don't believe that. I believe the univers was created about 6 thousand years ago according to the evidence that I deem to be trustworthy. You on the other hand believe that the universe was created several billion years ago ALSO according to the evidence you deem trustworthy. So obviously, although we evaluate evidence differently, there is absolutely no difference in the way in which we approach this matter as far as Last Thursdayism is concerned. This is just another example of how you try to twist things around in order to portray my arguments as unreasonable, not realizing that you are just as guilty as anyone else of the fallacy you think you are exposing.

And further evidence of this kind of hypocrisy is that you, by your own admission, believe that God "set up parameters" by which he created the universe, which is nothing more that a fancy way of saying "He made it that way". You need to settle down and re-think your arguments River, because they are falling apart at the seams.

If you believe all organisms are distinctly separated according to "kinds", then the burden is on you to support that belief.

Sure, cats are not dogs, therefore there exist diffent kinds. It's as easy as that.

First of all it's a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). Second, since we're talking about God here, it's absolutely impossible for anyone to ever prove that God didn't create everything one way or another. No matter what data is presented, it fits in with "That's how God made it".

In order to appeal to logical fallacies you need to understand the logic involed. You don't. Since I never asked anyone to prove that God didn't create everything one way or another there is no "shifting the burden of proof" and therefore no logical fallacy - on my part. All we are left with on the other hand is a strawman - a logical fallacy on your part.

Let me give you an example that might serve in helping you out, because obviously you are struggling with this. Let's say we see a building on fire on the horizon and you claim that it is evidence that a bolt of lightening hit that buiding and caused the fire. Of course, theoretically, the building COULD have been caused by lightening, but the mere fact that it is burning is not evidence that it was, because there COULD be alternative explanations. And providing an alternative explanation is NOT shifting the burden of proof! The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the assertion (in other words, YOU!). I cannot shift a burden that I never had to start with.

So if I turn around and say that perhaps someone ignited the fire with a matchstick then I am not demanding that unless you to prove that the fire could NOT have been caused by a matchstick then it was caused by lightening. Do you understand now?

There's no way I'm wasting more of my time writing up explanations that you can't be bothered to read.

I never said that I couldn't be bothered reading your explanations, that is your conclusion. What I said was that I didn't have time to sift through all of them, which is why I singled out only one of them in an effort to make things managable. And again, if rather than simply preaching evolutionary mantra without displaying any willingness to listen to what the opposition has to say then don't expect to get any sympathy from me. It wasn't hard for me to see that what you wrote was the "usuall stuff" delivered by someone who has very little knowledge about counter-arguments used by creationists. I could invest a great deal of time pointing out links to rebuttals to the things you claim are evidence of evolution, but what would that help? As I said, I don't want to waste time any more than you do. We can try to keep this manageable, or we can throw elephants. It is your choice.

In biology. I get the impression that you've been arguing that the reason biologists have been reaching the same conclusions about the history of life on earth for the past 150+ years is because of some "worldview" they all adhere to. I'm wondering what you think that "worldview" is?

I'm not sure it's worth me answering a question like that because everything I say seems to get exaggerated to ridiculous levels. I expect that most of the work done in biology has nothing at all to do with any worldview, or at least, not in any way that has to do with the point of contention in the evolution/creation debate. So what exactly do you expect me to say here? All I can say is that the idea that all life on earth is physically related to each other and has diversified through evolutionary processes is a worldview - a way of viewing the world and explaining what we see - and I have hardly come across anyone so stubborn about denying that. Perhaps it's a knee-jerk thing?

How do you know what I have or haven't read from creationists?

I don't know you haven't, I just haven't seen much evidence that you have. When I read that long comment you made, you know the one you think was an invitation to "break it down for me", you came across as though you thought that everything you wrote was the entire uncontested truth of the matter. You know, all salted with comments like "hmmmmm" as though I was supposed to be bowled over by it!

I don't recall any mention of "life in separate families" in scripture. Where is that?

Oh come on, you know what I'm talking about - Genesis 1. Different kinds of life created on different days. In other words, we have life, we have separation (created on separate Days), and we have families (kinds producing offspring after their kind). So what's the big problem now?

Like I said, I now know that when you say....

"If, for example, it has to deal with similarities between the genetic sequences of organisms belonging to diffent taxonomic classifications, then that shouldn't be too hard for you simplify and describe, should it? And if it has to do with something other than that then why don't you just say so? Why pretend that it is somehow hidden in the details? If primeval, and even fairly advanced organisms have hardly changed after million of years whereas others have undergone incredible changes that render them practically unrecongnizalbe from their predecessors, then what evidence have you seen under the microscope that proves that this has actually happened? Just break it down for me... if possible."

....you don't really mean it, and if I actually try and "break it down" for you, you won't bother to read it. It's ok...I understand now.

Don't be so facecious! I gave you examples of how to break things down in the comment YOU quoted! You seem to have interpreted that as an invitation to go off on a huge rant that very few people have the time to give a proper response to. What you should have done is condense it all to the kind of basic arguments I provided as examples.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

I'm done with this conversation. I tried to get you to appreciate the technical nature of the subject matter, but you refused to put any effort into the discussion and basically challenged me to explain the data and reasoning behind evolutionary theory (in terms that you could understand). So I started to do that and spent a fair bit of time writing up exactly what you asked for...a layperson-friendly explanation of how the data supports evolutionary common descent of tetrapods. Your response? You didn't read it and just waved it away as "evolutionist dogma". And now you have the nerve to say that I have to "give scientific (i.e. observed, repeated, and tested) evidence that the number of digits of an animal is the result of evolution rather than something inherently designed"?

I tried that. You dismissed it without even looking at it.

In a discussion of science, when one side makes it 100% clear that they can't be bothered to put any effort into learning the subject or even reading highly simplified explanations, there is no discussion. It's basically Monty Python's argument sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

You can have the last word if you like.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You can have the last word if you like.

Oh goody goody. If you had graciously given me the last word then I would have graciously opted to agree to disagree and leave it at that, but since you chose to square off with such a dishonest, insulting, and imputent post then I will certainly, with great delight, use the opportunity to set things straight, and not let you get away with disfiguring my comments in order to suit your agenda.

I told you explicitly that the reason I did not deal with your entire rant had to do with the time it would take for me (who sometimes has other things to do) to come back and offer a rebuttle that was worthy of a debate like this. But you chose to ignore what I said and kept on pretending that it had to do with ignorance. It did not, so stop whining. In Another thread you said that you "can't be bothered to put any effort into learning the subject or even reading highly simplified explanations", which is somehow good enough for you to say, but not for others!

That is totally hypocritical behavior!

Now in order to promote a good and manageable discussion I focussed on one of the points you brought up, which by itself would probably need an entire thread to discuss, but you ignored that in favor of trying to portray me as ignorant. Oh the utter irony!!! This discussion has nothing to do with breaking things down, it has to do with trying to dodge and distort what has been said.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2A0aTrfb2g[/media]

So my final comment to you River, is that you have dealt with this, and other topics in this forum, dishonestly, and need to repent.

 

[River Jordan]

In Another thread you said that you "can't be bothered to put any effort into learning the subject or even reading highly simplified explanations", which is somehow good enough for you to say, but not for others!

That is totally hypocritical behavior!

Show where I said that, or retract your accusation.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Show where I said that, or retract your accusation.

Well I copied and pasted that comment earlier on today, but now I cannot find it. If anyone else saw that comment then please let me know, otherwise I will gladly retract my accusation, despite that fact that River Jordan has misquoted me only a couple of posts ago without giving me any retraction of her "accusation".

 

[River Jordan]

I, on the other hand have NEVER misquoted you. and quite obviously can show you EXACTLY where you said that.

Then do so, or retract your accusation.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Then do so, or retract your accusation.

Sure, I can do that. No problem. So why don't YOU retract the statement YOU made against me?

 

[River Jordan]

Sure, I can do that. No problem.

Then do it. If you don't by the next post, I'll conclude that you falsely accused me but refused to retract it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Then do it. If you don't by the next post, I'll conclude that you falsely accused me but refused to retract it.

I just did!!! How otherwise do you interpret the words "I can do that"? It obviously is an admission that I am willing to do that, but with the OBVIOUS requirement that you retract YOUR misquotes, something you have NEVER done:

"Yeah, well why can't you explain the evolutionary history of tetrapods to me, with all its supporting data, and in a way that I can understand without doing any work?"

--takes time to write it all up--

"Meh...I didn't really read it. Now why don't you explain even more of the data to me?"

So why should I retract anything? You distort, you lie, you eggerate, and yet you have the gall to turn around and make demands on me.

But let me be the first to show an ounce of honesty here: I retract my accusation!

 

[River Jordan]

I retract my accusation!

Thank you, I guess.

You distort, you lie, you eggerate

*sigh* You just can't stop, can you?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Thank you, I guess.


*sigh* You just can't stop, can you?

Why should I? You do distort, you do lie, and you do exaggerate. On this thread alone you accuse me, after i CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY told you the reason why I did not delve so deeply into the things you posted (i.e. NOT that I did not read them), something you were extremely quick to distort, lie, and exaggerate about, but ON ANOTHER THREAD, you yourself made this comment: " I have absolutely no interest in debating geocentrism from a scientific perspective" (that one I will NOT retract!)

Obviously you feel free to make excuses for not immediately responding, but when I do so then you lie, distort and exaggerate.

And where exactly is YOUR retraction?????????

Nowhere to be found it seems!!!

 

[River Jordan]

On this thread alone you accuse me, after i CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY told you the reason why I did not delve so deeply into the things you posted (i.e. NOT that I did not read them)

So when you said "That's quite a lot of evolutionist dogma, and I don't have time to sift through it all at the moment", that meant that you'd read it?

Um...ok. My bad I guess.

ON ANOTHER THREAD, you yourself made this comment: " I have absolutely no interest in debating geocentrism from a scientific perspective" (that one I will NOT retract!)

And your point is.......?

And where exactly is YOUR retraction?????????

See above. Again, my bad.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So when you said "That's quite a lot of evolutionist dogma, and I don't have time to sift through it all at the moment", that meant that you'd read it?

It meant that I didn't have the time to sift through it all at the moment, which is exactly what I said, and very similar to what you siad in another thread! To me it is important not just to read a post, but to check out what BOTH sides have to say about it. You ignored that and immediatly started to rave on about how I ignored what you said, and portrayed me as someone who almost badgered you to "break things down" and then refused to even read them!

Um...ok. My bad I guess.

So what is that supposed to be? Your "retraction" ... clothed in sarcasm?

And your point is.......?

That it seems to be OK for you to study the subject in more depth later on, but not for others!

Again, my bad.

So why don't you retract your comment clearly and honestly WITHOUT the sarcasm.. .just like I did!?!

 

[River Jordan]

It meant that I didn't have the time to sift through it all at the moment, which is exactly what I said!

Right... that moment being after you had already declared it to be nothing more than "evolutionary dogma". You hadn't really read it yet, but you'd already reached your conclusion.

To me it is important not just to read a post, but to check out what BOTH sides have to say about it. You ignored that and immediatly started to rave on about how I ignored what you said and was almost badgering you to "break things down" and refused to even read them! That is a lie!

Then allow me to clarify. What I should have said was, you refused to read it before waving it away as just "evolutionary dogma".

That it seems to be OK for you to study the subject in more depth later on, but not for others!

First, I didn't spend days challenging Suhar to present a scientific case for geocentrism only to dismiss it as dogma before I'd even read it. And let me make this perfectly clear... I'm not going to spend any amount of time on the "science of geocentrism". No interest here at all.

So why don't you retract your comment clearly and honestly WITHOUT the sarcasm.. .just like I did!?!

I retract it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Right... that moment being after you had already declared it to be nothing more than "evolutionary dogma". You hadn't really read it yet, but you'd already reached your conclusion.

Sure I did. I have been involved in these kinds of discussions long enough to recognize dogmatic rants. When someone points out patterns and similarities and claims that therefore "fish evolved into tetrapods", he or she is obviously making a dogmatic statement.
IF it so happens that you find ME dogmatically stating that since designers use common patterns, then similarities between different families of animals are due to design, then YOU would also be free to suggest that I am preaching "creationist dogma". So feel free to scan through my posts and find evidence of that!

Then allow me to clarify. What I should have said was, you refused to read it before waving it away as just "evolutionary dogma".

No you shouldn't! I explained this to you several times already and yet you ignore what I have said. If I "refused to read it" then I would NOT have made the claim that it was evolutionary dogma! When every word I read is exactly as it is presented in the kind of text books that are published all over the world without addressing ONE SINGLE PROBLEM with the theory, then it is obvious that you just want to spread dogma, and not discuss anything else.

First, I didn't spend days challenging Suhar to present a scientific case for geocentrism only to dismiss it as dogma before I'd even read it. And let me make this perfectly clear... I'm not going to spend any amount of time on the "science of geocentrism". No interest here at all.

I already told you that rather than challenging you to present a scientific case for evolution, I challenged you to present a scientific case for the fact that the data you provide is free from any worldview. You NEVER did that. Instead chose to turn this discussion into something completely different.

Now I am getting a little tired of this! I responded to your comment immediately after reading it. I addressed one of your points explaining exactly why I didn't address them all. I have repeatedly explained why I did not respond to all of them, and I have repeatedly appealed to you to cease and desist with dishonest debating tactics, which I think any of the moderators here will be able to see if they review this thread. So if you make one more accusation that I have not read your post then I will report you! Both lying and trolling are against forum rules!

I retract it.

Thank you... I guess...

 

[HammerStone]

?????????? I never said anything about light directing itself.

Even the use of "passive"/jussive here would be a grammatical construct meant to focus on the theme (creation) rather than necessarily the author of the action. I think what Wormwood is getting at is that with the jussive mood, it still refers to God acting to create. Going passive does not change the action in our own English language, it just redirects the emphasis. The Hebrew here would be achieving the same effect.

Awkward English alert here, but it would be like me saying: He had created the sculpture.

Most English professors abhor passive voice, but it's very common in our day-to-day speaking. The passive voice I just employed unconsciously forces us to dwell on the act more than me saying: He created the sculpture.

I don't doubt that there would be a standard decree-style purpose behind this particular structure. "Let there be" is employed not because it signifies God using existing materials or laws, but because there is no other alternative as God decreed it. In other words, let there be what the King - or God - decreed (gave his permission for) and not any alternative.

 

[River Jordan]

When someone points out patterns and similarities and claims that therefore "fish evolved into tetrapods", he or she is obviously making a dogmatic statement.

I'm sure that's all you took away from it, given that you didn't bother to really read it before dismissing it. But then when you comment on things you haven't really read, you tend to get them wrong.

When every word I read is exactly as it is presented in the kind of text books that are published all over the world without addressing ONE SINGLE PROBLEM with the theory, then it is obvious that you just want to spread dogma, and not discuss anything else.

First, I don't think you are grasping the point here. I don't care what your excuse is, the fact remains that after you kept badgering me to explain how evolutionary theory is scientifically supported (and I even specifically said "I am demonstrating how the conclusions of evolutionary biology are scientifically valid"), I took a fair bit of time to compose a layperson friendly write up that you summarily dismissed before you'd really read it. No matter what excuse you give, it doesn't change what you did.

Plus, now in your desperation you're complaining that I didn't describe any problems with evolutionary theory? Was that what you were challenging me to do? Let's see....

"What you seem to be claiming here is that the evidence for evolution is burried in extremely technical details that only scientists would be able to understand. But if that was the case then there would be no scientists on the entire planet that reject evolution, something we know is not true, but also, I don't understand why the arguments used in support of evolution are so complicated that they cannot be broken down in such a way that a non-scientists could accept them. Why would they be?"

"So the idea that it would it be too difficult for non-scientists to understand is a little too convenient for me to accept. And as I pointed out, the contention in this discussion is not whether or not biological evolution occurs today, whether or not biological evolution proves common descent."

Huh....non mention of "problems with evolutionary theory" there. And after I posted back to you that I really didn't want to take the time to explain everything to you, you kept going...

"you haven't given the slightest clue as to why this matter cannot be broken down to a level that can be understood by someone who has not well-versed genetics."

"If, for example, it has to deal with similarities between the genetic sequences of organisms belonging to diffent taxonomic classifications, then that shouldn't be too hard for you simplify and describe, should it? And if it has to do with something other than that then why don't you just say so? Why pretend that it is somehow hidden in the details? If primeval, and even fairly advanced organisms have hardly changed after million of years whereas others have undergone incredible changes that render them practically unrecongnizalbe from their predecessors, then what evidence have you seen under the microscope that proves that this has actually happened? Just break it down for me... if possible."

"Unless you can provide a scientific argument that both you and I can understand and agree on, then all it boils down to is that you consider your own understanding of science to be superior to my understanding of truth (something you cannot "scientifically" support), OR that your scientists are bigger and better than mine (something else you cannot "scientifically" support). "

Do you see anything about presenting "problems with the theory"? I see the exact opposite...you challenging me to present the scientific case for evolutionary theory, not against it. So not only did you lazily dismiss what you asked for before reading it, now you're offering dishonest excuses for doing so.

I already told you that rather than challenging you to present a scientific case for evolution, I challenged you to present a scientific case for the fact that the data you provide is free from any worldview.

Now you're just making things up. In addition to the above, you also stated...

"My argument was directed towards what you call evidence of common ancestry, not "God didn't do it", so why are you trying to imply that it is?"

Later on you even reflected back exactly what I was doing...

"You claim that what you are trying to demonstrate is equivalient to the "validity of the conclusions of evoutionary biology". If by that you mean that such conclusions are the best explanation for the number of digits in an animal then please explain what you base that on."

You're in a hole of your own making Uppsala. Time to stop digging.

So if you make one more accusation that I have not read your post then I will report you! Both lying and trolling are against forum rules!

Yeah, we'll just let the following speak for itself. After I expressed my disappointment at you dismissing what I wrote before really reading it, you responded with...

"Well boo hoo hoo... I certainly didn't ask you to waste any time, just as I didn't ask you to spit out about fifty lines of evo-babble!"

That sums up your attitude in this thread pretty well. At the very least, it's been entertaining. So thanks for that, I guess.

Even the use of "passive"/jussive here would be a grammatical construct meant to focus on the theme (creation) rather than necessarily the author of the action. I think what Wormwood is getting at is that with the jussive mood, it still refers to God acting to create. Going passive does not change the action in our own English language, it just redirects the emphasis. The Hebrew here would be achieving the same effect.

Awkward English alert here, but it would be like me saying: He had created the sculpture.

Most English professors abhor passive voice, but it's very common in our day-to-day speaking. The passive voice I just employed unconsciously forces us to dwell on the act more than me saying: He created the sculpture.

I don't doubt that there would be a standard decree-style purpose behind this particular structure. "Let there be" is employed not because it signifies God using existing materials or laws, but because there is no other alternative as God decreed it. In other words, let there be what the King - or God - decreed (gave his permission for) and not any alternative.

I don't agree. It wouldn't have been too difficult for the author to have written "And God created light" or "And God created land animals" and so on. But he didn't. Instead he wrote "And God said let there be light" and "And God said let the land produce vegetation" and "And God said let the land produce living creatures".

IMO it's pretty clear.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I'm sure that's all you took away from it, given that you didn't bother to really read it before dismissing it. But then when you comment on things you haven't really read, you tend to get them wrong.

Well OK, let me repeat what I said earlier on:

I responded to your comment immediately after reading it. I addressed one of your points explaining exactly why I didn't address them all. I have repeatedly explained why I did not respond to all of them, and I have repeatedly appealed to you to cease and desist with dishonest debating tactics

I don't care what your excuse is, the fact remains that after you kept badgering me to explain how evolutionary theory is scientifically supported.

I didn't give you any "excuse" and neither do I need one. And I never "badgered" you at all! I asked you for the evidence and arguments in simple terms, not the kind of dogmatic statements you posted.

Plus, now in your desperation you're complaining that I didn't describe any problems with evolutionary theory? Was that what you were challenging me to do? Let's see....

"What you seem to be claiming here is that the evidence for evolution is burried in extremely technical details that only scientists would be able to understand. But if that was the case then there would be no scientists on the entire planet that reject evolution, something we know is not true, but also, I don't understand why the arguments used in support of evolution are so complicated that they cannot be broken down in such a way that a non-scientists could accept them. Why would they be?"

"So the idea that it would it be too difficult for non-scientists to understand is a little too convenient for me to accept. And as I pointed out, the contention in this discussion is not whether or not biological evolution occurs today, whether or not biological evolution proves common descent."

Huh....non mention of "problems with evolutionary theory" there. And after I posted back to you that I really didn't want to take the time to explain everything to you, you kept going...

"you haven't given the slightest clue as to why this matter cannot be broken down to a level that can be understood by someone who has not well-versed genetics."

"If, for example, it has to deal with similarities between the genetic sequences of organisms belonging to diffent taxonomic classifications, then that shouldn't be too hard for you simplify and describe, should it? And if it has to do with something other than that then why don't you just say so? Why pretend that it is somehow hidden in the details? If primeval, and even fairly advanced organisms have hardly changed after million of years whereas others have undergone incredible changes that render them practically unrecongnizalbe from their predecessors, then what evidence have you seen under the microscope that proves that this has actually happened? Just break it down for me... if possible."

"Unless you can provide a scientific argument that both you and I can understand and agree on, then all it boils down to is that you consider your own understanding of science to be superior to my understanding of truth (something you cannot "scientifically" support), OR that your scientists are bigger and better than mine (something else you cannot "scientifically" support). "

Do you see anything about presenting "problems with the theory"? I see the exact opposite...you challenging me to present the scientific case for evolutionary theory, not against it. So not only did you lazily dismiss what you asked for before reading it, now you're offering dishonest excuses for doing so.

And in your desparation in trying to make your excuse, you ignored my response to this...

"I gave you examples of how to break things down in the comment YOU quoted! You seem to have interpreted that as an invitation to go off on a huge rant that very few people have the time to give a proper response to. What you should have done is condense it all to the kind of basic arguments I provided as examples."

.. and make the ridiculous claim that I have been BADGERING you! I haven't badgered anyone here! Why exaggerate????? I even made it easy for you by giving you examples of what I meant!

Now you're just making things up.

Really??? Let's go back and see what was said here concerning the text you quoted:

You said:

"If that conclusion were entirely, or even mostly, based on a person's worldview, then we would expect scientists to break out along those lines. But they don't....at all, and that strongly suggests that the scientific conclusions about life on earth are based on something other than worldview.
And when we look through the scientific literature we see what that something is....the data.

My response:

"What data? No one is denying any data here. When, however, you interpret data through a certain worldview then what point is there in appealing to "data"? That doesn't make sense."

And I clarified this by saying:

"In other words, what data can you provide that supports your argument and is not dependent on a worldview (you know, "the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world")?"

And so when I write:

"I challenged you to present a scientific case for the fact that the data you provide is free from any worldview. "

You say:

"Now you are making things up."

Care to explain what you mean by that???

You're in a hole of your own making Uppsala. Time to stop digging.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What on earth do those comments have to do with the above??

That sums up your attitude in this thread pretty well. At the very least, it's been entertaining. So thanks for that, I guess.

Well having an "attitude" (especially after so much provocation on your part) is not against forum rules. Lying, on the other hand is, and despite the fact that I have provided evidence that I read your post, you claim that I didn't. That is a lie and therefore a breach of forum rules.