Originally posted by Transfinitum
Very well then; if Digi has left, that leaves my questions unanswered.
Has it? I guess you didn't read/watch anything wrote or linked to, or decided that "oh, he's leaving. I can ignore anything he says."
Also, try forming opinions based on what people say. Not ignoring it then demanding stuff. You've literally done nothing but demand of people, and haven't offered any points of your own. It's a sad excuse for debating.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
In other words, " when I (and probably other people) know that it cannot be false or argued within reason".
Huh? What is this is response to?
I'm going to recommend to everyone that they ignore you at the moment, because at first it was just uninformed debate, but the recent utter lack of class, respect, and the inability to address any point made against you with anything but insults and/or demands, leads me to believe you're just implementing typical troll tactics. Whether this is intentional or coincidental I can't tell, but it will get you nowhere except with people who agree with you already. I still have yet to see you respond to anything I've said. It's just been smug demands and ludicrous statements like Creationism being scientifically valid.
So ignore him guys, unless you really care to wate your time. Unless he proves himself something other than a troll, of course.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
And I am only questioning the "proven" theory. The one that I am requred to learn. I see no reason I would need to advance a seperate point. If this is proven, it would stand alone.
You don't have to learn or accept evolution.
Then again learning ID and Creationism is pretty easy ("read the first few paragraphs or Genesis . . . kay, class is over"😉 so you could use that extra time to study evolution.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I like how ushome referred to our "debate" in the other thread, when all it was was him demanding sh*t like most angry ID advocates, me providing it at length and also pointing out why every one of his tactics is disingenuous, then he kinda never responded with anything resembling a cogent rebuttal. It wasn't really much of a debate.
Don't you understand that I'm simply asking you to provide evidence to back up the claims that you make. I'm simply being critical, not disingenuous. And yes, it wasn't much of a debate; everything you stated was wishful thinking. Why couldn't you just get to the core of the issue and provide an example of information in an organism's genome increasing? Four to five billion years of Darwinian evolution, and you can't produce one? Talk about blind faith.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Don't you understand that I'm simply asking you to provide evidence to back up the claims that you make. I'm simply being critical, not disingenuous. And yes, it wasn't much of a debate; everything you stated was wishful thinking. Why couldn't you just get to the core of the issue and provide an example of information in an organism's genome increasing? Four to five billion years of Darwinian evolution, and you can't produce one? Talk about blind faith.
Why would the amount of information need to increase to produce something new? Ever heard of topology?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Very well then; if Digi has left, that leaves my questions unanswered. The only reason I am a skeptic of Evolution is that these things happen. I ask questions, refute them, and then hope for an argument that cannot be beat. Once that is found, truth will reveal itself. Has the purpose of science been forgoten? I thought the purpose here was to find the truth, not bicker like old women.
There is no such thing as an argument that can't be beat...all logic in every way, shape, form or size has an element of uncertainty to it.
My understanding of science is that it is rarely plausible to set absolute theories. The scientific community knows they can't absolutely prove evolution exists. They simply draw conclusions that are most likely to be correct according to a given set of assumptions. It's logic.
Anti-evolutionists have been poking holes in Darwin's theory since it was formed. The vast majority of the scientific community, however, sits back and waits for a better theory to...evolve.
Sure, you doubt evolution. I support evolution, but I doubt it as well. I'm ready to hear an alternative theory. Got one?
Originally posted by Quark_666Very good post. It's not like scientists claim it is fact. Just the only scientific thing we have so far.
There is no such thing as an argument that can't be beat...all logic in every way, shape, form or size has an element of uncertainty to it.My understanding of science is that it is rarely plausible to set absolute theories. The scientific community knows they can't absolutely prove evolution exists. They simply draw conclusions that are most likely to be correct according to a given set of assumptions. It's logic.
Anti-evolutionists have been poking holes in Darwin's theory since it was formed. The vast majority of the scientific community, however, sits back and waits for a better theory to...evolve.
Sure, you doubt evolution. I support evolution, but I doubt it as well. I'm ready to hear an alternative theory. Got one?
Well...and as good as fact.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would the amount of information need to increase to produce something new?9
The genome of an organism determines what kind of organism it will be; leave the information alone and the end result will always be the same--organism A, for example. For organism "A" to development into a completely new organism (B), at some point in time, new information must be introduced into the genome (and it must be beneficial); but this does not occure in nature. This is precisely why so much emphasis and stock is put into genetic mutation. But genetic mutations are simply errors within "pre-existing" genome information, never introducing new information. Mutated organisms should serve as a wake-up call to Darwinists, since mutations hinder the ability for an organism to survive, let alone producing offspring. And we only know this because of the amazing field of molecular biology. Darwinian evolution only exists on paper and internet articles, not to mention unfounded videos simular to the one DigiMark007 posted on this thread; its a joke.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever heard of topology?
Yes, but what does that have to do with molecular biology, specifically, the function of DNA?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
First of all, what is "whob". Second, I am not a "sock" of ushomefree rather we agree on certain topics.
a sock is another account of 1 person. and guys he's not, i know him in rl, he's an extremely stubborn catholic who thinks that providing an argument isnt as good as destroying evolution. if you dont take a stance transfinitum NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE FRGGIN UNIVERSE WILL ARGUE WITH YOU. digi is right, you have continued to ignore facts. post your stance on the issue
Originally posted by ushomefree😕
The genome of an organism determines what kind of organism it will be; leave the information alone and the end result will always be the same--organism A, for example. For organism "A" to development into a completely new organism (B), at some point in time, new information must be introduced into the genome (and it must be beneficial); but this does not occure in nature. This is precisely why so much emphasis and stock is put into genetic mutation. But genetic mutations are simply errors within "pre-existing" genome information, never introducing new information. Mutated organisms should serve as a wake-up call to Darwinists, since mutations hinder the ability for an organism to survive, let alone producing offspring. And we only know this because of the amazing field of molecular biology. Darwinian evolution only exists on paper and internet articles, not to mention unfounded videos simular to the one DigiMark007 posted on this thread; its a joke.Yes, but what does that have to do with molecular biology, specifically, the function of DNA?