swansont

I read the first talk.origins one. Or rather, I re-read it. I’m quite familiar with the points, since I used to be involved with the discussions back in the USENET days. The summary is good, since it gathers refutations from multiple creationist arguments, and rebuts multiple misconceptions. Didn’t see a need to read more from t.o. The SciAm one is paywalled

The two that pointed out that the idea was crap? What about them. You obviously don’t understand them. It’s not clear you make an effort to. You also don’t assess the credibility of thecsource. Because this isn’t a two-sides, equal-consideration situation. Science is based on empirical evidence, and the merit of ideas is related to the depth and breadth of evidence there is to support them. Creationist ideas have been thoroughly debunked. There is no merit in them. As Stephen Gould wrote “I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” And the “just asking questions” tone is known as sea-lioning, which is a bad-faith tactic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

The home page is “A Creation Perspective” As you should have. When you copy-paste a question like that, it takes almost no effort. Yet you expected someone to put forth the effort to debunk it, yet again. That’s not engaging in good faith. Variation exists. Neutral mutations exist, too, which might become useful when the environment changes. Nothing should be surprising about it. It’s also possible that it becomes a negative, and is selected against. It’s a matter of contradicting yourself, which gives the appearance of trolling. And when your sources are of dubious quality, or don’t actually say what you imply they do, this becomes indistinguishable from the Gish gallop.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 (emphasis added) Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. How much of an effect is there in the radial direction?

By all means show the transformations, but I thought that these events are not preserved.

You need to show where you found these quotes. Did it occur to you that a new finding would supersede old information? An old quote might have out-of-date numbers. Also some of these quotes are citing specific but different subsets of the mass

How is this an example of a trait that evolved without being selected for? Genetic variation exists No, it does not, and if you understood evolution to any degree you would know why, and You don’t get to ignore the request for a citation This is inconsistent with other statements you’ve made. What of Darwin’s basic concepts have been discarded? variation exists? traits are inherited? natural selection happens? common ancestry?

How much fuel would one need? How do you deal with the issues of traveling at high speeds? (collisions, radiation effects)

Variation of traits is not unexpected. “the genetic program is already in the organism” is too vague of a statement. You need to give specifics. This is in quotes and yet you don’t give the source. It’s also an example of what I said about parroting creationist material.

Saying there is no sense of direction in evolution is merely repeating the question, not explaining what you mean. But, as you say later, there is no end goal in mind; evolution does not anticipate needing features. The feedback of selection depends only on the current environment. i.e. you do not evolve a feature now because it will be useful some number of generations down the line And what that means is that the changes from evolution depend on the current environment. Selection is for a trait that's useful right now. But that selection is not random - more individuals survive if they have that trait. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Do we no longer have descent with modification? Because that's the main idea of Darwin. Your description is like seeing a tree in the winter and then in the summer, and saying it's not a tree because now it has leaves on it, and the branches are longer. Most of us recognize the tree. You don't but that sounds like a "you" problem.

You were asked to explain what you mean by no direction in evolution and how it applies here. You did not do so. I’d also ask for you to tell us why you think “evolution” (as in evolution has no direction) and “gene evolution” refer to the same thing. “This runs counter to the dictum that evolutionary events are random.” This is not true. The dictum is that mutations are random. Selection is not. Thus, there is no dictum that evolutionary events are random.

Last time this came up it was because the pulse width of the light was ignored. I notice that the article I read said that “there appears” to be a negative time, not there actually is.

! Moderator Note I think this is fine, just make sure the shipping details are exchanged via PM rather than posted (probably unnecessary to tell you, but protocol requires a notice)

Which definition of faith are you using? trust/confidence in something 1. despite there being no evidence, or 2. because there is lots of evidence?

You were making assertions of opinion. Ignorance is a deficit of knowledge. You can’t be less knowledgeable and also not ignorant to some extent. The goid news is that ignorance can be fixed. You might review what I said. I said you were parroting creationist talking points, not that you are a creationist. But creationism is incorrect, and the objections raised by creationists are flawed; they are either incorrect about details of evolution, or about the process that we call science. You say you aren’t a creationist but you haven’t shown this by taking the steps of understanding evolution and science. You use the tactic of argument-by-quote; which underscores that you lack understanding. The underlying issue is how you can lack knowledge and yet be utterly convinced that you’re correct.

How about being less offensive with your ignorance-based accusations? Evidence is to the contrary. Then stop parroting creationist talking points This would seem to be more indicative of your lack of understanding than issues with the theory.

I don’t see this as opposite. There has been a shift in how science perceives evolution. I object to your tone that suggests this is somehow a weakness or flaw (“Your house is a mess!”) or that anyone promised that theories would never be refined. You give the impression that you expect science to cater to your whims.

Given that they made the comment, I’d say the answer is “no”

Your question was “Can these statements be demonstrated incorrect?” and the answer to that is “yes” which I posted in the first response. I see you have other questions, but you hadn’t asked them yet A wall-o-text list of questions isn’t the right way to do this, if you have a sincere desire to learn. But if it’s a bad faith effort inspired by Gish-galloping, it’s right on the money. “far away” is debatable but otherwise pretty much, yes. New things were discovered and the theory was expanded and fleshed out. It’s this way in all of science. It’s not static. Science isn’t a person and can’t “state” anything. As above. All science is provisional; it gets updated and refined, if necessary, as new evidence comes to light. It represents the best understanding at the time. Nobody who understands the process would make the claims as you’ve presented them. Your implied expectations are unreasonable and present a strong odor of bad faith

Also: federal tax on gas was 4 cents a gallon in the 70s. It’s 18.4 cents today. Lots of states have raised their taxes, too.

What is CMG? Did you mean CGM?

Right. Mendel discovered simple results of genetics but had no details of the mechanism, so the idea was incomplete. Gaps were filled in. A fairly commonplace occurrence in science. Darwin had descent with modification. Mendel showed traits can be “stored” and various combinations manifest themselves differently. There’s no conflict between the two. Different pieces of a larger puzzle. It’s evidence of bad faith to pretend that either bit was a fully fleshed-out theory. Darwin acknowledged that there were things yet to be discovered. (IIRC the problem of “blending” was one thing). Creationists often present the argument framed as if Darwinism is the whole theory of evolution. They also present gradualism as if it means the rate of change is perfectly constant, while Darwin was differentiating his idea from saltation.

You tell us! You’re the one violating the invariance. So we need a new transform to account for this. What is it? But you said this has nothing to do with relativity, and yet you acknowledge that you’re tossing it aside. From your posts, it’s not clear you understand causality Events differing does not appear to be a causality issue

“And I explain how it is deduced from this that from the observer's point of view, events in different IFRs are the same.” (emphasis added) I can’t reconcile how they can be different events and also the same.

You didn’t claim this. You said an event in frame 1 will be different than an event in frame 2. You still haven’t explained what the role of causality is; you agreed that it requires two different events