Evomumbojumbo Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 As this topic was aimed at believers in creation, I would like to respond. Observations like the ones you cite are secondary observations built on the assumption of naturalism. I use that word because my disbelief of evolution extends further than the accepted limited definition of the term evolution. I have never read anything that accepts that it is all built on assumptions and attempts to address those assumptions without citing gaps in knowledge. Evolution requires the proactive engineering of new body parts including self replicating DNA instruction code containing new and novel information sequences. Where is the evidence for that? virus immunity is not creating any new structures or anatomical features, and so would never escape from being a virus, ever. I appreciate this is a science forum but I must take issue with Christian brothers believing in evolution. Happy to take offline. -3
Bufofrog Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I appreciate this is a science forum but I must take issue with Christian brothers believing in evolution. In another thread you said that you accept that whales evolved to have no legs and that snakes evolved to be legless, so why do you take issue with others who also believe evolution? Don't you see a problem here?? Edited January 20, 2022 by Bufofrog
swansont Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 9 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: As this topic was aimed at believers in creation, I would like to respond. Observations like the ones you cite are secondary observations built on the assumption of naturalism. I use that word because my disbelief of evolution extends further than the accepted limited definition of the term evolution. Can you clarify this - it sounds like you are saying your disbelief in evolution is based on things not claimed by or covered by evolution. 9 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I have never read anything that accepts that it is all built on assumptions and attempts to address those assumptions without citing gaps in knowledge. Like all science is based on assumptions and has gaps in knowledge? That's an underlying truth, not specific to evolution, so there is no reason to call it out. 9 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Evolution requires the proactive engineering of new body parts including self replicating DNA instruction code containing new and novel information sequences. No, not really. Nothing proactive here. No "anticipation" of new body parts. 9 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Where is the evidence for that? No evidence is required of things not claimed.
Phi for All Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 11 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I use that word because my disbelief of evolution extends further than the accepted limited definition of the term evolution. It's pretty common for people using faith to believe to torture definitions of scientific studies they don't agree with. You start with the assumption that your religious beliefs are correct, and then redefine the science. Science, OTOH, looks at the evidence and formulates explanations based on reason, so what we believe is much more trustworthy.
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 It’s posts like this that deter anyone from declaring their beliefs. Just assume I have enough reason to doubt the truth of all things gradual and naturalistic, driven by a desire for scientific truth Bufofrog snakes losing legs and birds growing wings are opposites. You use the word evolution for both. In this age of nuanced language can’t we have different words fir these outcomes, maybe we do. If not something like evolution up and evolution down would suffice if you don’t like devolution. oh and I’m glad you sorted your grip out. - must be a golf thing
iNow Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 10 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: It’s posts like this that deter anyone from declaring their beliefs. Just assume I have enough reason to doubt the truth of all things gradual and naturalistic, driven by a desire for scientific truth Reality doesn’t care about what we believe. Why would I assume a totally random stranger on the internet who shows a poor understanding of evolution has valid reasons for his doubt? Perhaps if instead of declaring your doubt you specified it’s source we could have a meaningful exchange. Sadly, you’re probably too afraid to be corrected and would rather continue existing in your ignorance because it’s easier and more comfortable.
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 Why do evolutionists insist on mind reading then coming out with same old cliches? If you don’t want to engage, don’t engage it’s a semi free world. Darwinism is simple to understand but wrong. No amount of icing can make the cake more edible, and after all this time nothing has. Which is why Gould abandoned it and explored models that fit the facts.
iNow Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Darwinism is simple to understand but wrong. I heard you the first time, but you’ve yet to elaborate on where and how. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Cue the series of strawmen and strings of misunderstandings in Gish Gallop fashion. Edited January 21, 2022 by iNow
iNow Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 32 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Finches You’ll need to try harder than that, sir… or even at all
Peterkin Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 On 1/19/2022 at 9:35 PM, Evomumbojumbo said: Observations like the ones you cite are secondary observations built on the assumption of naturalism. What are primary observations? What is the secondary observer looking at? I didn't know observation comes in degrees. Please to elucidate. On 1/19/2022 at 9:35 PM, Evomumbojumbo said: built on the assumption of naturalism. How does one build an observation on an assumption? And what is "the assumption of naturalism"? Having assumed a 'naturalism' (admittedly, a skill I have not yet mastered), how do I proceed to build an observation on it? It... does...not....com...pute. 58 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Finches They're lovely! And clever, too. All different kinds for different food sources and environments. One damn cool bird is the finch.
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 He could have stayed at home, they’re the most common bird in England 1 hour ago, iNow said: You’ll need to try harder than that, sir… or even at all Exactly what I’d have told him 1 hour ago, iNow said: You’ll need to try harder than that, sir… or even at all Ok fossils
Peterkin Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 23 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: He could have stayed at home, they’re the most common bird in England You really have no frickin idea, have you?
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 I know a bird when I see one and that’s all they ever where, are and will be. Unless you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
Peterkin Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I know a bird when I see one and that’s all they ever where, are and will be. Unless you can prove otherwise, which you can’t. Okay. Explain why the differences and similarities among these birds: https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/birds/british-finches-how-to-identify-and-where-to-see/
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 There’s nothing to explain, they are what they are, different species of finch. No cross breeding, small differences within the species, unchanging, probably picked ticks off a Trex at one point, certainly a Rhino in London and they are always found in couples
Peterkin Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) Small differences. Tick-picking seed eater. 468 of the little guys, picking ticks off the 10 rhinos in the ark. In London. Got it. Edited January 21, 2022 by Peterkin
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 Never mentioned the ark https://gardening.yardener.com/Finches-Do-Bad-Bugs
swansont Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 6 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I know a bird when I see one and that’s all they ever where, are and will be. Unless you can prove otherwise, which you can’t. ! Moderator Note This is your claim, so it's incumbent upon you to support it, rather than shifting the burden to others having to prove otherwise.
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Never mentioned the ark https://gardening.yardener.com/Finches-Do-Bad-Bugs 42 minutes ago, Peterkin said: Small differences. Tick-picking seed eater. 468 of the little guys, picking ticks off the 10 rhinos in the ark. In London. Got it. https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/beasts-ancient-london
dimreepr Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 If we all agree to stop feeding them, they will either evovle, to eat something else, or die out... 😉
iNow Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Darwinism is simple to understand but wrong 12 hours ago, iNow said: I heard you the first time, but you’ve yet to elaborate on where and how. Go ahead. I’ll wait. 12 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Finches 11 hours ago, iNow said: You’ll need to try harder than that, sir… or even at all 10 hours ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Ok fossils I'm overwhelmed by the force of your intellect and convinced of the error of my previous conclusions. You have successfully pulled the proverbial sword from the rhetorical stone, sir. Bravo! Go get yourself a cookie! Looking for well formulated points in your posts is like searching for a tootsie roll in a septic tank, and I've had diarrheas that were better formed than your position. And people wonder why we laugh at evolution denying morons creationists. My little brother once ate all the Scrabble tiles and his poop made stronger arguments than you seem capable of making. Edited January 21, 2022 by iNow
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 Your scatterlogical obsession would be disturbing if I’d read anything you’ve posted that had a single original thought. You are to science as a karaoke singer is to music.
Arthur Smith Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Your scatterlogical obsession would be disturbing if I’d read anything you’ve posted that had a single original thought. You are to science as a karaoke singer is to music. You have to admit the scrabble/poop insult was funny! So evolution is wrong? OK, do you have an alternative explanation? I mean, we see what we see and you may not need one, just reject ones that you don't like. Or is it six days, six thousand years and an ark? Because there are evidenced rebuttals to that story.
iNow Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Your scatterlogical obsession would be disturbing You claim evolution is wrong. I engaged you maturely and asked you to please elaborate on your reasoning. In response, you said "finches." That was all. I then recommended you elaborate further. Your response this time was "fossils." Are we to believe you're not just trolling? That's what the current evidence strongly implies... that you're a pathetic little troll. Now... We're perfectly willing to have our minds changed and to align with your conclusions. The remaining question is: Are you willing/able to join us in that type of meaningful exchange of ideas? Thus far, sadly all available evidence is that you're merely here to be a childish pest and I'd very much like to be proven otherwise. Edited January 21, 2022 by iNow 1
Recommended Posts