Re: Ray just can't stop lying
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:34:04 -0700
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e7ad9680-ca43-4e55-8ad3-f161f1cf0810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 7, 12:03 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
There isn't any evidence for evolution - none.
Evidence for evolution has been presented to you many times, Ray.
Covering your eyes and screaming "NUH UH!!" does not make it go away.
Since the interpretation makes no sense when compared to reality it
does not meet the criteria to be called evidence. For example, the
observation of design is asserted to correspond to an antonym:
unintelligent process, rather than invisible Designer. When we
remember that the interpretation is based on Atheist ideology (= God
not allowed as an explanation) then we have an explanation as to why
the interpretation makes no sense.
Want to talk about transitional fossils, Ray?
You mean the concept of gradations?
He means transitional fossils, such as KNM WT 15000.
Sure.
If you have the ability to observe fossils to reflect a series of
gradations,
over time. Exactly what one expects from evolutionary theory.
then conclude that the arrangement is evidence for
evolution to have taken place,
Because that's what evolutionary theory predicts.
by the same standard how does the
observation of design not imply Designer?
Because the appearance of design does not always correspond to a physical
designer. Physical processes can produce the appearance of design. What
other process do you have that would produce a sequence of intermediate
fossils over time?
To admit to the former but
not the latter is inconsistent.
Not at all. There is a mechanism known to produce intermediate fossils.
Where is there any observation of an "invisible designer" producing the
appearance of design?
We say the latter falsifies the
former, that is, the latter proves causation is Divine and not
material.
Ray, you are just one person. Referring to yourself as "we" signifies
megalomania. The "latter" does not falsify the former, and the "latter"
does not prove "causation is Divine". Even if there was a designer, he or
she, or it, or them, would have had to use some kind of material causation
to produce material effects. "Divine causation" is not proven by the
assumption that if something looks designed, it must have been designed.
That is our position.
It's YOUR position, not anyone else's. And it's wrong, for the reasons
shown above.
Have you yet come up with an explanation for why our genes for
synthesizing vitamin C are broken in the exact same way as our ape
cousins?
No answer?
Why do we have so many endogenous retroviral insertions (genetic
"scars" inherited from our ancestors) in common with chimps, and
slightly fewer in common with gorillas, and slightly fewer in common
with orangutans-- exactly what you'd expect if we came from a lineage
that branched, diversified, and branched again?
This says similarities to whatever degree shared with chimps is
evidence that human evolution has occurred.
It's one of the predictions of evolutionary theory.
There is no predictive
value in the identification of similarities;
Whoa. Where do you get that idea? I can predict that humans share more
similar biochemistry with chimps, than with other organisms. I can predict
that humans will be more anatomically similar to chimps than other
organisms. I can predict that humans will share behavioral traits with
chimps, more than any other organism.. and guess what, each prediction is
borne out by the evidence.
therefore your
phraseology which presupposes silently that a prediction was in place,
and has been confirmed, is false.
There is no need of a "silent" prediction. Public ones work just as well.
The identification of similarity is
not a prediction but the discovery of a preexisting correspondence.
The genetic similarity of chimps and humans was predicted long before the
ability to sequence genes was availble. Guess what, the sequencing of
human and chimp DNA confirmed that prediction.
The evidence that you are offering for human evolution is actually an
assumption that believes the greater number of similarities identified
between two particular species equates to evidence that the two
correspondents evolved from one another.
No, it means that the greater number of similarities identified corresponds
to closer relationship. Modern chimps did not evolve from modern humans.
Modern humans didn't evolve from modern chimps. They both evolved from a
very recent common ape ancestor. Humans and chimps are cousins, not
grandson/grandfather. Likewise, Humans are closer to mice, than they
are to birds. That doesn't mean humans evolved from mice. Birds are more
closely related to alligators than they are to snakes. That doesn't mean
that birds evolved from alligators.
Once again, Ray, I have to point out, that if you are trying to bring down
the theory of evolution, you need to learn something about the theory, not
just depend on your own ignorance, and creationist distortions.
You are entitled to interpret
these similarities in favor of evolution.
Because these similarities are predicted by evolutionary theory, not by
creationism.
But the crucial aspect is
the ***assumption*** that evolution has taken place and the only issue
is which species of ape did humans evolve from.
Ray, as pointed out many times already, humans *are* a species of ape. The
last common ancestor of humans and other apes is extinct, and may never be
known. Evolution is not an assumption, it's a conclusion, drawn from the
evidence. Evolution explains the similarities we see between species,
and explains why humans are more closely related to chimps than they are to
gorillas, or why humans are more closely related to mice than they are to
birds.
Creationism says the ***assumption*** is preposterous;
Because creationism denies the evidence.
that the human
body and its organs and complexity, occupying the minds of our
brightest minds through the centuries and today, best corresponds to
the work of invisible Intelligence and not mindless unintelligent
material process.
That of course, is not supported by any evidence. It's a presumption,
based on religious beliefs.
The human brain is IC
Evidence for this assertion, please.
and the self-evident work of a
supreme Divine Being.
So, why is the human brain very similar to the chimp brain? How is it
"self evident", if you can't support that assumption?
The observation and identification of design and
organized complexity seen in the human body,
The "design", and the "organized complexity" of the human body are no more
special than the "design" and "organized complexity" of the Chimp body.
Why assume that humans are a one off design, rather than the product of a
evolutionary process?
corresponding to Designer
and Divine causation,
You have no evidence of either.
in our estimation, overrides the identification
of similarities between chimps and humans to indicate causation by
material evolution.
Your assumptions and preconceived ideas are not sufficient grounds to
override anything.
That is our position.
No, Ray, your personal opinion. No one else's.
DJT
.
- References:
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Dana Tweedy
- CEists are clowns doing the bidding of Atheists
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: CEists are clowns doing the bidding of Atheists
- From: raven1
- Re: CEists are clowns doing the bidding of Atheists
- From: Ray Martinez
- Ray just can't stop lying
- From: Richard Clayton
- Re: Ray just can't stop lying
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- Prev by Date: Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
- Next by Date: Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes
- Previous by thread: Re: Ray just can't stop lying
- Next by thread: Re: Ray just can't stop lying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
