Re: Ray, please define "scientific evidence"

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Jan 29, 1:47 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Jan, 19:13, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

Are their viable and fertile hybrids? If so, then they reproduce.
So what? What is your point?

Wolf/dog hybrids are viable and fertile.

The unions are rare, difficult.

Rare and difficult are they?

How about you provide citations that support this claim of yours?

No answer here, Ray?





How long until reversion occurs?

Irrelevant comment, a change has arisen, the union of two species
which you claim to be immutable, separate and distinct, and the
hybrids are viable and fertile, and they occur even in the wild where
wolf and dog populations overlap.


Strike 1

Fundamental fact: Hybridization is not evolution.

Your "fundamental fact" is wrong. Hybridization is a factor in evolution.
Evolution is defined as allele change in a population over time.
Hybridization between closely related populations produces this.





Immutability is not harmed by artificial breeding.

Another irrelevant comment, the three examples I offered previously
occur without human intervention and so artificial breeding is not
involved.


Strike 2

Rare exceptions at best.

You haven't shown that hybrids are "rare exceptions". The scientific
papers you ignored demonstrate you are wrong.

And I doubt they happen in the wild.

Why do you "doubt" this? You've been given plenty of evidence that they
happen in the wild, quite often.

Species
mate with their own kind.

"kind" is a biologically meaningless term. Species tend to mate with their
own species, and closely related species.

You are attempting to paint rare exception
to be normal and normal to not exist.

No "painting" is needed. Your claim is wrong, and you don't know what
"normal" is.


Immutability refers
to species that exist in the undisturbed wild.

Moving the goalposts again are you Ray?


Strike 3

I sensed that you were ignorant of the presupposition----that is why I
was forced to state it.

Ray, your goalposts are aquiring a pretty significant red shift...
Everyone who read this recognized it. You never stated this
"presupposition" and ther's no reason to "presuppose" that "immutablity"
only would exist "undisturbed in the wild". Immutable means "unable to
change", not "unable to change, unless it does change, and someone observes
it changing".


Wherever a new species
is found----that is where it was introduced by a direct act of
special creation ex materia.

Do you actually have evidence of this?

Any citations to support this claim of yours?

Or is this another moving of the goalposts?


Strike 4

Since it is the main claim of Creationism, you are exposed to be
ignorant.

The "main claim" of Creationism is "Goddidit, and I don't need no evidence".
If you contend that creationism is a scientific concept, rather than the
religious belief it is, you should have some evidence and citations to back
up your claim. Do you?



But it seems to me that you are invoking a form of spontaneous
generation, which usually all creationists dismiss because of the
work done by Louis Pasteur, among others.

And are you suggesting that any hybrids found in the wild exist
because of this alleged "special creation ex materia"?

By the way I Googled for "special creation ex materia" and guess what
I found?

A total of 48 references to this phrase, but 44 of those were posts
in response to the posts you made where you introduced this "special
creation ex materia", the other 4 were your own posts.

Google failed to come up with any other reference to this phrase, not
even on any of the numerous creationist websites.

So I guess it is something made up by yourself.


I googled the sentence you wrote above:

"So I guess it is something made up by yourself."

It produced one hit.

Why would that be relevant, Ray?


So I guess it is something made up by yourself.

He did, unless he plagarized the sentence. But that still doesn't make
your claim of "creation ex materia" a valid, or sensible concept.




Unless of course you can offer a citation from an actual book that
you got this phrase from.


I googled this phrase taken from your quote above: "actual book that
you got this phrase from"

It produced zero hits. "So I guess it is something made up by
yourself."

Again, Ray, unless he plagarized it, his sentence is something he "made up".
That still doesn't mean your making up nonsense phrases is a valid form of
argument.

snip

Transmutation as you keep calling it is your own strawman, and that
is the only reason why there is no evidence for it.


And Strike 5 (you are out).

Extreme ignorance.

Why do you keep stating what you present next?


"Evolution" and "transmutation" are perfectly synonymous.

They are similar words, but don't mean the same thing. 'Transmutation' is
not generally used to mean evolution of a population, but more often used to
refer to change of an individual.

Based on
your previous ignorance exposed above (and this shocker) you are now
confirmed and proven to be horribly ignorant. I now have no desire to
read anything that you write.

Ray, if everyone held to that 'standard' no one would ever read your own
work. Your own refusal to accept critical analysis doesn't mean that
others are ignorant.

snipping Ray running away


DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tweedys Turkana Boy
    ... Your dishonesty is showing Ray. ... Assume special creation is false. ... Regardless though, assumptions are not evidence. ... A skeleton, does not, in itself, prove that apes are in the human ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Few Simple Questions - I want some answers - evos/YECs - NOW!
    ... You aren't either, Ray. ... Since evolution is impossible.... ... Any evidence of special creation of species? ... If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How you know when the Darwinists are losing
    ... I don't know, Ray, you could either. ... In example 1, God creating is used as an example of the term being used, not a suggestion that the supernatural is required for the word "create" to be defined. ... Indeed by stating that Charles Schulz created "Peanuts" it suggests that mere mortals are capable of creation as well. ... issue is one reason why we reject evolution: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Michael Ruse: Intelligent design is an oxymoron
    ... Left without supporting argument, "no less Christian" ... supernatural causation, especially William Whewell! ... mystery of creation was *not* the realm of science. ... There is no rejection of God-did-it here, Ray. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What Sean Pitman believes
    ... Ray Martinez wrote: ... tribulations of= a relatively liberal SDA pastor on the ... Only the creation of life happened in 7 days. ... geological record and contain much of the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)