So which type of evolution do you wish me to provide a definition for?
An overall definition, and a biological definition if you see that as distinct.
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
hooberus
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
hooberus
Which one do you wish me to define and would you accept me simply copying and pasting a definition of such that is in a book or online?
“Evolution” is defined in many different ways. Even some biological definitions are compatible with Biblical Creationism. Others are not, but are still too narrow, and don’t reflect the diversity of “Evolutionary theory” even within biology. So it’s necessary to define terms on this issue.
I notice you created a number to topics which promote creationism and intelligent design. I thus have no expectations of convincing you of evolution.
That’s fine, however your last post on the previous page made numerous claims against creation science being science. Should not evolutionary theory pass these tests in order to be considered science?
i understand if it may be a while before you are able to respond due to work.
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
hooberus
I think I understand it good, for someone who is not scientist.
Could you please define “Evolution” (in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate?)
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
hooberus
Disillusioned JW.
Regarding issues brought up in your last post:
How well do you understand Evolutionary theory?
Do you think that it is a testable, falsifiable theory?
-
46
Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem
by Sea Breeze inrecently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
-
-
hooberus
Basically you have two proponents: infinite regression of more complex creators or the regression to zero of less complex things that create more complex things through simple processes.
Why would the claim that ‘the origin of organized biological complexity is evidence for an intelligent designer,’ necessarily also require an infinite regression of more complex creators?
You have to add several extra assumptions to the arguments of intelligent design advocates in order to try to generate an infinite regression. Assumptions not found in the arguments.
*organized complexity defined as complexity composed of parts, such as a biological system composed of proteins.
-
14
The Biotic Message, alternative to Evolution
by hooberus inlecture by walter remine:.
https://youtu.be/o2usdd_8eay.
-
-
hooberus
IReMine says "life is intended to be a message". It is this assertion on which he builds his own baseless message. If he could prove from evidence that life was intended to be a message, then he might have a case. As it is he is without credibility.
Have you read his book? Or any of it?
If not how are you a credible source to proclaim him as being “without credibility”?
-
14
The Biotic Message, alternative to Evolution
by hooberus inlecture by walter remine:.
https://youtu.be/o2usdd_8eay.
-
-
hooberus
Lecture by Walter ReMine:
-
78
What The Fossils Say
by cofty inthe old creation book had a lot to say about the fossil record.
if i remember correctly it was some lie about all the fossils ever found would fit on a single table.
the reality is that there is an embarrassment of riches illustrating the evolution of life.
-
-
hooberus
So far at least 3 evolutionists on this thread have claimed that 99 percent of species have gone extinct. One even claimed that this is the reason that they were “convinced” of evolution.
I asked “What is the direct evidence for this claim”
It’s very clear what I was specifically referring to.
I stated it multiple times.
I did NOT ask “What do evolutionists claim about mass extinctions, Permian extinctions etc. (Cofty kept posting evolutionist claims about this).
I then specifically asked Cofty:
“Why don’t you tell us the estimated number of living species and the number of extant fossil species? Then, if the number of extant fossil species is not 99 times the number of living species, please explain how the 99 % figure is obtained. Or just admit that you don’t know how it is obtained.”
His response post NEVER gave the number of fossil species.
Maybe because it’s embarrassing to his case (as it’s only commonly cited as 250,000).
So let’s say for simplicity sake that there are 5 million living species.
In order for there to have been a “99 percent” extinction rate, then 495 million species would have had to have gone extinct.
Yet the number of fossil species is only 1/4 of 1 million.
Which means that evolutionists are claiming almost 2,000 extinct species for each known fossil species!
(Not a population of 2,000 of each species, - but 2,000 additional species per each known fossil species!).
“99.9” percent extinction rate would be a whopping 20,000 claimed extinct species for EACH KNOWN fossil species.
So as I said before, If the number of extant fossil species is not 99 times the number of living species please explain how the 99% figure is obtained.?
Or just admit you don’t know how it’s obtained.
-
78
What The Fossils Say
by cofty inthe old creation book had a lot to say about the fossil record.
if i remember correctly it was some lie about all the fossils ever found would fit on a single table.
the reality is that there is an embarrassment of riches illustrating the evolution of life.
-
-
hooberus
It’s very clear what I was specifically referring to.
I stated it multiple times.
Why don’t you tell us the estimated number of living species and the number of extant fossil species?
Then, if the number of extant fossil species is not 99 times the number of living species, please explain how the 99 % figure is obtained.
Or just admit that you don’t know how it is obtained.
-
78
What The Fossils Say
by cofty inthe old creation book had a lot to say about the fossil record.
if i remember correctly it was some lie about all the fossils ever found would fit on a single table.
the reality is that there is an embarrassment of riches illustrating the evolution of life.
-
-
hooberus
Cofty, why don’t you tell us the estimated number of living species and the number of extant fossil species?
Then, if the number of extant fossil species is not 99 times the number of living species, please explain how the 99 % figure is obtained. Or just admit that you don’t know how it is obtained.