tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post2531877213082881265..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Debate Part 4AIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-91650005857110008352007-11-18T01:43:00.000-06:002007-11-18T01:43:00.000-06:00Ha Ha Ha!!Look at this, Quark:http://www.youtube.c...Ha Ha Ha!!<BR/><BR/>Look at this, Quark:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJJWmHpcb98<BR/><BR/>Click 'More' over in the description. I very clearly punked the snot out of him there on the 'information' argument. I also have a link on the main page of this blog that goes into the information question:<BR/>http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/08/evolution-cant-produce-new-information.html<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is, these folks are thick skulled. They can be refuted over and over again, but they'll just keep coming back with the same lame arguments. Their purpose is evangelism, not truth.AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-66328255112169163612007-11-17T23:48:00.000-06:002007-11-17T23:48:00.000-06:00They also want everything to be observed, deductio...<I>They also want everything to be observed, deduction based on present information isn't enough.</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. Evidence can most certainly be inferred. But with inference comes interpretation, bias, preexisting beliefs, all that sort of thing. In some areas, bias doesn't play a big role. But in something as heavy as origins? Oh yeah.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16556773734051584922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-29074926831764060202007-11-17T23:47:00.000-06:002007-11-17T23:47:00.000-06:00Hello, Quark, my old friend.So on one hand, evolut...Hello, Quark, my old friend.<BR/><BR/><I>So on one hand, evolution is wrong because it works too quickly to be consistent with cases stasis in the fossil record, but on the other, species can't change past a certain limit, which should lead to creatures always remaining the same?</I><BR/><BR/>You are quite right to recognize an inconsistency, but I'm pointing out that the inconsistency lies with evolution, not me. The facts point towards creation. As usual, you're confusing observed change within a species (IE, beak variation) and saying built-in adaptation within a species (going on existing information) is the same thing as the preposterous chain of ancestral evolutionary transition.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16556773734051584922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-6159246268297201202007-11-17T18:53:00.000-06:002007-11-17T18:53:00.000-06:00Hi Quark!I'm glad you've picked up on some of the ...Hi Quark!<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you've picked up on some of the creationist debate tactics. Creationists in general are hypocritical. They also want everything to be observed, deduction based on present information isn't enough. (Even though they argue exactly the same way: A design must have a designer).AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-63512866297457516932007-11-17T10:38:00.000-06:002007-11-17T10:38:00.000-06:00Wow - in the same reply, DaveLoneRanger says"Maybe...Wow - in the same reply, DaveLoneRanger says<BR/><BR/>"Maybe you don't understand the creationist models as well as you thought you did? Evolution assumes vast amounts of time to bring about change. When we find it doesn't take much time at all in many cases (Darwin's finches, culix pipiens, and the white-footed mouse for example) it works against old-earth gradualism."<BR/><BR/>and also says<BR/><BR/>"But scientists have never documented an incident where information was added to the genome of animal and causing it to become another animal via natural selection and mutation."<BR/><BR/>So on one hand, evolution is wrong because it works too quickly to be consistent with cases stasis in the fossil record, but on the other, species can't change past a certain limit, which should lead to creatures always remaining the same? Does this guy even read what he posts? Does he realize that solid arguments have to be self-consistent? <BR/><BR/>Sounds like someone in this 'debate' is trying so hard to defend a position blindly that he doesn't even care whether it's right or not, only whether he can pull out the right "talking point" to cover it. Science ain't politics or talk radio. It doesn't defend its ideas through "talking points".<BR/><BR/>The cognitive dissonance required to defend creationism is mind-blowing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-36132923937404359012007-11-15T12:54:00.000-06:002007-11-15T12:54:00.000-06:00Ryan, I'm not at all impressed. You failed to addr...Ryan, I'm not at all impressed. You failed to address most of the substantive arguments, and handpicked the ones you thought you could best handle. I used to use the strategy a few years ago when I was not as experienced in creation/evolution debates, so believe me, I recognize it in others. That is why I like to refute every single argument someone makes, piecewise. There is a lot missing that you didn't address.<BR/><BR/>Your quotes will be in <I>italics</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>These experiments were carried out in small "pools". In an ocean, there would be much more water and much less amino acids (The primordial soup would have been very diluted).</I><BR/><BR/>You can object to the methodology all you want, but your quarrel isn't with me, it is with the researchers. You're more than welcome to contact USCS's emeritus professor of chemistry and question his methodology, but you must not blame me for citing his research, as I think his research should be more highly ranked than your speculation.<BR/><BR/><I>In large populations, mutations can be diluted, therefore making it harder for organisms to change.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, more "how it could have happened." You have no knowledge of population size for organisms that survive as living fossils. This is where bias and presuppositions come in...introducing the "can-be's," "maybe's" and the "might-have-been's" to explain away what you don't know. You have no evidence to back up this claim.<BR/><BR/><B>(Dave) Where could you possibly conclude that species "don't like to change" when change is the cornerstone of survival, according to evolutionary theory?</B><BR/><BR/><I>(Ryan) Stasis is in the fossil record, so I have concluded that large populations are somewhat resistant to change</I><BR/><BR/>Circular reasoning. Why is stasis in the fossil record? Because species don't like change. Why don't they like change? Because we observe stasis in the fossil record, of course. But you must admit the whole principle undergirding all of evolution is change, sometimes rapid change (as you find necessary to incorporate in defending the fossil record and its dismal support for evolution), and according to evolution, our whole history is nothing more than change.<BR/><BR/><I>Wrong again. Where would you get that idea [that catastrophic change within a short amount of time is a step toward creationism]?</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe you don't understand the creationist models as well as you thought you did? Evolution assumes vast amounts of time to bring about change. When we find it doesn't take much time at all in many cases (Darwin's finches, culix pipiens, and the <A HREF="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/uoia-mss051903.php" REL="nofollow">white-footed mouse</A> for example) it works against old-earth gradualism.<BR/><BR/><I>I really think you should read 3-4 books about evolution from the evolutionist's point of view. If you are going to argue against something, you should be educated about it.</I><BR/><BR/>Nice backhanded insult, but I'm confused. I sat through a year of college biology, and you can't deny I don't have a relatively good grasp of scientific journal materials (60+ scientific references provided during the debate) or haven't been exposed to evolutionary beliefs. You're only one of dozens I've debated on the subject, many of them more highly educated than yourself. And I agreed to debate you too. What is this claim that I haven't been exposed to enough evolutionary beliefs?<BR/><BR/><I>The only way that new species have ever been observed to come into existance [sic] is through evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>Let's be careful about the dividing line between speciation. I never said speciation didn't exist. But scientists have never documented an incident where information was added to the genome of animal and causing it to become another animal via natural selection and mutation.<BR/><BR/><I>No, the results are in, and bottlenecks in the human population were found, but many, many thousands of years ago. We haven't seen a recent bottleneck. If you make the claim, you provide the proof.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you think I wouldn't notice? You <B>completely</B> dodged my references to the flaws of the mtDNA methods and the molecular clock (see also the above link about the white rat, where they mention the completely random alterations in the clock) to tell me the propose ages of the last genetic bottleneck are outside of creationist dates...which I already told you!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16556773734051584922noreply@blogger.com