Evos pushers. Why didn't you tell us Darwin cursed GOD?

The Pixie

Well-known member
For starters the ratio of people I know isn't 99 to 1 for belief in evo-ism.
How many biologists do you know, CrowCross? More than ten? Or are you going to assume the same ratio for biologists as there is for people at your church?

Talk us through it. Show us you have actually thought about this, and it is not just something you were told to believe and accepted blindly.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
How many biologists do you know, CrowCross? More than ten? Or are you going to assume the same ratio for biologists as there is for people at your church?

Talk us through it. Show us you have actually thought about this, and it is not just something you were told to believe and accepted blindly.
It's not about how many biologist I know...it's about there not being a 99 to 1 ratio.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
It's not about how many biologist I know...it's about there not being a 99 to 1 ratio.
How do you know? Rationale was given for the figures. You haven't challenged the basis for that rationale. You just say that the figures are wrong because....?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
It's not about how many biologist I know...it's about there not being a 99 to 1 ratio.
It is about why you reject that 99:1 ratio for biologists. Previously you said "For starters the ratio of people I know isn't 99 to 1 for belief in evo-ism." The number of biologists you know is highly relevant if that is why you reject that 99:1 ratio. If you just know biologists, then your sample size is far too small to be considered representative, and almost certainly has sampling bias given you are likely drawing, at least in part, from people you know from your church.

Let us be honest here: You reject the 99% figure because you do not want it to be true. You have no actual rationale to support that view; just wishful thinking.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
And yet hundreds of thousands of biologists across the world, with any number of different faiths and no faith, are convinced it is true.

Why is it that over 99% of biologists - the people most familiar with the evidence - believe evolution is true? Because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Seems to me it is you who is blinded. Seems to me it is you who is full of it.


I think we will, as we discussed before.

It is kind of sad how you cling to this one thing that evolution cannot explain - yet - as though this invalidates all that overwhelming evidence showing evolution is true.
That was refuted here.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I take it you are wanting to forget about how many biologists accept or reject evolution, given you have utterly failed to support your nonsense.

It's kinda like evolving a house....
First the ground must be removed to make way for the footer. Then concrete reinforced with rebar mat arrive in the whole so concrete can be poured into the hole and bond to the rebar.....and the story can continue all the way up to the roof and the final shingle.

So you have an analogy of a house being built one step at a time... and are then concluding evolution cannot do the same? You are aware that people build houses right?
 

CrowCross

Super Member
I take it you are wanting to forget about how many biologists accept or reject evolution, given you have utterly failed to support your nonsense.
I don't know how many scientist have accepted or rejected evoism. Neither do you. I doubt it's 99%
It's kinda like evolving a house....
First the ground must be removed to make way for the footer. Then concrete reinforced with rebar mat arrive in the whole so concrete can be poured into the hole and bond to the rebar.....and the story can continue all the way up to the roof and the final shingle.

So you have an analogy of a house being built one step at a time... and are then concluding evolution cannot do the same? You are aware that people build houses right?
Yes, I am concluding evolution cannot do the same. You have not shown that it could.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
So, you're waiting for the science of the gaps to answer the question?

Perhaps you evos need to come up with a completely new theory.
1. To be an X of the gaps, you need to propose a specific cause for some phenomenon. If God = X, then it becomes "We don't know how this could happen, so God did it." But science isn't a cause, it's a methodology, so to say "Science did it" doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit the formula of a God/science/whatever of the gaps. we don't say, "We don't know how this could happen, so religion did it." That makes no sense, just like "science did it."

2. Even if you make X = nature, you don't need to assume that there is a natural cause in order to understand that science doesn't have all the answers (yet). Science, despite what others around here may say, is perfectly capable of investigating supernatural causes; there is a long history of scientific studies on ESP, telekinesis, and other supernatural phenomenon. Now, I think the entire distinction between natural and supernatural doesn't make any sense, but if you accept the distinction, there is no necessary nature of the gaps.

So, rather than asking another question, or continuing on about science of the gaps, why don't you lay out, in assertions that reference evidence in a logical fashion, why the failure to fully explain how organelles evolved refutes the theory of evolution. Or, you could assert that that failure doesn't refute evolution, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
1. To be an X of the gaps, you need to propose a specific cause for some phenomenon. If God = X, then it becomes "We don't know how this could happen, so God did it." But science isn't a cause, it's a methodology, so to say "Science did it" doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit the formula of a God/science/whatever of the gaps. we don't say, "We don't know how this could happen, so religion did it." That makes no sense, just like "science did it."

2. Even if you make X = nature, you don't need to assume that there is a natural cause in order to understand that science doesn't have all the answers (yet). Science, despite what others around here may say, is perfectly capable of investigating supernatural causes; there is a long history of scientific studies on ESP, telekinesis, and other supernatural phenomenon. Now, I think the entire distinction between natural and supernatural doesn't make any sense, but if you accept the distinction, there is no necessary nature of the gaps.

So, rather than asking another question, or continuing on about science of the gaps, why don't you lay out, in assertions that reference evidence in a logical fashion, why the failure to fully explain how organelles evolved refutes the theory of evolution. Or, you could assert that that failure doesn't refute evolution, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
FACT....the process of so-called descent with modification...using random chance mutations and natural selection doesn't have the ability to create an assembly line of organelle.

The odds of developing one organelle considering the complexity and sophistication is impossible....but....to now have one organelle interacting with another in a precise fashion...with an outcome that interacts with yet another organelle....that produces a new organelle that "works" to achieve an outcome....make me laugh real hard at the possibly of such so-called evolutionism occurring.

This is a clear case for arguing that God = X....rather than some Godless assumption that X= nature causes the ability for organelle to form assembly lines.

You, Gus are hoping for some future event...the god of the science....to figure out how to achieve the impossible without the input of Intelligent Design.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I don't know how many scientist have accepted or rejected evoism. Neither do you.
I do not know the exact number, but I have reasonable grounds for believing over 99% of biologists accept it. I explained why in post #10.

I doubt it's 99%
You said.

I asked why you think it is less. So far all you have done is repeat your empty claim.

Yes, I am concluding evolution cannot do the same.
More a giant leap of faith.

You have not shown that it could.
I have not shown it can, you have not shown in cannot. So we do not know. It will be interesting to see what science develops.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
FACT....the process of so-called descent with modification...using random chance mutations and natural selection doesn't have the ability to create an assembly line of organelle.
Prove it.

The odds of developing one organelle considering the complexity and sophistication is impossible....but....to now have one organelle interacting with another in a precise fashion...with an outcome that interacts with yet another organelle....that produces a new organelle that "works" to achieve an outcome....make me laugh real hard at the possibly of such so-called evolutionism occurring.
Interesting. Please show us how you calculated the probability.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
I do not know the exact number, but I have reasonable grounds for believing over 99% of biologists accept it. I explained why in post #10.
Whatever the number....because people have been told evoism is true.....doesn't make it true.

There has been so much presented on this forum "CARM"....it is very, very clear that evoism isn't the means of our becoming.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Prove it.


Interesting. Please show us how you calculated the probability.
Use the number of places for the mutation to occur.
Use the number of so-called beneficial mutations compared to neutral and harmful
Use the number of mutations to realize a successful organelle

Couple that with the multiplication factor when the same thing needs to happening to form another organelle that is co-emerging and co-dependent with another organelle....and evoism fails pretty quick.

You can fill in the numbers if you like.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Prove it.


Interesting. Please show us how you calculated the probability.
As presented above....

To many so-called mutations that enhance the benefit of the organelle....occurring in just the right place at just the right time in the several billion places to occur in the DNA....then the benefit must be added to....many, many times...show the impossibility.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
FACT....the process of so-called descent with modification...using random chance mutations and natural selection doesn't have the ability to create an assembly line of organelle.

The odds of developing one organelle considering the complexity and sophistication is impossible....but....to now have one organelle interacting with another in a precise fashion...with an outcome that interacts with yet another organelle....that produces a new organelle that "works" to achieve an outcome....make me laugh real hard at the possibly of such so-called evolutionism occurring.
Thank you, I asked for clear assertions and you made them. Now we have something to work with.

Can you show the math behind the odds you mention above? Even estimates are OK.

This is a clear case for arguing that God = X....rather than some Godless assumption that X= nature causes the ability for organelle to form assembly lines.
No one need assume that organelles evolved naturally to explore and investigate that hypothesis, which is exactly what science is doing.

You, Gus are hoping for some future event...the god of the science....to figure out how to achieve the impossible without the input of Intelligent Design.
No, I'm not hoping for any particular outcome, although I suppose I do hope that *some* explanation is eventually discovered.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Use the number of places for the mutation to occur.
Use the number of so-called beneficial mutations compared to neutral and harmful
Use the number of mutations to realize a successful organelle

Couple that with the multiplication factor when the same thing needs to happening to form another organelle that is co-emerging and co-dependent with another organelle....and evoism fails pretty quick.

You can fill in the numbers if you like.
It's *your* claim, *you* need to fill in the numbers before anyone is reasonable in taking your claim seriously.

ETA: As I said earlier, estimates are fine.
 
Top