Still trying to play "hide the pea," eh CTD?
Still trying to reverse roles, eh RAZD? It is you who hide & I who reveal. I openly defy you to find even one example of me trying to make anything unclear.
This from one who has a whole thread, and at least 3 unsmall sections of other threads dedicated to redefining 'evolution'.
Not "redefining" CTD, but providing
alternative definitions that all mean the same thing. It is the
meaning, after all, that is important, rather than how you say it, and it seems that many creationists (you and Russ included) don't seem to understand or use a proper definition of evolution, so one needs to try alternatives to help improve understanding.
In the broad sense, even Lamarckist evolutionism means the same thing: life made itself the way it is without God. But in specific cases there are differences to which some assign degrees of importance.
We also have had a long discussion about how much difference there is in the definitions used, and you were unable to point out any differences. This failure on your part to demonstrate any difference in effect means that your claim is false.
Really? My imagined "failure" is all you need to prove you're right? You overestimate my importance, and make other serious errors which do not help your credibility.
I can say 'dog' means the same thing as 'cat' because they both refer to mammals with 4 legs, but it won't make it so. I can then be silly and demand that you demonstrate either a cat or a dog doesn't have 4 legs, but it won't make me correct. If you won't spare me further attempts to revive discussion of your nonsensical quest, expect to be ignored or mocked.
Perhaps you would like to try this time to do so, as without your provision of any actual differences it seems all you are left with is claiming something that is (a) nothing more than your misunderstanding of what evolution is, or (b) false.
Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that I misunderstand evolutionism. It may not sound humble, but I think by now it's pretty evident who has the better understanding of this false religion. I am firmly convinced that one cannot become too familiar with it and believe in it without making a long-term commitment to abandon truth.
This is as good a time as any to address a related issue. I've seen whining about "if evolutionism is a religion/belief system, why can't it be treated with respect?" The answer is that it can be treated respectfully by some. I choose not to treat it respectfully at all because it is utterly intolerant. I can respect individuals, but I cannot respect a belief system that hypocritically preaches "survival of the fittest" while it is itself unable to survive in competition.
When evolutionism is willing to respect others (when it becomes capable of respecting itself), maybe then I'll consider altering my approach.
Anything on the internet, on TV, in books, uh, pretty much anywhere, can be made up to look like this or that. (Anyone who's even moderately familiar with conspiracies knows this quite well.)
Anyone familiar with the falsehoods in advertising in general, and political ads in particular, knows this as well.
Pretty much everyone knows things can be faked. So there's no need to pretend otherwise.
That's where verification comes into play. The factual content in many of the videos Russ has posted can be verified to a high degree of confidence without too much trouble.
And yet, curiously, you don't provide any.
Any what? Do you seriously intend to fault me for failing to provide verification for every claim made in every video Russ has ever posted? Please pursue this further. You haven't been funny enough to suit me lately.
It would be a waste of time to even begin. People need to verify things for themselves, or ask someone they trust. You & etc. don't trust me, my sources, or even your own sources.
Perhaps you would like to post some now, or do we again play the game of adding to the list (mountain) of unsubstantiated claims made by CTD that amount to nothing better than ad hoc fantasy so long as they remain unsubstantiated?
Maybe I'll just wait for you to post more evidence for me. Your habit of late is to present evidence that demolishes your own arguments, so it's actually a matter of simple efficiency to be patient.
That said, I think we all know whose beliefs are based upon fantasy. Some day I may actually count the number of times Darwin says "imagine" or "imagination" in his book on the preservation of favoured races. The appeals to imagination continue into the present as they must. For example, even the true believer has only a small handful of "transitionals" available, and must imagine all the rest. (Then they talk of Noah's ark being too small - such irony!)
The claim about a lack of transitional fossils is false, and quoting Gould (and others) as done in one video is nothing more than standard creationist quote mining and misrepresentation.
I have to wonder if you've ever considered just how many "transitionals" there are supposed to be. Do you think some dino's egg hatched out even the most primitive bird? Do you think one of that tic-tac fish's offspring just up & was a salamander? If so, you might want to look again, 'cause that ain't what they say.
Evolutionists themselves have said that transitional fossils are severely lacking. Are creationists not allowed to agree with them on this issue? Please clarify: when are creationists required to disagree?
And I begin to wonder if evopushers even know what 'out-of-context' means? Not all quotes are out-of-context. ONLY quotes that have their meaning(s) shaded or by surrounding context can even be candidates. ONLY when the snipped portion gives a different impression than the full quote is this a fallacy (and a deception).
Quoting a double-talker or liar whose words did mean exactly what they appear to mean is not 'out-of-context' just because the speaker/author was disingenuous. If you were to apply the same bogus standard, you have no standing to call any politician on his lies because you knew he didn't mean what he said to begin with.
And, as you point out, new evidence, such as the whole field of genetics (which was totally unknown in Darwin's day), can substantiate or invalidate a theory. The problem for you is that genetics substantiates the evolution of species from common ancestors in a way that matches the relationships developed from the fossil record to an astounding degree.
The history of genetics vs. evolutionism is clear, and fairly easy to research. The two have always been and always will be antithetical. Hegel's philosophy doesn't work even when it's "honestly" applied. Or maybe I should say "
especially when it's honestly applied." No thesis can be reconciled with its antithesis. At least one of them must always be false.
Of course "theories" which fail against even pre-existing evidence are invalid. If only more folks had understood this in Darwin's day, a lot of waste could have been avoided.
Perhaps you can provide some of this pre-existing evidence that you think invalidates evolution (keeping in mind that your understanding of evolution has not been shown to match what is used in the science of evolutionary biology).
My understanding is based upon actions. Evolutionism is defined by the actions of evolutionists. If it does not match their words, how does that diminish my understanding? Please present a standard which can apply equally well to politicians and used car salesmen, as well as evopushers.
You can look at a rock and test to see if it is affected by evolution:
Please tell me how I can look at a rock for billions of years. What's the secret? Does it involve imagination?
it is not a living organism, and so the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits.
You can look at the moon and test to see if it is affected by evolution: it is not a living organism, and so the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits.
A couple of questions have I. Are you saying moons don't evolve? And are you saying nonliving things aren't subject to 'natural selection'?
If evolutionism could explain the planets, moons, and sun, ...
The theory of evolution explains that these objects are not affected by biological evolution because they are not living. Thus the sun giving birth to a sunlet would be a surprising development.
Biological "evolution" and even biological science don't really say anything directly about planets, moons, stars, comets, or asteroids.
But if the "theory of evolution" says nothing about them, why are the findings of Guillermo Gonzalez in the field of astronomy such a threat?
I've asked this before, but nobody seems to be able to answer this simple question. I find it hard to believe the cat has got so many tongues. And I wonder what it is that evopushers are ashamed to say - is there some limit on the insults they'll offer to our intelligence? As an evolutionologist, I feel compelled to investigate this boundary.
Now in the given context, you could have been trying to establish an impossible standard for creation science, or you could have simply meant "all relevant evidence". In the latter case you have no argument, so my interpretation leans somewhat against this.
Except that you do not get to "cherry-pick" the evidence.
What kind of silly tactic is this? Just up and say "you don't get to 'cherry-pick'" when I wasn't cherry picking anything at all!
Am I supposed to be impressed? What kind of impression would you make with this?
You have only strengthened the case in favour of my original evaluation.
That is why you need to look at all the evidence and see (a) how it is affected by the theory (does the theory predict any behavior of the evidence that can be tested to see if it happens), and (b) how the theory is affected by the evidence (does the evidence contradict a prediction of the theory - do the behavior of rocks and moons and stars contradict the theory of evolution).
Actually the existence of the planets in the forms our best evidence demonstrates them to have - each and every individual one, as the video makes clear, contradicts the doctrine of evolution. There isn't a single planet that complies.
Indeed, rather than presenting even the most vague, rambling, pseudo-argument; you chose to change the subject rather abruptly. ... (RAZD quote re tanning) ... Has nothing to do with anything under discussion. Nothing whatsoever.
Except {snip}
Except nothing. You had no argument, so you attempted to change the subject. You failed. You just have to live with that. You can either learn from this, or repeat the same thing over and over.
...a claim that was made by Russ (and supported by you), ...
Supported? You speak like a politician. I never said the claim was true. I declined to say it was untrue. There are new genetic mechanisms being discovered all the time, and there are some pretty amazing ones that have been known for quite a while, but are downplayed and denied because of the impact they'd have on a certain religious system.
Here we are, again, discussing what evolution really is, and how it is misunderstood by many creationists, you and Russ included, and that such misunderstandings render the comments made about evolution irrelevant, and thus evidence of such misunderstanding is relevant.
You seek to justify changing the subject on the basis that your bogus ad hom is relevant? That's
almost funny. Next time, please try a little harder.
But the history is clear. The evolutionists couldn't even play a straight game on the tanning issue. Russ never said children would be born tan, but time and again that straw man was asserted. Even now, you say I "supported" the claim, when we all know the truth. Bogus Bogus Bogus. You said I agreed with Russ, but failed to supply a mechanism; when in fact I did not agree with Russ but did discuss the mechanisms of gene expression and recombination.
You don't even know how to be right when you have the chance. And that actually
is kinda funny, so thanks for reminding me.
