Do you feel superior to young-earth creationists?

PostmodernProphet said:
common descent is nothing more than your assumed explanation.......there is no more evidence to support your assumption than there is to support a belief we were created in a particular way for a reason.....

for example, you assume that because whales have fins they are evolved from legs.....it is equally logical to conclude they were created with fins.....
Click to expand...

It's not an assumption. I don't care to explain it, since nothing we can say will change your mind. Feel free to read about it yourself...or remain ignorant if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
 
PostmodernProphet said:
common descent is nothing more than your assumed explanation.......there is no more evidence to support your assumption than there is to support a belief we were created in a particular way for a reason.....

for example, you assume that because whales have fins they are evolved from legs.....it is equally logical to conclude they were created with fins.....
Click to expand...
Did you not read what I wrote or did you simply not understand it? I just provided you profound emperical evidence supporting common decent. This was no assumption. You are factually wrong there and it is you who are making an assumption that we "were created in a particular way". I've made no such claim or even brought up the subject of human origins or the origins of life nor have I made any assumptions. I have made an objective, testable and independantly verifiable empirical observation of fact. Now quit trying to change the subject and please answer my question.

If, in your opinion, common descent is invalid, can you please provide me with an explanation for speciation that is natural, testable, independantly verifiable and, in principle, falsifiable?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This was no assumption.
Click to expand...

then you should be able to prove it, thus destroying all possibility of a creating God......give it a go.....and please don't run away again.....

here's your topic.....Do anatomical homologies require a conclusion of common descent?......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
then you should be able to prove it, thus destroying all possibility of a creating God......give it a go.....and please don't run away again.....

here's your topic.....Do anatomical homologies require a conclusion of common descent?......
Click to expand...
That's an asinine question that is completely outside the scope of science. Let's keep this discussion on science since you are attempting to discredit a scientific theory. This isn't about God. As for running away, thats psychological projection on your part cause you keep running away from a question I will have now asked you three times.

Your logic is deeply flawed as well as your observational skills.

No. Anatomical homologies do not require a conclusion of common descent but that is flawed logic on your part. Not mine as a did not draw any such conclusion. That's just a false accusation on your part.

There may be other natural explanations for these homologies that I am unaware of. Common descent easily explains these homoligies though and it has been empirically observed and independantly verified many times. If it is wrong then can you please provide me with a alternative scientific explanation that does explain phylogenetic homologies? Is that such an unreasonable request?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
alternative scientific explanation that does explain phylogenetic homologies? Is that such an unreasonable request?
Click to expand...

it is certainly unreasonable to demand that I abandon my beliefs to accept your beliefs, when you've already admitted that your explanation does not scientifically PROVE what you assume it proves.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is certainly unreasonable to demand that I abandon my beliefs to accept your beliefs, when you've already admitted that your explanation does not scientifically PROVE what you assume it proves.....
Click to expand...
Why do you feel this compunction to lie? The only person you are deceiving is your self. No one, particularly not I, has asked you to abandon your beliefs. Why are you lying about that? I also have not admitted that common descent "does not scientifically PROVE what I assume it proves". Why, again, are you lying by ascribing statements to me that I never made?

So, for the fourth time. I ask you as a biologist. If common descent is not valid, can you please provide me with an alternative explanation that is natural, testable, independantly verifiable and, in principle, falsifiable that explains phylogenetic homologies?

Please stop the sophistry and the lying and attempt to give an honest answer.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
thank you for conceding the point, admittedly that's preferable to you running away, though not as much fun as an actual debate....
Click to expand...
Thank you for quoting that out of context, Quite dishonest of you.




so does intelligent design.....thank you for playing.....
Click to expand...

But you have still failed to answer my question. Intelligent design is not a scientific explanation. It does not explain natural behavior or phenomena, it isn't testable, It makes no useful predictions, it has never been independently verified, hell there's never even been a peer reviewed publication on the subject and it cannot be falsified. So you've failed on all counts to provide me with a scientific explanation.


Now please answer my question (5th request) or thank you for playing. (and try to do so honestly. Enough of the lies.)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why do you feel this compunction to lie?
Click to expand...

a lie?.....is it not true that you've admitted that homologies do not require a conclusion of common descent?.....

is it not true that you are demanding I have a "natural, testable, independently verifiable" explanation when you don't require the same for yourself?.....

prove your own claims.....or continue to run......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a lie?.....is it not true that you've admitted that homologies do not require a conclusion of common descent?.....

is it not true that you are demanding I have a "natural, testable, independently verifiable" explanation when you don't require the same for yourself?.....

prove your own claims.....or continue to run......
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a lie to quote a person out of context and ascribe meaning to it. I admitted that homologies creating phylogonies does not "Require" a conclusion of common descent. You can draw any conclusion you want, it's a free world pal. That doesn't make you right.

In addition what claims are you wanting me to provide proof or evidence for that I have not all ready?

Here's the point you've failed to see. While you're playing a game of sophistry and dancing on the head of a pin, I've set a trap for you that is basic to a scientific debate and you fell for it. Here's the trap. Unless you can provide me an alternative explanation of how these homologies occur in nature that meets the tenets of the scientific method of modeling natural phenomena, making useful and testable predictions, of being independently verifiable and is in principle falsifiable (and as I've demonstrated ID meets none of those criteria), then you lose the debate. Why do you lose the debate? Because you leave me nothing to work with. You leave me with no useful workable model that explains this natural phenomena and until you can answer that question, that is until you can provide me with a workable scientific alternative, you have lost this debate. That's just simply how science work. Provide us scientist with an alternative explanation that works, that we can test and make useful predictions with or go home and quit wasting our time.

So for the 7th time I will repeat the question. Can you please provide me with an alternative explanation for these homologies that meets the standards of the scientific method? Unless you stop running away and provide an scientific answer to this question, there is nothing to debate. Based on the volumes of evidence, common descent is the best available answer.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
either state your case or continue to run.....those are your choices....
Click to expand...
State my case? Are you incapable of reading? I've made my case and provided a reasonable explanation that not only explains this phenomena quite well but also meets all the tenets of science. It is you who have failed to make your case. You can do so by simply answer my question which you keep running from (talk about psychological projection!) and which I will now ask you for the 8th time.

If common descent does not explain how these homologies exist, please provide me with an alternative explanation that models natural phenomena, makes useful predictions, is testable, can be independently verified and is, in principle, falsifiable?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why do you lose the debate? Because you leave me nothing to work with. You leave me with no useful workable model that explains this natural phenomena
Click to expand...

I am not required to provide you with a replacement "workable model" when you haven't demonstrated there's a workable model in the first place......that is why you haven't yet begun the debate.......do your job, Ringer.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I've made my case and provided a reasonable explanation that not only explains this phenomena quite well but also meets all the tenets of science.
Click to expand...

no, you haven't....in fact you've simply stated the name of the theory......do you know what the theory is?......can you state it in your own words?......do you know anything about it........now, no cut and pastes......state your position and tell us why it causes us to conclude there must be common descent......certainly you can take the time out from filling petri dishes to actually debate instead of spending all this time pretending you don't need to.....

and please, make it "is testable, can be independently verified and is, in principle, falsifiable"......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top