|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
| Re: Gabriel is Dishonest: The Question Gabriel Dare Not Answer |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.atheism · Group Profile
Author: GabrielGabriel Date: Apr 27, 2008 05:07
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:44:58 -0700 (PDT), "Steven J."
altavista.com> wrote:
: On Apr 26, 3:37Â pm, Gabriel hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: >
: -- [snip]
: >
: > : On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: >
: > : netscape.net> wrote:
: >
: > : : Thanks for making my case for me, Gabriel. Â I knew I could count on
: > : : you. Â Here you come, fail to address one single thing I said (as I've
: > : : accused you of doing),
: > :
: >
: > To which I replied:
: >
: > : I did address it. Look at what you're grasping at: acting like
: > : you don't know what it means to observe something, and acting
: > : like I didn't address it.
: > :
: > : To observe: to witness an event with human eyes. Even if it's
: > : through a telescope or a microscope, with that aid a person is
: > : able to observe things.
: >
: Note that by your definition, no one has ever observed an atom.
Not true. We can observe _events_ (like I said) happening as we
speak that are exactly what we claim happens. We observe gravity
by observing the events, in the present time, it is responsible
for. We observe atoms by observing, in the present time, what it
is responsible for. We cannot observe anything like what
evolutionism claims takes place.
The existence of gravity is observable, testable, verifiable.
The existence of atoms is observable, testable, verifiable.
A [rat] producing a new animal type (over generations) that is
clearly no longer a [rat] is not ever observable, is not
testable, is not verifiable. (And you can replace [rat] with any
animal you wish and it will still be a factual statement)
: No
: one has ever observed a planet orbiting the sun, or indeed, the moon
: orbiting the Earth (one can, of course, see the moon; if one watches
: long enough, one can even observe it moving slightly against the
: background of stars. But no one, I daresay, has ever watched it for
: an entire month straight, so the moon's orbit, by your definition, is
: as unobserved as speciation (or, if you insist that the moon's orbit
: has been seen with human eyes, then by the same token, so has
: speciation).
: >
: > : And the fact remains, even though you try to hide from it by a
: > : pretense at not knowing what it means to observe something, that
: > : the beliefs you have faith in have not once been observed in the
: > : entire recorded history of the human race by anyone: a rat
: > : producing anything that is clearly no longer a rat, over
: > : generations (supposedly via mutations and accumulation of small
: > : changes) - or insert any animal you want in place of a rat. Such
: > : a belief has never once been observed.
: >
: I think you mean, "such a phenomenon."
: >
: > : But take God's word: each animal produces only after its kind:
: > : this is observed today, and has been observed by the human race
: > : in its entire recorded existence by comparison!
: >
: Evolutionary theory likewise proposes that living things reproduce
: after their own kind: _natura non facit salta_, as Darwin summarized
: his position, evolution does not proceed by dogs giving birth to
: cats. But we do know that new species of plants and animals have
: arisen within human history, and there seems no good reason why the
: degree of change observed over short times could not continue to
: accumulate over long times, until, say, you have something that is no
: longer a rat, but something else.
: >
: > When you respond to the fact that I've already answered your
: > questions, rather than be dishonest and continue to act like I
: > have not and then continue to create posts of personal attacks on
: > me about your dishonesty, I'll address your other questions,
: > since then you'll be giving a sign that you will actually be
: > honest about it. Thank you.
: >
: > : Clearly this is dishonest since although speciation can happen quickly
: > : (and has been observed), a species typically tends to last for about a
: > : million years. Â Do you know of any million year old people? Â I don't.
: > :
: > : 3, Â By what measure of the genome (which is where evolution occurs in
: > : reality), would you accept that an organism is a different "type" from
: > : another?
: >
: > By the same measure an 8 year old child would go by.
: > "That is a giraffe" and "That is not a giraffe".
: >
: And one wonders, would your 8-year-old taxonomist regard an okapi as
: "a giraffe," or "not a giraffe?" If he regards the okapi as just a
: striped, short-necked giraffe, we can ask him whether he would
: classify, say, the extinct _Paleotragus_ as a sort of dead giraffe, or
: as a different sort of animal.
:
: Note that 8-year-olds do not normally sequence genomes, and Budikka
: specifically asked about genomes (the complete set of genes and
: noncoding DNA of a species). I suspect this is because humans are
: about as genetically different from chimpanzees and gorillas as horses
: are from donkeys and zebras, yet horses, donkeys, and zebras are all
: classed as members of a single genus (_Equus_), and many creationists
: regard them as a single "kind" (presumably because they look much
: alike and can interbreed, although usually offspring are sterile). If
: you regard horses and zebras as a single "kind," how do you explain
: that humans and chimpanzees are supposedly separate "kinds," despite
: being just as similar genetically (and more similar in chromosome
: count) than the various equines?
: >
:-- [snip]
: >
: -- Steven J.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
