Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yet you believe it could begin on a harsh world, in an unknown environment, change
without direction having all of the modifications turn life into more complex forms, while
being able to eat and reproduce, and have all of the luxury of the known universe's macro
and micro forces and content position in such a way it could flourish through our distant
p ...[text shortened]... ironment
wasn't in tune with much of life now so that some lives thrive in their little niches.

Wait wait. Twitehead will come up with another ad hominem like this which he willl once again deny is an ad hominem, since he has no actual argument. Lets see, we have had hundreds of thousands of scientists studying this topic for over a hundred and fifty years and they have built up their findings into the science of biology which is taught all over the world in universities etc and you come along, with practically no science education to speak of, and disagree with that body of work and tell everyone that they are all wrong and 'are refusing to think through the process'?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yet another ad hominem. Keep them coming.

No, it isn't.

Yes you did.
No, actually, I did not.

I suggest you look up what an ad hominem actually is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Firstly, I did not attack Kelly in any way. I did point out that he lacks a science education (most notably biology) but that is not an attack, merely an observation (and one he would not dispute).
Secondly, I did not give my observation as an argument against Kellys position, nor did I give it in absence of a counter argument to his position.
Finally, I gave my observation in response to Kelly suggesting that his opponent was not thinking things through. So if you insist that my observation is an ad hominem, it is an ad hominem to the argument that his opponent is not thinking things through - which you should reasonably therefore also conclude is an ad hominem surely?

In conclusion: I did not as you falsely claimed say that someones academic credentials matter, I merely pointed to his lack of relevant education (not qualifications, there is a difference), and I did not use an ad hominem in any way, shape or form.
You are confused about the difference between education and credentials, and confused about what an ad hominem argument is, and when I observe that you are so confused and that your reading comprehension is abysmal, it is not an ad hominem because I am not using that observation as a counter argument to any argument of yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it isn't.

[b]Yes you did.
No, actually, I did not.

I suggest you look up what an ad hominem actually is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Firstly, I did not attack Kelly in any way. I did point out that he lacks a science education (most notably biology) but that is not an attack, merely an observation (and one he would not dis ...[text shortened]... hominem because I am not using that observation as a counter argument to any argument of yours.[/b]

No, it isn't.

Uhh, yes it is.

No, actually, I did not.

Uhhh, actually you did.

I suggest you look up what an ad hominem actually is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I have already defined an an hominem for you genius. So how is this definition any different to the one I gave you?

Firstly, I did not attack Kelly in any way.

Ok...


I did point out that he lacks a science education (most notably biology) but that is not an attack, merely an observation (and one he would not dispute).

Uhhh ok... That makes it an ad hominem since you did not point out any logical fallicies in KJs argument instead you try to discredit him by saying he has no science education.

Finally, I gave my observation in response to Kelly suggesting that his opponent was not thinking things through.

He gave good reason why he was saying his opponent was not thinking things through. Instead of responding to his reason you decide to discredit him with a personal attack on his educational background.

So if you insist that my observation is an ad hominem, it is an ad hominem to the argument that his opponent is not thinking things through - which you should reasonably therefore also conclude is an ad hominem surely?

No its not, since he gave good reason why his opponent was not thinking things through. You on the other hand had no substance to refute his reasoning so opted for the ad hominem.

In conclusion: I did not as you falsely claimed say that someones academic credentials matter, I merely pointed to his lack of relevant education (not qualifications, there is a difference),

If his lack of relevant education did not matter, why did you bother to point it out?

You are confused about the difference between education and credentials, and confused about what an ad hominem argument is, and when I observe that you are so confused and that your reading comprehension is abysmal,

Wow. Yet another ad hominem. They keep gushing out of your mouth. Shtaaaap.


it is not an ad hominem because I am not using that observation as a counter argument to any argument of yours.

LOL. So if you weren't countering my argument it means you actually agree with me? LOL
You are a rare peach of a gem. Genius. Now if you were to make a valid argument and I were to respond with: " I think the African sun has fried your brain" , that would be an ad hominem. 😀

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Uhh, yes it is.

Uhh, no it isn't.

Uhhh, actually you did.
No, actually, I did not.

I have already defined an an hominem for you genius.
And you clearly didn't understand it, so I thought further reading might help you. Apparently it hasn't.

Uhhh ok... That makes it an ad hominem since you did not point out any logical fallicies in KJs argument ...
Given that Kellys argument that I was replying to, was 'you haven't thought it through', I actually was pointing out a logical fallacy ie I was pointing out that it was actually him that had not thought it through relative to the body of work he is disputing.

...instead you try to discredit him by saying he has no science education.
No, I did not 'try to discredit him'. That was all in your mind. Saying someone has no science education is not discrediting them.

He gave good reason why he was saying his opponent was not thinking things through.
No, he didn't.

Instead of responding to his reason you decide to discredit him with a personal attack on his educational background.
It wasn't an attack.

No its not, since he gave good reason why his opponent was not thinking things through.
And I gave good reasons why I said what I said.

You on the other hand had no substance to refute his reasoning so opted for the ad hominem.
Nonsense I have provided plenty of substance. Go back and read my post again. It is full of substance and contains a well reasoned argument.

If his lack of relevant education did not matter, why did you bother to point it out?
I never said it didn't matter. Reading comprehension fail - yet again.

Do you seriously just not know the difference between education and qualifications? Qualifications are the certificates etc you have showing that you went to such and such school. Education is what you should have got there, but obviously didn't. Education can also be obtained elsewhere without qualifications. For example I am giving you and education now. Or a schooling, whichever term you prefer. I will not be providing you with any qualifications. (partly because you are getting an F so far)

Wow. Yet another ad hominem. They keep gushing out of your mouth. Shtaaaap.
No it isn't. Go look up the definition again, and read it a bit more carefully this time.

LOL. So if you weren't countering my argument it means you actually agree with me? LOL
No, it doesn't. Logic - FAIL, reading comprehension - FAIL.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Originally posted by twhitehead

Uhhh, actually you did.
No, actually, I did not.

I have already defined an an hominem for you genius.
And you clearly didn't understand it, so I thought further reading might help you. Apparently it hasn't.

Uhhh ok... That makes it an ad hominem since you did not point out any logical fallicies in KJs argumen with me? LOL
No, it doesn't. Logic - FAIL, reading comprehension - FAIL.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL[/b]

I actually was pointing out a logical fallacy ie I was pointing out that it was actually him that had not thought it through relative to the body of work he is disputing.

Well played, now moving on to the Argumentum ad pupulum I see.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please we have covered this before and you acknowledge that there was NO means by
which any lifeform would just hold on to good or bad mutations. The mutations do not
come one at a time and bad ones out number the good ones do they not? I'm sure there
are a ton that do nothing, but even a lot of nothing could be bad over time.

I've not lost track of a ...[text shortened]... if far more likely than over time without any
plan or direction a blind process built a brain.

Indeed there is such a means, it's called "natural selection." This is also the mechanism by which good mutations are not in general "ended" by bad ones. Read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Well played, now moving on to the Argumentum ad pupulum I see.

Again, you know the names of fallacies, you just don't know what they mean. Must I school you on that one too?

I have to also point out that your quest is doomed to failure. Even if you were to demonstrate that I had committed a fallacy (which I haven't), you would then be stuck with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Indeed there is such a means, it's called "natural selection." This is also the mechanism by which good mutations are not in general "ended" by bad ones. Read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I get the theory suggests that, but think it through! If all mutations are occurring every
where with nothing sorting out good and bad than all mutations go forward, until there
is a break down of something required. That will stop all mutations going forward, this
will not have occurred in living creatures because.....the mutations have not broken
down anything vital yet, but they are working on it.

The question about creation has all life starting fully formed, stress that point, all life
was started fully formed. There was no need to build a brain those that needed them
all had one, same with eyes and everything else.

So evolution small changes over time, they can change anything anywhere, at any
time and if they harm something required for life, life is over. Which means all the good
stuff in living systems are still good and living as design.

There isn't filter taking away all the bad and good outside of natural selection which kills
off anything that cannot hang in the place it finds itself. Does that mean that only those
life forms with good mutations go forward, no it only means that nothing vital has been
damaged enough to kill it off. Simply seeing life does not mean good mutations caused
it over time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get the theory suggests that, but think it through! If all mutations are occurring every
where with nothing sorting out good and bad than all mutations go forward, until there
is a break down of something required. That will stop all mutations going forward, this
will not have occurred in living creatures because.....the mutations have not broken
down ...[text shortened]... ged enough to kill it off. Simply seeing life does not mean good mutations caused
it over time.

Hmm, but there is, in fact, a mechanism "sorting out good and bad" and it's called "natural selection."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Wait wait. Twitehead will come up with another ad hominem like this which he willl once again deny is an ad hominem, since he has no actual argument.

Actually it is you that has no argument and instead have resorted to lying about me.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Westbeau, G., Little Tyke: the story of a gentle vegetarian lioness, Theosophical Publishing House, IL, USA, 1986. (Information is drawn from pp. 3–6, 17, 32–35, 59–60, 113–114.)

I'm sorry this is not looking like a good reference. Is there an example of a wild lion surviving on a vegetarian diet that is not kibble or some other artificially enhanced food which has been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Edit: I found the story on the internet. Little Tyke died at the age of 4 of pneumonia probably due to her inappropriate diet.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm sorry this is not looking like a good reference. Is there an example of a wild lion surviving on a vegetarian diet that is not kibble or some other artificially enhanced food which has been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Edit: I found the story on the internet. Little Tyke died at the age of 4 of pneumonia probably due to her inappropriate diet.

Edit: I found the story on the internet. Little Tyke died at the age of 4 of pneumonia probably due to her inappropriate diet.

You do know that the animals did not spend 4 years on the ark?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again, you know the names of fallacies, you just don't know what they mean. Must I school you on that one too?

I have to also point out that your quest is doomed to failure. Even if you were to demonstrate that I had committed a fallacy (which I haven't), you would then be stuck with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

All you ever do is pretend that you are smart and everyone else is stupid. Classic twithead response: "No it isn't." Copy a link. Fail to explain anything...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hmm, but there is, in fact, a mechanism "sorting out good and bad" and it's called "natural selection."

Yes, and if you followed along you'd see I had acknowledge that. The bad will kill off any
lifeform where something vital is damaged, and those that are not that damaged moved
on. The sorting out of good and bad by any other means isn't there.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
All you ever do is pretend that you are smart and everyone else is stupid.

That is blatantly untrue. I realise why you may feel that way though.

Classic twithead response: "No it isn't." Copy a link. Fail to explain anything...
I have explained in detail why Kelly is wrong (I have given the most detailed explanations of any poster in the thread), and I have explained in detail why your accusations towards me were wrong.
I note that you still have not had the honesty to admit that you confused academic qualifications with an education. Kelly does not respond to me because Kelly shuns people who have in the past demonstrated the dishonestly of his position. This is not the first time this discussion has been had and the progress is predictable. Kelly will stick to stubbornly repeating vague arguments about how it takes too much faith to believe in natural selection and when other posters patiently explain why he is wrong he will switch to 'you don't know how it started so you don't know anything so its all faith'. If anyone has the audacity to explain why that is wrong he will decide to shun them.

You on the other hand have not given any argument whatsoever in this thread and instead have stuck to making false accusations over and over, using poorly thought out irony and vague statements and now you have even intentionally misspelled my name to form an insult.
What is your actual view on the subject under discussion (natural selection).? Do you have a view? Do you have an argument to make?