Mathematically Measuring Evolution. (page 15)

towerwatchman

unsure

Again for the record, I'm agnostic. What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God. Why does it have to be this complicated?

I don’t find if complicated. My suggestion is to follow the truth to wherever it leads you. Something to read.

Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.

The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.

towerwatchman

whatshallicallmyself

Bottom line, there are no transitional fossils. Why make claims if there is nothing to back it up? We have evidence for micro we have none for macro. From Darwin to now it has been the same.

Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.

Darwin appealed to this principle to argue that presently observed micro evolutionary processes of change could be used to explain the origin of new forms of life in the past [macro evolution]. Since the observed process of natural selection can produce a small amount of change in a short time, Darwin argued that it was capable of producing a large amount of change over a long period of time. In that sense, natural selection was ‘casually adequate’.

And the same applies today.

towerwatchman

Whatshallicallmyself

So you believe I can take 1 step but cannot accept I can walk across town... That about sums up your comment.

I believe you can do that.

I don't believe a chimp can take 1 step and when he is done walking across town he somehow becomes a man

cofty

Please note how TWM totally ignores every piece of evidence offered against his bullshit.

It is what all creationists do

cofty

I believe you can do that. I don't believe a chimp can take 1 step and when he is done walking across town he somehow becomes a man

Despite this being an incredibly stupid statement you have repeated it three times.

I posted very long detailed posts yesterday refuting your assertion that there were no transitional fossils showing the evolution of limbs an inner ears. Every word of it was my original work.

One minute you want to talk about fossils but when you are proven wrong you refuse to discuss it. That post was just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence we could talk about.

You lied when you claimed to have read lots of books that present the scientific evidence for evolution. That is like somebody claiming they have studied calculus when it is perfectly clear they can't count to ten.

WhatshallIcallmyself

TWN -

Are you so out of date that you honestly believe that talking about Darwin's beliefs is relevant today?

Anyway, "Principles of Geology"; the clue is in the name. I've also highlighted it for you in case you may overlook it again.

Thanks

towerwatchman

To Unsure

Again for the record, I'm agnostic. What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God. Why does it have to be this complicated?

I don’t find if complicated. My suggestion is to follow the truth to wherever it leads you. Something to read.

Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.

The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.

towerwatchman

Great teacher

What you have is a fish with 5 bones, that someone through comparative anatomy concluded was an early hand.

Comparative anatomy is gray and ambiguous. Bottom line all you have is a fish with five bones. As for your students the only emotion is 'pity'.

GrreatTeacher

"All you have is a fish with 5 bones."

Exactly. No animal is ever more than it is in that moment.

Finkelstein

Folks this guy will refute or twist scientific acquired knowledge/evidence that supports evolution, so your just wasting your time discussing anything with him. Let him be with his personal savior Jesus Christ and leave it at that.

Therefore .........

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

Share this