Time For YoYo to Substantiate

[Asimov]

Assumption of evolution.

 

Evolution: The change in gene frequency over time.

 

Evolutionary Theory: Extrapolating from that, and using a variety of mechanisms (one of which is natural selection), the theory that all life has originated from a common ancestor.

 

Please, using these scientifically accepted definitions of Evolution (just so there's no confusion) explain what you mean by assumption of evolution.

[Abiyoyo]

Evolution:  The change in gene frequency over time.

 

Evolutionary Theory:  Extrapolating from that, and using a variety of mechanisms (one of which is natural selection), the theory that all life has originated from a common ancestor.

 

Please, using these scientifically accepted definitions of Evolution (just so there's no confusion) explain what you mean by assumption of evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think I read that book...

[Asimov]

I think I read that book...

 

You are a most frustrating individual. You make the stupidest comments, then fail to even remotely back them up.

[Abiyoyo]

 

You are a most frustrating individual.  You make the stupidest comments, then fail to even remotely back them up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Im sorry Asimov, I felt as if I was suppose to reply to something since my name was in your title. Normally, I would have just probualy kept looking.

Anyhow, I dont have any evidence right now to " remotely back me up". Im not a scientists, and really have no desire to be one. Sorry.

[Asimov]

Im sorry Asimov, I felt as if I was suppose to reply to something since my name was in your title. Normally, I would have just probualy kept looking.

Anyhow, I dont have any evidence right now to " remotely back me up". Im not a scientists, and really have no desire to be one. Sorry.

 

Exactly, so don't go make stupid fucking comments.

[MrSpooky]

There's nothing special about studying science... all science is is the way we analyze and understand the world. While certain levels of science are very difficult to get into due to their detail, this amount of work simply isn't necessary.

 

Anyone can understand evolution if they just put a little work into it... both in some science as well as some philosophy. However, if you want to get to the very foundation of the theory, you're going to have to do a lot more research. The more details you want, the more you're going to have to read... and this is something you'd be doing if you had a genuine interest in the topic.

 

However, if you can't make this commitment, it doesn't excuse you from being an intellectual hypocrite if you decide you'd prefer to believe in creationism instead. You'll discard evolution because you demand details and don't have the time or inclination to understand the theory, but you'll accept creationism from just a few lines of rhetoric from talking heads who mostly have little to no training in science or philosophy.

 

If this is what you do, then such stubborn, self-righteous hypocrasy disgusts me. If not, the only position I can see you taking is to either trust what 99% of the scientific community has to say due to our ability to present actual evidence when asked, or consign yourself to silence.

[Abiyoyo]

However, if you want to get to the very foundation of the theory, you're going to have to do a lot more research.  The more details you want, the more you're going to have to read... and this is something you'd be doing if you had a genuine interest in the topic.

 

I am much aware of the details, I just choose not to participate in deabtes that either party can truly prove.

 

 

 

 

However, if you can't make this commitment, it doesn't excuse you from being an intellectual hypocrite if you decide you'd prefer to believe in creationism instead.  You'll discard evolution because you demand details and don't have the time or inclination to understand the theory, but you'll accept creationism from just a few lines of rhetoric from talking heads who mostly have little to no training in science or philosophy.

 

No, actually I believe in the creation of this world based upon my beliefs, not evidence. Evidence is not an issue with me concerning the creation.

If this is what you do, then such stubborn, self-righteous hypocrasy disgusts me.

If not, the only position I can see you taking is to either trust what 99% of the scientific community has to say due to our ability to present actual evidence when asked, or consign yourself to silence.

I trust the "science community" 99%, but I trust the validity of the Bible 100%. Where do I fit in now?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[MrSpooky]

This is exactly the problem, YoYo. You style of religion is dogmatic, and by its very nature rejects all reason, evidence, or inquiry to arrive at truth. Religious people act like they have a love for truth, but are utterly unwilling to use the methods to acquire it.

 

Because you are not willing to subject your beliefs to objective analysis and measurement, they are little more than subjective claims, no more valid than the metaphysics of the Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. Heck, the Tibetan Buddhists believe that "darkness" is a substantive element just as "light" is a substantive element... something that is scientifically incorrect and demonstrable. But they, at least, are perfectly willing to correct themselves when there is solid evidence in front of them.

 

Thus, you are basically enforcing subjective beliefs as objective truth. Your worldview emphasizes that mere opinions have the same weight in reality as brute, hard fact.

 

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

[MrSpooky]

Here's something YoYo said in another reply...

 

 

 

I dont get the whole evidence thing. The whole book of the Bible is based on faith in God, not evidence. My question to the "frantic Creationists" that persist to prove Gods miracles, and creations are correct is;Are they higher than God? Can they prove anything that represents Gods word without his willing to do so? Is Gods hand to short to get ample evidence to what He would want known? I guess people would coim me a "creationists" because I do believe everything in the Bible.But what is a "creationist" really?Sounds more like a debat team to me.

 

"Evidence" is the body of facts way by which we determine what is true and what is false. "Reason" is the method of putting those facts together to build up new ideas and give them a solid foundation in reality. Reason, therefore, is the method of integrating knowledge. If reason succeeds, we have a new objective truth. It is the method of maximizing one's knowledge while minimizing one's mistakes.

 

What we ask the Christian to do, then, is to use Reason in his analysis of his religion as well as the world, because as shown by history, Christians are just as prone to mistakes in interpreting their own religion as they are in interacting with the world.

 

For example, the Catholic Church believed it was doing the right thing when they tortured and burned innocents. Were they correct?

 

In the days of slavery, Biblical passages were used to justify the ownership of slaves. Were these Christians correct in their interpretation of the Bible?

 

The group that is now called the Seventh Day Adventists believed that the world was going to end in the mid-1800s due to a calculation of certain Bible passages. Were they correct?

 

Many many other examples of Christian doomsday prophecies were held in the past. Were they correct?

 

A woman was recently charged with killing her children by crushing their skulls with boulders, because she believed God had told her to do so. Was she correct?

 

The Nazis believed they were acting in the name of God. Were they correct?

 

 

 

Every evangelistic Christian today thinks that he is correct. So did the Inquisition, the slaveowners of yore, the Seventh Day Adventists, the doomsday soothsayers, murderers, and Nazis... all started off as Christian groups, and based their beliefs on Christian ideas. It's obvious these beliefs were bent and perverted out of shape, but the point is that these people THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT, CHRISITIAN THING. But if you hold up a mirror to them, ask them to look long and hard at their own beliefs and actions, they would crumble under thier own iniquity when their realize the ignorance of their own actions and own beliefs. Just as many would cry "foul!" and demand the groups I listed reexamine their beliefs, I ask the same of you.

 

Science and Philosophy can trace their ideas back to the most basic and elementary of facts. People who use science and philosophy are willing to prove their ideas by going back to the furthese and most well-established axioms, and are also willing to admit their own mistakes when they do make them.

 

So how would YOUR beliefs fare, YoYo?

[Eponymic]

I am much aware of the details, I just choose not to participate in deabtes that either party can truly prove.

QUOTE

 

So instead you apparently choose not to debate at all since there are very few issues you can ‘truly prove' 100%?

 

What I’m hearing here is you’re so afraid of questioning & doubting what you think you know is God’s word, that you don’t want to question or analyze it at all in fear that It’ll collapse.

 

And in not analyzing, you end up with circumstantial, thinly bonded beliefs that require turning a blind eye to facts, logic, and evidence in order to maintain said belief.

 

 

No, actually I believe in the creation of this world based upon my beliefs, not evidence. Evidence is not an issue with me concerning the creation.

If this is what you do, then such stubborn, self-righteous hypocrasy disgusts me.

 

Evidence isn’t an issue?

Wow. I don’t know whether to be scared or saddened by this. Mostly it’s a little of both.

 

So then, according to this, you're willing to establish beliefs based on rhetoric & hearsay, since you are apparently unwilling to do any scientific or historical research to acquire any evidence, proof, or simple knowledge for that matter. For some one who seems to be a big fan of having things they can 'truly prove.' You sure aren't doing much to prove the one thing you're holding up the most.

 

I trust the "science community" 99%, but I trust the validity of the Bible 100%. Where do I fit in now?

 

That’s hard to say. How willing are you to have an open mind and analyze the validity of the faith you see as being so concrete at the moment.

[white_raven23]

No, actually I believe in the creation of this world based upon my beliefs, not evidence. Evidence is not an issue with me concerning the creation.

If this is what you do, then such stubborn, self-righteous hypocrasy disgusts me. 

 

Excuse me Yoyo,

 

You are willing to believe in Creationism and the Christian religion based on unverifiable words in a BWB (badly written book). You do not require evidence for such things, and simply call it "faith".

 

Yet when we try to discuss another worldview with you, you demand names, dates, studies, and damn near the core body temperature of those who wrote up their findings on what we like to call "evidence".

 

This is how unbalanced you are in the judgement of our discussions.

 

And you have the gall to call us Hypocrites?

 

Sorry, I can't respect anyone (regardless of what they believe) who is unwilling and therefore unable to challenge their own views. It is a symptom of a closed mind which is something I want nothing to do with.

 

(You see, I'm a bit close-minded about close-minded people)

[♦ ficino ♦]

Whoa, everyone! I challenged YoYo on another of his threads before I realized I was just repeating the gist of what you've all been saying to YoYo. Nothing changes; YoYo just posts another thread. Enough for this puppy. cheers

[MrSpooky]

He still hasn't responded to the thread I started just for him. Blarg.

[Kay]

This thread deserves to be stickied to immortalize a person who enters the 'debate' part of the forum and can neither produce evidence or substantiate claims.

 

Bravo, Asimov.

[Abiyoyo]

This thread deserves to be stickied to immortalize a person who enters the 'debate' part of the forum and can neither produce evidence or substantiate claims.

 

Bravo, Asimov.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bravo,

 

Darwin said on his death bed that he lied about the whole thing. Thats, my final answer to this thread.

[Celsus]

Bravo,

 

Darwin said on his death bed that he lied about the whole thing. Thats, my final answer to this thread. 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp

 

 

From a Christian Organization, that once again proves YoYo is eaithe a liar or clueless.

 

Did Darwin recant?

 

by Russell M. Grigg

 

Charles Darwin died on 19 April 1882, at the age of 73. To some it was deplorable that he should have departed an unbeliever, and in the years that followed several stories surfaced that Darwin had undergone a death-bed conversion and renounced evolution. These stories began to be included in sermons as early as May 1882.1 However, the best known is that attributed to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House2 in the autumn of 1881. She alleged that when she arrived he was reading the Book of Hebrews, that he became distressed when she mentioned the Genesis account of creation, and that he asked her to come again the next day to speak on the subject of Jesus Christ to a gathering of servants, tenants and neighbours in the garden summer house which, he said, held about 30 people. This story first appeared in print as a 521-word article in the American Baptist journal, the Watchman Examiner,3 and since then has been reprinted in many books, magazines and tracts.

 

The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was 'false and without any kind of foundation',4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had 'no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view'.5 Charles's daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, 'I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever'.6 Some have even concluded that there was no Lady Hope.

 

So what should we think?

 

Darwin's biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the 'Darwin legend'.7 He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.8

 

Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present.9 He describes Lady Hope as 'a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality'.10 He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies—Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people's attending a religious meeting. The alleged recantation/conversion are embellishments that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings 'holy fabrication'!

 

It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.

 

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

[Abiyoyo]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp

From a Christian Organization, that once again proves YoYo is eaithe a liar or clueless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok. Thank you for the facts, I will keep them in mind as I do all other facts and articles of certain speculations and desciptions of people. I will recant on my abrupt statement. I will say that I believe my belief based on the Bible, and I apologize for engaging in a debate of agreeing to disagree.

[Abiyoyo]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp

From a Christian Organization, that once again proves YoYo is eaithe a liar or clueless.

 

or learning, seeking facts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Fweethawt]

I made my final reply to your thread.

 

FROM HERE

 

Dude, what gives?

 

Ok. Thank you for the facts, I will keep them in mind as I do all other facts and articles of certain speculations and desciptions of people. I will recant on my abrupt statement. I will say that I believe my belief based on the Bible, and I apologize for engaging in a debate of agreeing to disagree.

[Fweethawt]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...rwin_recant.asp

From a Christian Organization, that once again proves YoYo is eaithe a liar or clueless.

 

or learning, seeking facts

 

If you were serious about learning or seeking facts you wouldn't have said this as if it were an actual fact:

Darwin said on his death bed that he lied about the whole thing. Thats, my final answer to this thread.

 

[Casey]

"By the pricking of my thumbs, a dust-up this way comes!" (With apologies to Willy Shakespeare)

 

Casey

[Kay]

. I will say that I believe my belief based on the Bible, and I apologize for engaging in a debate of agreeing to disagree.

 

Too eager to take a cheap swipe and low blow it appears. Typical. Not surprising.

 

Asimov didn't askyou to agree or disagree.

 

He asked you to substantiate your claims why evolution is merely an assumption.

 

The possibility of Darwin recanting doesn't undo the all the other work and research that has taken place in years since. I believe Galleo was forced by your dictatorial faith to recant about earth not being the centre of the universe. Does that invalidate all progress in astronomy thereafter?

 

You are posting in the "Debate" section. Debate requires you to substantiate and back up what you assert. Prove that you are or have been through secondary school, and that your mentality is not stuck in kindergarten where saying "because I say so" is the most convincing argument you can come up with.

 

Go sit in a corner and reflect on white_raven's post #11 before you choose to respond to this.