Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
The same principles work equally for life forms and inanimate factors, in fact for everything contained in the universe. Certain gases will only combine with other specific gases. This is because there is a grid of some sort where the antennae of one will fit the other. A living cell follows the same principle: they identify, recognise and enjoin; thereafter they reproduce the inherited data and pass this on, inclusive of the same ability onto the next. Most of the people get lost in the science and cannot zoom out and see the big picture anymore.
This phenomenon of combining with corresponding entities is not performed by the external environment. This is true even for instances of cross-pollination seen in flowers. In the big picture, the environment, the atom, the seed - all follow one directive, each playing a role, as in a symphony orchestra. This is also seen in what we call an eco-system. If the environment did not co-ordinate with the atoms of other entities, there would be total chaos and all of the scientific premises we know would disappear.
It is also the reason I sometimes give the example of a car. That a car is not a living entity has no impact - the principle remains the same right from the top to the lowest levels of the universe. A complexity can only occur via a complex program, and this applies to a car equally as it does for a pineapple.
Accursed manipulative scientists and their damned fossils!
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/oec/images/tree.jpg
http://en.wikivisual.com/images/0/0e/MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/dinosaur/FIG2.jpg
I just dunno what to think about all this overwhelming evidence...
Use photshop and put some horns for authenticity.
That man is a microcosm of all other life and all elements of the earth - including blood, bones, phospherous, iodine, hydrogen, water, mud, carbon, etc, etc, is best cited like so:
MAN COMES FROM "DUST" and to dust he returns. Read, an ancient, deceptively simple term for nano particles of the earth not seen with the naked eye. Clever huh!?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Name just one researcher in the evolutionary field - geologist, paleaontologist, botanist, zoologist, microbiologist, genetecist, etc - who does not talk critically about evolutionary theory. The very fact that they are engaged in research relating to evolution is a tacit declaration that they believe the theory can be improved.
(As an aside, may I compliment you for the wide range of topics in which you are ignorant. The world lacks polymaths of your stature.)
like god?
i think the guy the op was debating had a VERY good point.
because god only needs to have a record of events that can be factually shown as to have happened and be proven with certain testing like historical document dating as one of many examples.
and if one says the historical documents could've been forged we'd say carbon radiation rate might've slowd down:shrug:
but hail no! your historical documents almost CERTAINLY were made up but carbon radiation has no reason to change its dissolving rate:soapbox:
athiests selectively apply their standards, scientific or otherwise, in the same way they accuse theists of doing it.
personally i'm an aevolutionist, i don't have a strong opinion towards it, as most people who discuss it are those who believe their outlook of life depends on it, most theists think evolution replaces god, so they close their minds to it. and also most atheists think evolution replaces god, so they close their minds to any objection against it.
me? i think it's irrelative.
Scifes, everything you just said made no sense at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Evolution does not deal with whether or not there is a God.
However, the basic mechanism demonstrated by the fossil record is one of trial and error, not intelligent design.
It is for this reason that theists fear it if they understand it.
It's when it's misunderstood that people fail to realize it demonstrates a lack of intelligent design.
And it's well supported by a great deal of evidence that includes not just the fossil record, a large variety of dating techniques and rigorous testing of the properties that lead to the accuracy of radiometric dating.
Essentially, all you just did was stand up and declare that you have no idea how the stuff works.
ETA: Scientific prediction--- IamJoseph is going to stand up and make the same declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Evolution does not deal with whether or not there is a God.
However, the basic mechanism demonstrated by the fossil record is one of trial and error, not intelligent design.
It is for this reason that theists fear it if they understand it.
It's when it's misunderstood that people fail to realize it demonstrates a lack of intelligent design.
And it's well supported by a great deal of evidence that includes not just the fossil record, a large variety of dating techniques and rigorous testing of the properties that lead to the accuracy of radiometric dating.
Essentially, all you just did was stand up and declare that you have no idea how the stuff works.
ETA: Scientific prediction--- IamJoseph is going to stand up and make the same declaration.
Last edited:
Evolution is not the problem - its correct placement is. This is an after the fact process, namely a threshold of positive growth based entirely on a pre-programmed construct. The other side of evolution is devolution, as in iron rusting, a negative growth process, also entirely based on the same pre-progammed construct.
Evolution's correct placement by way of a statement is as follows:
WRONG: CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION.
CORRECT: CREATIONISM; EVOLUTION.
It does matter if someone does not subscribe to creationism - they can replace this with:
PRE-EXISTING CONSTRUCT; EVOLUTION.
The latter evolution is an effect of a program, as in automatic updates on your PC. Your PC is pre-programmed to cater to these updates. Evolution is correctly placed only in genesis, where this knowledge was derived from, namely afrer the premise of the very concept of post-universe laws being ushered in, with the formless [lawless phase] being turned to form [law phase]; this set in action a host of mechanisms which anticipated life, like the critical shaping and separations of the earth's elements subsequent to the laws which set in motion a directive program. Then came life - fully completed but not yet alive [no active life is possible before this point]. Next came a trigger factor of the cycle which can sustain life and already in place. Then the completed life became alive [animated].
When this is reduced to an everyday example, as with a car, home or a pineapple, it will be seen this is the only way all things work and that evolution's placement is somewhere in the mid-section. Evolution represents the forces which follow the wiring of a pre-programmed directive. Darwin did not realise the pre-evolution program or its anticipationary actions - he just observed these after the fact phenomena and shouted EUREKA! But Life could not exist on this planet before impacting laws, then the subsequent critical separation of water and land, and a measured light focus, etc, etc [Genesis]: does it mean those separations are part of the evolutionary process - or that evolution [all actions] are part of a precedent program directive? You need to be a left handed rocket scientist to dispute this!
I agree, and I see a big problem with the media — both the commercial media and the educational system — who, for different reasons, strongly resent casting doubt on current science. So, we end up with a public who view science as a mature, settled and stable collection of facts upon which they can depend. Science — our knowledge of the world — is not perfect.
you sure about that?
i know how that works, we had to calculate the half life of different elements in more than one subject in 12th grade, i'm pretty acquainted with that stuff, it seems you miss my and the thread's point.
a-so you claim, when in reality it does, when theists look at nature and themselves and say god did it, you say evolution did it, so no need for god.
saying evolution has nothing to do with god is an outspoken lie for most atheists.
b- i agree that in reality, evolution has nothing to do with god.
c- and most importantly, this thread is NOT about evolution and god, but rather evolutionists reasoning, and how it is selective, i demonstrated that by paralleling it to their reasoning concerning god.
However, the basic mechanism demonstrated by the fossil record isnot really.
what appeared to e trail and error is actually god did it.
there's nothing you can't answer with "god did it"
because god by definition can do anything.
however, the reason atheists fear evolution not being true, is that they'll go back to being stuck with not knowing where they came from or a valid explanation for the awe of the universe, pretty malnorishing ego-wise.not really, i might say it's the other way around.
it's when one doesn't comprehend the magnitude and true implications of the theory of evolution that he can simply claim it's the new "god did it".
a very debatable issue, one i'm not ready to go in length here.
as i said before:yawn:;
it is a core assumption in radiometric dating that the speed of decay we measure now is the one that always was, however, if we assume that the speed of decay of an element slows down over time, we may even say the earth is 6000 years old.
however, we don't. why? because it's convenient to some scientists.
while debating solid historical evidence, like the existence of the greatest men in history, is not unheard of. why? because it's convenient for some scientists.
could say the same about you.
Please get a brain transplant.Emil said:
Ask the Strawman about it.
Please prove this statement.
For me, random it means one thing and exactly that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
If you have more definitions please link.
Please prove this statement.
I disagree.
I agree
I disagree
I agree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
For the record, I will point out something simple. At the current time, it is Unknown as to whether or not the Universe is Deterministic with a single wave function or if it's deterministic on the macro scale but entangled at the quantum level.
But that really is a topic for the Physics and Science forum; one I would find fascinating for discussion.
The point I was making Emil, is that you based your argument on your perception of what "random mutation" referred to and negated Evolution as probable because you feel that a deterministic Universe can have no random factors.
In this topic, your definition is inaccurate and not really related. I explained this in my first post on this. Whether the factors that cause mutation are "Truly" random or deterministic makes NO CHANGE to Evolution. For some reason that I cannot grasp, you failed to understand that.
I will, however, make a "Deterministic" prediction, based on patterns of behavior...
Emil replies: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up. I'm going to call you stupid and argue with you now and defend my silly statements no matter how much you try to educate me."
That is something that you do well enough on your own.
Wrong.
Evolution theory is not about God.
It IS used frequently by atheists to support why they disbelieve in God.
But that is not the same thing as "Evolution was devised to disprove God."
Evolution has nothing to do with God- but God has everything to do with Evolution.
Irrationality holds no bounds. So what?
Hogwash.
Evolution ALSO says nothing about how life BEGAN. It deals ONLY with what happened after.
As a scientist, we would say, "We do not know how life began."
Science deals with such mysterious unknowns all the time. The beauty of it is seeking out the probable answers.
However, experiments with the factors that cause emergence have been surprising, some even suggesting that life emerging is a nearly inevitable product of the right conditions and some suggesting it happens much, much faster than one might guess.
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1515
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=3
Lastly, those that examined evolution understand the very strong support of it. Seriously, troop- the evidence is overwhelming.
I don't know a single person that understands evolution that FEARS it not being true. It's simply accepted for its strong evidence.
But if it's not true- that's GREAT!
Because in science, the purpose is to develop the most accurate Model Of Reality Possible.
If a theory is debunked, it means we are on our way to a MORE accurate model.
Absolute hogwash again.it is a core assumption in radiometric dating that the speed of decay we measure now is the one that always was, however, if we assume that the speed of decay of an element slows down over time, we may even say the earth is 6000 years old.
The speed of decay has been observed, measured and tested for over 50 years.
It would be extremely irrational to assume that was altered by some unknown magic in recent times.
CAN you up and spout that maybe it was different in the past?
Sure, you can also claim that water used to be dry and helium was heavy, too.
This is a very old tactic used by creationists to twist the facts and try to cast doubt. Creationists never support their own claims with evidence... Instead they attack scientific principles and try to cast doubt on them in order to convince people that scientists are full of it and are just "believers in a sciency religion" to put them on equal ground- and then convince people that they offer a more spiritually enlightening alternative to "Arrogant Science."
It's very similar to the Ten Percent myth.
"We only use ten percent of our brains..." As if to suggest that the other 90% goes unused- opening that up for the possibility of psychic ability and so on...
Problem is, we use 100% of the brain. Every bit.
We just don't use ALL of the brain all at the same time-- Same as you use all of your muscles... You just happen to use only 10% or so of your muscles at any given time.
This type of manipulation is age old in charlatan tactics.
No, because it would be highly irrational to assume some magic changed reality.
No... you really can't. 'Cuz I know what the fuck I'm talkin' about.
Last edited:
Just for fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea
Environment and poor transcription/replication.
?
I don't know why anyone would think reproduction was other than the generation of offspring. But this doesn't relate to the context of mutation, excepting again in cases of poor chromatid replication in meiosis or something. Is this what you mean?
What "directive program" does a molecule have? Are you indirectly and accidentally supporting abiogenesis?
You haven't demonstrated this at all. Are you arguing that higher-order organizations of molecules have some plan or direction aside from self-organization and organization imposed by other such molecules? I feel as though I'm on the verge of falling apart into my constituent atoms here. Maybe that would be for the best.
Partially agreed.
, loosely, but intelligently, translated as seed [it predates modern science terminology]. It refers to the core, deep essence of a construct which determines that entity. Try going back in your time machine 3000 years and explain your atomic and molecular identity - what word would you use without abusing the people of that time, yet still make it applicable in a forum debate today? I think you have either missed the point or bypassed it. Or maybe you imagine my science is 3000 years old compred with yours?
That's not precisely my imagining of your science as compared with mine, although you do smack of the Hermetic. Now, I have a great adoration of Hermetics (what? I'm allowed to be fascinated by odd things) but as interesting as some of it is, it isn't real. If you're implying that molecules have some higher-order call to organization, I suppose that could be possible - but this suggests naturalistic abiogenesis, I hope you realize, which I think you're opposed to. :shrug:
Tsk. Seems you beat me to that point. I curse you from the mountaintop.
It's difficult to not be beaten to the obvious points when the opposition is so blatantly absurd.
Give it a little time until a real trickster comes along and my rather small brain starts to cave under the pressure and you'll be sure to be doing laps around me.
- Status