Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
Meaning of life.The purpose of life.How appeared life on Earth and why.What is beyond the atom.What's beyond the universe.What are the fields.....
Stuff, you know.
Before asking what is the meaning of life, one must determine that there IS a meaning of life.
How life appeared on Earth is Unknown, however, experiments with emergence and the building blocks of life has yielded a simple and very conclusive probability.
If all you want is a simple answer without checking the rationale behind you're asking the questions, then I can offer that up too:
42.
I promise not to bring up any of those points above if YOU, "Hercules," and your friends promise not to regurgipost all the usual Darwinist stuff, such as:
-- your group is smarter than everybody else, so everybody else had better shut up
-- your group follows science, so everybody else shut up
-- you and your friends practice "reason" and "logic" and anyone with the audacity to question anything biological does NOT, so shut up
-- anyone who has the least bit problem "doesn't understand evolution," so they have to shut up
-- if you don't have a better alternative, shut up
-- it's either the Bible or Darwin, even if your opponent made no mention of the Bible, so.... you know... shut up
Threads such as this aren't discussions. They aren't reason. They certainly do not constitute debate. They're Darwinists' condescension sessions, where everyone else is told to "shut up" because they're not worthy of The Anointed.
Why RenaissanceMan do you deny evolution? Oh please lets hear your argument!
Nah - that would be boring - all we'd get is 50 year old arguments and out of date quotes copied and pasted from the usual extremist religious fascist sources that we've all seen a hundred times.
what would be interesting - and a complete first for one of the creationist taliban cadre - would be a consistent alternative to the current explanation for evolution that has a little more to say than "goddidit"
Shhhhhs, I want to hear RenaissanceMan reply!
Who said I "deny" evolution?
Those are YOUR words, not mine.
Since when was questioning tantamount to denial?
Please pay attention.
Life is difficult.
And then you wrote this:
One cannot "hear" threads. One can only read them.
Not me.
I was asking, note the question mark, not stating with a period.
I haven't heard a question of evolution yet.
no shit!
Soooo are we going to talk about evolution or not?
:yawn:
What a surprise that a Creationist apologist (if not an outright Creationist) opens his/her position by listing a bunch of strawman “Darwinist stuff” that do not constitute the scientific underpinnings of the ToE.
….NOT!
Correct. Lame attempts to debunk the ToE with tired reguriposted wilfully ignorant material that has been doing the rounds since the advent of the interweb aren’t discussions, reason or debate.
See reference the lame arguments above.
You’re clearly itching to impress us with your masterful knowledge of the biological sciences, so off you go. Impress us.
(I wonder how long before you start copy and pasting Behe quotations.
)Do you still beat your wife? Stalk small children?
I didn't say you DID, I'm just asking. Note the question marks.
Underpin this, Rockefeller:
1. What is the space of cytochrome c?
2. Why did biologists continue to make the bald-faced lie that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" more than 100 years AFTER it had been discredited as a fraud?
3. Name at least two books written by biologists who use the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" throughout their books.
What is NOT "reason or debate" is the incessant claim of intellectual superiority by folks like you. In fact, it is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual of you to avoid discussion by merely making the CLAIM that you are superior.
There you go again.
What is the space of cytochrome c?
Why the relentless lies for over 100 years on just ONE element of Darwinian deceit?
And stop rolling your eyes. They may stay crossed.
Patel, you don't even have a clue as to what fascism means. Not a clue.
All you can do is feign enlightenment and ask for an "alternative."
Like virtually all other Anointed Darwinists, you seem blissfully unaware that no "alternative" is necessary to ask questions about the topic of science in question.
"What is the approximate range of pKa values?" would, in your Darwin-In-Wonderland World be rebutted by "Do YOU have an alternative range, huh, huh, huh?"
So because you are all things enlightened and scientific, and because you don't want boring things, why don't you expound on the range of pKa values and explain why it is so small, or large.
We'll proceed to more difficult topics after you have jumped this tiny bump in the road.
Darwinian evolution doesn't depend on Recapitulation theory, but it's not entirely false.
I'm waiting to hear him bring up the old "new information" canard.
I'm waiting to hear him bring up the old "new information" canard.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Do you mean the sequence space?
I have seen this phrase used through ignorance; I have seen it used as a convenient simplifcation of a concept; I have never seen it offered up as a bald-faced lie. Would you cite three or four examples of such usage please.
Would you explain what the relevance of this is? In the meantime:
Neural Darwinism: The theory of neuronal group selection by G.M. Edelman
Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection by Depew and Weber.
Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution controversies by Michael Ruse.
It's not a book, but it is by Gould, so it shold count for something, whatever it is you are trying to prove:
Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. (Science 23 April 1982)
And just what was your point?
sure I do - it's essentially a radical authoritarian viewpoint that rejects individualism - a perfect descriptor for the religious extremists who propound creationism - and their follower drones.
I can do a lot more - but I want you to dance for me monkey boy - I could use the entertainment
First explain why this isn't a tiresomely dull and transparent red herring and I'll take a crack at it.
Keep dancing monkey boy.
Last edited:
Can you prove that a specific evolutionary event, such as an introduction of a specific mutation, in the past was random? If not, then the assertion that all events were in fact a process of Evolution by random mutations propagated by Natural Selection (and other mechanisms) has no evidence what so ever, but is only an extrapolated assertion.
I.e it does not eliminate creation, thus it does allow for the denial of the general (not all) concept of Evolution in terms of the random aspect.
Evolution by some specific directed mutations propagated by Natural Selection, is different than Evolution by random mutations propagated by Natural Selection.
The common ToE is that of the latter, and I can chose to accept the alternative.
Secondly I don't see why anyone even needs to disprove evolution- a process which could be a result of creation in itself.
Creation can never be an eliminated alternative.
Peace be unto you
I.e it does not eliminate creation, thus it does allow for the denial of the general (not all) concept of Evolution in terms of the random aspect.
Evolution by some specific directed mutations propagated by Natural Selection, is different than Evolution by random mutations propagated by Natural Selection.
The common ToE is that of the latter, and I can chose to accept the alternative.
Secondly I don't see why anyone even needs to disprove evolution- a process which could be a result of creation in itself.
Creation can never be an eliminated alternative.
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
Well actually I was never married, for good reason, and no I do not still stalk small children, instead I go to the Philippians regularity an rent a nice supple brown one to accompany me for the vacation, and carry around my luggage.
So are we going to talk about evolution or what?
Creation can never be an eliminated alternative.
The notion that the universe was miraculously zapped into existence just a few thousand years ago, but was made in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a universe that appears to be of great age and runs completely autonomously from supernatural control and interference, can never be eliminated entirely.
But if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then the chances are.........
The real problems for creationists are not in the act of creation itself.
However unsatisfying the standard explanations and orders creationist Furhers give to their mindless minions may be to someone with an enquiring mind (i.e. "goddit! -so shut up and do and think as we tell you to - and while you're at it here's some stuff to copy and paste on internet forums!") - the basic premise - with a few qualifications - cannot be disproved.
The REAL problems appear when we take an overall biblical / scriptural literalist interpretation of earth history, with the biggest problem of all being the Noachian flood.
Every single scrap of sedimentary rock on the entire planet screams with hysterical laughter at every single prediction that the flood legend makes and then micturates over them from a very great height, physics laughs at it, biogeography laughs at it, molecular biology laughs at it, evolution (itself a necessary prediction of the flood) laughs at it.
In short - it’s a joke - and not even a very good one........
......... its timing is off
(see what I did there?)
Last edited:
- Status