So when and how did energy supposedly turn into matter?
Is Evolution and abiogenesis a pseudoscience?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
- Status
retro viruses add genetic information.
All threads which question Darwinian Dogma will now automatically go to pseudo-science, this is a recording.
Maybe, but do you know what they are? Telling "science" what it has to be, in order to be contradicted by your bogus arguments, is a dubious beginning. But we continue:vitalone said:
Meaningless, especially the "externally" distinction. I have no idea what a creationist means by "consistency".
Darwinian evolution is about as trimmed down a theory as they come - one mechanism purporting to explain the amazing repertoire of living beings on Earth?
Check. Very - has suggested and supported tens of thousands of empirical and theoretical advances, currently guides almost all medical and biological research.
Check. Remains unfalsified.
Check.
Check. The discovery of DNA, for example, caused major revamping of the theory.
Check.
Meaningless.
Is what you meant to say: how can you disprove that natural selection is part of the mechanism behind the speciation we observe? And how can you prove that living things did not arise from nonliving matter on the planet Earth ?vitalone said:
If I have interpreted correctly, the questions are easily answered:
1) one could observe several acts of special creation. One could observe a randomly jumbled timeline in the appearance and disappearance of individual animals apart from whole kinds of animals. One could observe a lack of correlation between morphological relationship and genetic similarity independently derived.
2) One could observe elements or compounds in living animals that cannot be derived from their non-living environment. One could observe the inability of living beings to colonize or inhabit an environment barren of other living beings. One could determine that there was not enough time for living beings to have arisen from nonliving environments.
Neither one is simple. They are both incredibly complex. Why don't you know that?saquist said:
Because you don't understand the Darwinian theory of evolution.
The list was not generated by me and is not bogus it comes from official sources on the philosophy of science.....someone's getting a little emotional
When this is observed neo-Darwinists simply say "its just a missing gap in the fossil record" and thats it, end of story, nothing special...therefore no matter what this cannot be consituted as a disproof by Neo-Darwinists standards....iceaura said:
This is also observed, however again whenever brought up Neo-Darwinists just say its a missing gap, unfound fossil, and is completely ignored and not considered as a disprooficeaura said:
Well its really not that complex....everything appears complex without knowledge...iceaura said:
Emotional? I just went through the list and checked off the attributes of Darwinian theory with respect to it. No problem.vitalone said:
And I know you didn't make that list up. Nor can you defend it as a sound description of the criteria "science" must meet. What you might do now is go back to the authority that supplied you with it, and ask them what they think they're doing. What they have done, here, is the equivalent of taping a "kick me, I'm a jackass" sign to your back at the Senior Prom. It's unkind of them.
Hasn't happened yet. Not even once. And "gaps" in the fossil record would have nothing to do with either of them, if they had - so your description of the "neo-Darwinists" response is puzzling. I suspect you are cribbing from that same authority, again.vitalone said:
?! Wow. Allow me to introduce you to the simple lilttle green ball that floats in the water of the nearest ditch - - - - -vitalone said:
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
So Energy is God? Does Energy have a mind?
Why would God need a mind?
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
Yes, energy is God.
Ah, but is God energy?
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
Anyways, as a mind become more complicated (as it becomes more powerful and 'smarter') it resembles what we would call a mind less and less. So that the most powerful 'mind' if you could even call it that, would be unrecognizable to us simply because we wouldn't know what to look for. But basically, I think a mind would be a complex web of relationships, or associations, that are interrelated to each other to create an almost, if not, infinite mesh of connections. I think a number of existing things that we call inanimate could be described as such, including the universe itself.
poetic and phillosophical.
As a draftsmen I dismantle and examine structures in a scientific manner. I establish tolerance and purposes of parts for extrustion and replication. When I encounter a part that has no instructions I proceed to caliper the part to the best of my ability. I have the yard cut me a cross section so that I may examine tolerances that may have been distorted by the orignal extrusion process.
I come to an average and I proceed to draft an approximation of the part sitting on my desk. I even compare it by printing the draft and rest the part on top of the drawing.
The part is then examimed by the client and fitted. It's a sometimes exact sometimes guess work kind of production, much like biology.
But no mattter what the factors it doesn't stop me from breaking the part down. This issue of evolution...I figure could have been settled in a large way by now. We've had enough time to reveal that time isn't a factor.
With scientist suggestion there is a clear threshold of change no matter how small that life goes through...Show each door yourself. It's time to define evolution and that is just what scientist like Michael Behe and Wolf Lonnig are attempting to do by hammering out Laws and standards...."tolerances" if you will...
With out a tolerance this theory will never fit into the realm of science.
Saquist, as a draughtsman you're used to reverse engineering man made creations (historians do the same thing with man made religions).
However, abiogenesis is a little bit more difficult, think about it.
BTW, get over macro evolution, if you could accept that our planet is billions of years old then you would accept evolution as fact. You don't because of your blind irrational faith.
However, abiogenesis is a little bit more difficult, think about it.
BTW, get over macro evolution, if you could accept that our planet is billions of years old then you would accept evolution as fact. You don't because of your blind irrational faith.
Why is a discussion about wether evolution is a pseudoscience in the pseudoscience section?
Because the moderators are biased, anything slightly against Darwinian evolution is considered pseudoscience by their standards....they do not allow the theory of evolution to critically scrutinized like all other theories in science are and should be....
Well advocates who consider Intelligent Design, Astrology, superstitions, etc...as pseudoscience use this same list....so why can't I apply it to macroevolution, abiogenesis, or any other science?
Yes it has, take for instance Bats, no time to evolve, no evidence of evolution, the earliest fossils (60 mllions years ago) of bats show them fully developed...the explanation is that its just a missing gap in the fossil record so we can completely ignore it as a disproof...its exactly as I said anything contrary to evolution is completely ignored by Neo-Darwinists, making it impossible to disprove...iceaura said:
Not that list. Not the stuff I labeled "meaningless", anyway. The rest of it, maybe - but as I observed, Darwinian theory fits all those just fine.vitalone said:
What does that have to do with an alleged contradiction of temporal and morphological correlation or genetic and morphological correlation ? Bats appear in the fossil record after the more primitive mammals, perfectly in sequence, and they are genetically well-correlated as a group and by subgroups as established morphologically. They fit perfectly the predictions of Darwinian theory.vitalone said:
to repeat:
Gaps are not significant. Failure of correlation prediction would be significant - that has yet to be observed, and instead these correlations have been observed as the overwhelming norm, which as far as I know no theory except Darwinian evolution predicts.yo said:
Last edited:
- Status