Yeah, that's called reason. You don't "percieve" (an incorrect use of the term) evolution because you don't want to, you haven't read about it. It is irrelevent if the evidence is a picture of a turtle instead of a real turtle.
Purpose of Life
- Thread starter Islamsmylife
- Start date
Yeah, that's called reason. You don't "percieve" (an incorrect use of the term) evolution because you don't want to, you haven't read about it. It is irrelevent if the evidence is a picture of a turtle instead of a real turtle.
the difference is that the speed of light can be tested in a controlled environment (like they do with laser cooled atoms) - evolution however remains untestable and unverifiable and doesn't present any axioms that can be worked with to present workable results like the speed of light
That is not true. Evolution by natural selection is certainly verifiable, didn't you read about my example with the fruit flies?
If you are using that to establish macroevolution you run into difficulties
You're wasting your time. LG has conclusions to which he only sees data that confirms them.
or so it seems
What cracks me up is you can't stand not having the last word, but also seem to have an utter disdain for responding to me. I actually laughed out loud at your last few posts. 
If you want to establish that God said "let there be light", and there was light, you run into difficulties.
I seeWhat cracks me up is you can't stand not having the last word, but also seem to have an utter disdain for responding to me. I actually laughed out loud at your last few posts.
Claims about god don't have a basis on the empirical collection of data - this however, is the sole foot of credibility that science stands on .....
Ah yes, the theistic requirement to differentiate between supposed micro- and macro- evolution.
Do you agree that the earth is billions of years old?
Do you agree that dinosaurs roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago?
Do you agree that homosapiens were not on the earth hundreds of millions of years ago?
Do you agree that there are no longer any dinosaurs, and that there is now a widespread multi-cultural infestation of homo-sapiens?
So if we did not evolve from prior species, we sprang from... where exactly?
If you have an alternative theory to evolution then please put it forward. And please post all the evidence TO SUPPORT it - not just evidence to discredit another theory - but evidence to SUPPORT whatever it is you "believe".
Otherwise enough already with the creationist propaganda, or whatever else it is you are proposing.
And remember - evolution is FACT - as it (e.g. speciation) has been observed.
Evolutionary theory (whether it be "Natural Selection" or any other) are just theories.
Last edited:
LG has no genuine beliefs that can be pinned down. His goal in this forum is to be contrary and argue, a point he's made clear on several occasions when he refers to it as a 'debate forum.' One like LG revels in argument and being argumentative. When cornered by facts and evidence, he need only shift the goal post a bit with a convenient bit of postmodernist opinion or supernatural poppycock. Someone who averages 15 posts a day is concerned with his own ego and not actual discussion; spam and getting the last word not intelligent discourse. Such people appear to think quantity makes them more right in an argument or debate.
Unfortunately, I've had to delete or edit several posts from members that have resorted to flames and name-calling directed toward him because of their frustrations with his posting style. I'd ask others not to resort to such lows as it gives LG just the satisfaction he wants and when I miss one, he'll be more than happy to cry foul that I'm moderating him and not others.
Unfortunately, I've had to delete or edit several posts from members that have resorted to flames and name-calling directed toward him because of their frustrations with his posting style. I'd ask others not to resort to such lows as it gives LG just the satisfaction he wants and when I miss one, he'll be more than happy to cry foul that I'm moderating him and not others.
Empirical collection of data (and, and I would add, using reason to postulate testable conclusions); sounds very credible to me.
If you have internal, subjective evidence for God, I cannot argue with that, but you will not be able to convince anyone else of it logically.
spidergoat
So you view no essential difference between a scientific fact and a scientific theory?
agreed - logic can only bring one to the point of applying the relevant processes that bestow such evidences
I thought your reluctance to follow up that line of discussion indicated you simply weren't interested?
Sarkus
Until microbiology comes to the point of creating life from matter (ie - delivering the goods rather than just talking about them) all the ideas about what the universe was like and how life evolved are just simply that - theories
you think its a small requirement?
Whether I agree or disagree with these things will not help establish their credibility - the fact that microbiological suggestions of ancient history have worked (and continues to work) with empricism makes these definitions very flexible and of no consequence (whether the universe is 4 billion or 4000 billion years old doesn't enable anything to be be actualized or exhibited as evidence, its just simply another opinion on "what the evidence tells us").
Until microbiology comes to the point of creating life from matter (ie - delivering the goods rather than just talking about them) all the ideas about what the universe was like and how life evolved are just simply that - theories
You advocate abiogenesis - you tell me
My point is that empiricism without the ability to deliver the goods is useless - I could offer explanations of how god's energies interact with the material atmosphere, but you have severe difficulties accepting the credibility on which such information rests so that would also be a pointless endavour
The point is that if you want to stick by the bastions of empiricism (which is quite ok, since empiricism delivers many advancements in the fields of medicine, metal fabrication, computer technology etc) then you have to also adhere to the foundations that empiricism works by to distinguish fact from theory (once again, no problem with an empirical theory, only when it is passe off as a fact)
even if you want to accept it as a "fact" it doesn't help any with abiogenesis or the greater implications of evolution - in other words if you want to accept it as the basis for declaring evolution is an empirical fact it still needs something
agreed
Stop introducing the theory of abiogenesis into the argument and answer the question.
Yet again you circle the question in hand and introduce strawmen into the pot.
ABIOGENESIS has nothing to do with the discussion in hand.
We are not discussing the ORIGIN of life - but how life EVOLVED.
EVOLUTION OF LIFE requires LIFE already to exist.
LIFE EXISTING is a given! Evolution occurs to EXISTING LIFE!
And EVOLUTION IS FACT!! - it has been OBSERVED time and time again.
I can say it over and over again, and it will always be true, but I guess whether you choose to actually listen rather than keep your head burrowed in the sand of ignorance is your perogative.
Now answer the questions and stop avoiding them!!
Furthermore, you seem to think the failure to create life in a lab in the last 50 years or so is reason to reject the theory of evolution - even though the two areas are barely related.
Utterly pathetic reasoning on your part - and weak debating skills.
You have once again failed to actually give any evidence in support of any other theory.
You have once again failed to actually say what your alternative "theory" is, let alone provide any evidence to support it.
All you have once again done is try to explain why you don't see evolution as acceptable - and most of that seems to do with Abiogenesis - which is a completely different matter.
I expected more from you, LG.
I guess I am a slow learner.
You have never or will you ever observe anything even close to what is called evolution.
The closest you can come to it in actual observation is an ability of lifeforms to adapt to their environment.
This does not sustain the theory of one specie becoming a completely different species.
That is and will remain for the short duration of its lifespan left it....a theory.
The human genome project has just identified a remnant DNA within humans that is more complex and of a higher order than other DNA present in modern man.
Here is a piece of the article.....http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
A Toronto-led team of international researchers has revealed a new map of the human genome that will break new ground in finding out the genetic origins of disease, including heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and various cancers.
Stephen Scherer, senior scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, has found new kinds of genetic variations hidden within the genome, which scientists say could change their entire understanding of inheritance of disease and evolution.
The study, published yesterday in the journal Nature, also reveals that genetic variation between humans is much greater than previously thought.
This supports the two linage history of man the bible has recorded for sixty centuries.
That history claims there was never any "evolution" but instead an interbreeding of a higher and lower species to create the present state of man. (i.e.....the sons of God taking for wives the daughters of men.)
It would seems Darwin has run his ship aground against science itself.....sorry.
We are a hybrid and are not the result of a lower form evolving onto a higher, but just the opposite.
Darwin's day are numbered.
Do you remember the name of the famous French scientist that once theorized "if we ever attained the great speed of 50 miles per hour we would break free of gravities hold and fly off the earth".?
Neither do I.
It's kind of like that.
Last edited: