Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

Here is the definition of evolution - again:

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

Please refer to my reponse to you in the thread: Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

I don't feel repeating the same thing here is appropriate. But I will be more than glad to do so if you'd like.

To sum it up for you - you admitted evolution was wrong because it tried to include the origin of life and failed. So the theory did a quick slight of hands and started using a different word - inherited- in place of origin. However since the theory was wrong decades ago using one word - it is still wrong today using a different word.

If you want a more detailed response - head over to that other thread.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


You clearly don't understand what "inherited" means in the context of evolution

And one last time: DARWIN NEVER INCLUDED HOW LIFE STARTED IN HIS THEORIES!!! Some scientists made some hypothesis about possible connections and implication, but nothing even managed to get classified as a legit scientific theory. The term abiogenesis is relatively new compared to evolution, we didn't have a suitable word for it. That's why to some it might seem as if for a while it was included in the theory of evolution.

Thankfully we live in the 21st century and science made great progress when it comes to evolution. I don't think you fully grasp how much the theory influenced us. Without it, we wouldn't have antibiotics...a fact you conveniently choose to ignore. We couldn't beat any virus if evolution were wrong! That alone should be proof enough for you...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

You clearly don't understand what "inherited" means in the context of evolution

And one last time: DARWIN NEVER INCLUDED HOW LIFE STARTED IN HIS THEORIES!!! Some scientists made some hypothesis about possible connections and implication, but nothing even managed to get classified as a legit scientific theory. The term abiogenesis is relatively new compared to evolution, we didn't have a suitable word for it. That's why to some it might seem as if for a while it was included in the theory of evolution.

Thankfully we live in the 21st century and science made great progress when it comes to evolution. I don't think you fully grasp how much the theory influenced us. Without it, we wouldn't have antibiotics...a fact you conveniently choose to ignore. We couldn't beat any virus if evolution were wrong! That alone should be proof enough for you...

edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

So because evolution influences us, it is proof that it is correct?

Well, what do know, then by your same logic, God, any God, has influenced us way more than evolution has. By miles and miles.

So does that mean God is real?

I have given two definitions of inherited from two different sources. So I'm pretty sure I know what the word means. Take the time and reread the posts.

Basically evolution is based on inherited traits. Right?

In other words, evolution is based on the fact that we receive traits from a parent or ancestor by genetic transmission, correct?

So where did the first ancestor come from?

Where?

The theory definition is based on it.

So either give me a new definition or admit inherited is being used in place of origin and that the theory is wrong.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

You clearly don't understand what "inherited" means in the context of evolution

And one last time: DARWIN NEVER INCLUDED HOW LIFE STARTED IN HIS THEORIES!!! Some scientists made some hypothesis about possible connections and implication, but nothing even managed to get classified as a legit scientific theory. The term abiogenesis is relatively new compared to evolution, we didn't have a suitable word for it. That's why to some it might seem as if for a while it was included in the theory of evolution.

Thankfully we live in the 21st century and science made great progress when it comes to evolution. I don't think you fully grasp how much the theory influenced us. Without it, we wouldn't have antibiotics...a fact you conveniently choose to ignore. We couldn't beat any virus if evolution were wrong! That alone should be proof enough for you...

edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

So because evolution influences us, it is proof that it is correct?

Well, what do know, then by your same logic, God, any God, has influenced us way more than evolution has. By miles and miles.

So does that mean God is real?

First of all, quit asking about the first life form as this is totally off topic and has nothing to do with evolution. People told you that 2 pages back, but you don't see to (want to) get it.

As for god influencing us, that's not god, that's MEN coming up with dogmatic rules based on hundreds of year old scriptures....or new ones in the case of scientology. Of course religion shaped society, but that doesn't mean there is a god. God never interfered in anything, at least not in a way we can prove. What did interfere was humans basing their actions on pure speculation and belief.

Everything exists of energy right ? Energy can't be destroyed they say.

Does it need a maker or has it always been around.

By the way....


Mr.XYZ is totally right. What's so difficult about a theory that explains the development of life and not it's creation.

Those darn scientists even have a whole other theory for that... It's called ABIOGENESIS

This is the best theory of dawin I can find online quickly. Almost all of the other sources have similar wording.

Is it correct or not?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. - yahoo answers

If it is let's talk.

If it isn't, please correct it.

And yes - the original theory before the actual theory did concern itself with the origin of life and so does the current one (the definition says 'ineherited'). You said so yourself. Don't you remember?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


No, it doesn't concern itself with the origins of life. If it did, we wouldn't need to create an entire new scientific field called abiogenesis. I hope you see the logic in that. I also love how picked "yahoo answers" as your source for a scientific quote. You do realize everyone can post on yahoo answers...so no wonder they wrongfully included the origins of life.

You just don't get what inherited means. It just means you pass on traits from one generation to the next. It makes no statement about the first life form.

Just like not knowing your first ancestor of your family doesn't mean your entire family tree is hogwash. If you don't see this, you're too brainwashed by religion to accept facts and discussing science with you is kinda pointless

Look, you can keep on repeating that abiogenesis is the same as evolution and that they go together...but scientifically they're not, and saying otherwise just shows your lack of knowledge of the subject we're discussing. Inherited only means that information is passed down. Whatever the first life form was is totally irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that evolution happens and the theory therefore holds up. You might not agree because of your BELIEF, but from a scientific standpoint, that's how it is.

reply to post by MrXYZ


to quote you:

"Basically, that line of reasoning is hogwash.

First of all, I don't know when you went to school or how good your teachers were, but evolution hasn't claimed to concern itself with the origins of life for decades. So you either had a very bad teacher, simply refused to accept facts, or are at least 80 years old. "

Just for fun, just answer each question with either a yes or a no.

So did they teach origins with evolution? yes or no?

Or were you lying? yes or no?

Have they changed that teaching now? yes or no?

So was it taught incorrectly then? yes or no?

Is the definition of evolution: "Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations"?

yes or no?

Is the definition of inherited: To inherit something is to get it from one's ancestors through legal succession (e.g., "inherit the throne"), or through a bequest (e.g., "inherited money from his deceased aunt"), or from genetic transmission (e.g., "inherited color-blindness from his father"). ?

yes or no?

Does the very definition of evolution use the word - inherited and in fact rely on it?

yes or no?

Does the first ancestor have to come from somewhere?

yes or no?

Does the current definition of evolution therefore still deal with the origin of life?

yes or no?

Is the current definition of evolution wrong?

yes or no?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


One last time: You don't get what inherited means for evolution. You don't need to explain the first life form or how it came to be...just like your family history isn't wrong just because we don't know the first of your family line.

Before people started actively conducting experiments regarding abiogenesis in 1924 (AFTER the theory of evolution was published), most speculation regarding it was based on evolution and its scientists like Darwin. But it was NEVER part of the evolutionary theory per-say, if that's what you understood, that's not what I meant.

Either way, that was almost 100 years ago, and we made great success in the field of evolution since then. The "family history" example should make it abundantly clear why your claim that we need to know how life started to make "evolution valid" is total hogwash. You keep on ignoring that example though (prob because it's inconvenient for the point you're trying to make) and I have no doubt you will continue to misinterpret the whole thing on purpose as long as in your mind it justifies your BELIEF.

Is the definition of inherited: To inherit something is to get it from one's ancestors through legal succession (e.g., "inherit the throne"), or through a bequest (e.g., "inherited money from his deceased aunt"), or from genetic transmission (e.g., "inherited color-blindness from his father"). ?

yes or no?

Does the very definition of evolution use the word - inherited and in fact rely on it?

yes or no?

Does the first ancestor have to come from somewhere?

yes or no?

Does the current definition of evolution therefore still deal with the origin of life?

yes or no?

Is the current definition of evolution wrong?

yes or no?

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes...although for the theory of evolution it doesn't matter AT ALL where it came from.
4) No...let me say that again so you get it: NO!
5) No...at least not if you use an official dictionary definition instead of some random Yahoo Answers definition.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Is the definition of inherited: To inherit something is to get it from one's ancestors through legal succession (e.g., "inherit the throne"), or through a bequest (e.g., "inherited money from his deceased aunt"), or from genetic transmission (e.g., "inherited color-blindness from his father"). ?

yes or no?

Does the very definition of evolution use the word - inherited and in fact rely on it?

yes or no?

Does the first ancestor have to come from somewhere?

yes or no?

Does the current definition of evolution therefore still deal with the origin of life?

yes or no?

Is the current definition of evolution wrong?

yes or no?

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes...although for the theory of evolution it doesn't matter AT ALL where it came from.
4) No...let me say that again so you get it: NO!
5) No...at least not if you use an official dictionary definition instead of some random Yahoo Answers definition.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Thank you for answering the questions and for another definition.

But it still uses 'successive generations' so I guess it's still relying on the incorrect origins idea.

Oh well, I guess there is really no way to define it properly.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


The theory isn't suddenly wrong just because we don't know how the first life form came to be.

I'm gonna say it one last time, after that I'll consider you too brainwashed to have a logical discussion with:

Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis as a prerequisite. From single celled organisms all the way to us, the theory works 100% and we actively apply its findings, which should be the strongest evidence that the theory is right.

According to your world view, we shouldn't have antibiotics, gene technology would be decades behind, as would a ton of other fields related to evolutionary theory. Given that we have antibiotics and make great progress in gene technology, it's pretty clear why your view on evolution is just plain wrong and based on a lack of knowledge about science. That's not an attack, that's a fact.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

The theory isn't suddenly wrong just because we don't know how the first life form came to be.

I'm gonna say it one last time, after that I'll consider you too brainwashed to have a logical discussion with:

Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis as a prerequisite. From single celled organisms all the way to us, the theory works 100% and we actively apply its findings, which should be the strongest evidence that the theory is right.

According to your world view, we shouldn't have antibiotics, gene technology would be decades behind, as would a ton of other fields related to evolutionary theory. Given that we have antibiotics and make great progress in gene technology, it's pretty clear why your view on evolution is just plain wrong and based on a lack of knowledge about science. That's not an attack, that's a fact.

The definition of evolution is wrong.

Can it be corrected? I'm not sure.

Does it falsify it? To a point I guess it does.

But does it invalidate the enitre theory? I'm not sure.

You asked me to prove evolution false.

I did by attacking the definition.

You keep assuming I don't believe in evolution.

The entire time I talked to you about the definition of evolution.

The entire time you kept attacking me or kept telling me how correct the theory is.

You never once addressed the definition of the theory. You did offer an alternative definition so props to you for that.

But you never once heard what I was saying. Are your ears closed? Or is it your mind?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


You didn't prove it wrong, you just made it blatantly obvious that you don't get "inherited" in the context of evolution

All it states is that it goes back to the first life form, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say anything about how life started, unless of course you don't get what "inherited" means in the context of evolution...

It isn't me who doesn't get it.

While you try to limit what inherited means to evolution, everyone else in the entire world knows what it means.

Including those who wrote the definition of evolution. Trust me - they did not pick any of the words in the definition by accident.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
It isn't me who doesn't get it.

While you try to limit what inherited means to evolution, everyone else in the entire world knows what it means.

Including those who wrote the definition of evolution. Trust me - they did not pick any of the words in the definition by accident.

Of course not, and the word "inherited" is correct in the context of the definition. We inherit traits from generation to generation.

The fact that a first life form existed doesn't invalidate the theory. Your beef with the word "Inherited" is completely illogical and certainly isn't disproving evolution or falsifying the definition. We do in fact inherit traits, so why should we take it out??? Sure, it implies there's a first life form, but that's a fact that changes NOTHING in terms of definition or evolution.

"Sure, it implies there's a first life form, but that's a fact that changes NOTHING in terms of definition or evolution."

What it does prove as a fact is that evolution began trying to prove the origin of life - & it failed.

So it switched a word or two around using a more non descript term, inherited, and now it is widely accepted.

Even though, as you just said, it does implie a first life form, so it is still trying to prove the origin of life. Just more subtley now.

And it uses a new "seperate" theory to try and do the impossible dirty work and prove lifes origin - without proving a creator.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


No, it's not trying to prove the origins of life...man it's hard to talk about science with someone who doesn't understand how scientific method even works.

Of course it assumes a frist life form, if that wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be here. Doesn't change the fact that the theory only talks about how life evolved over time, and not how it started. I know that's not what you wanna hear, but that's FACT! The theory does not require to know how life started, it just needs to know life started and as we know it did.

And the theory isn't just "widely accepted" for nothing. It is accepted because every claim it makes is fully backed up by scientific evidence and the theory fits every single life form on the planet.

I understand, yes the bible, Isa 40:26, it says so there:

but, I just have a question, what version is it right to adhere to, and which is wrong?
lets see:

Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

from new international version

Look up at the sky! 1 Who created all these heavenly lights? 2 He is the one who leads out their ranks; 3 he calls them all by name. Because of his absolute power and awesome strength, not one of them is missing.

from net bible

Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

from bibletools

Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and for that he is strong in power, not one is lacking.

american standard

Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing.

esv bible

Lift up your eyes on high and see, who created these, who takes out their host by number; all of them He calls by name; because of His great might and because He is strong in power, no one is missing.

chabad


so those where just quotes from the same part, with different wording and meaning, the question remains, who created the bible, god, or MAN

reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet


Men wrote the bible of course. Obviously they claim "god inspired them or sent them a message"...but that's pretty much what scientology or any other cult claims.

What better way to control the people than to tell them not to think for themselves, to just accept whatever is in that book. It's genius really...luckily we live in the 21st century and science helps to destroy a lot of the myths used to control the people. An example of that is evolution which obviously proves men didn't just pop up in his current form, we evolved...contrary to what it says in Genesis.

The sad part is, there's people so brainwashed by religion, they refuse to accept facts. And what's even worse, those same people are allowed to vote!