Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

There is no belief in evolution. I accept evolution because it's true. I mean how can you accept there is a diverse family of dogs; compared to primates like gorillas, chimps, and even humans. We share a common ancestor which is why we have similarities and differences. I cannot tell you what to accept, but I would like for you to go study the links I included my first post and ask me anything here or through messages. There is a lot to cover.

You accept it because you believe in it. You have never observed evolution, you are relying on the theories of scientist's based on their interpretation of the data.

I have a little challenge for you: Look up 'geological column', 'fossil record' & 'circular reasoning' as a search and do some research to find out how we date the fossils and the rock. You may be surprised.

Showing your ignorance again.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You will never get a cat evolving from dog.

I agree. Because cats and dogs have a common ancestor, there is no reason why a cat (a current day animal) should ever evolve into a dog (a current day animal).
They have a common ancestor that was not a cat, and was not a dog.

Your bogus argument is much like arguing that ...
- you and your brother are different,
- you could never evolve into your brother,
- thus you are not related.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You will never see a rock transform into bacteria

I know you've been told before that abiogenesis isnt evolution, but either you're sticking your fingers in your ears (metaphotically speaking) or you simply dont understand.
Neither one does you any good.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
monkey eventually transform into a human

Same issue as before. You've done it twice now.
Monkeys (modern day creatures) and humans (modern day creatures) have a common ancestor.
That common ancestor was not a monkey.

As the old saying goes... “Evolution is so simple, almost anyone can misunderstand it”

And certainly on the internet, I've never actually encountered anyone who actually understands evolution, and the reasoning behind it... and yet still disagrees with it.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
No, but...

The theory of evolution certainly helps people justify crushing the weak. The theory of evolution is a Eugenicist's wet dream.

Evolution doesn't directly encourage strength anymore than it does intelligence. I am still not sure how you can claim that the idea of life adapting to its enviroment leads to genocide, or murder.

I know you are trolling, but I am bored....so one more time. Evolution is life adapting to it's surroundings...that has nothing to do with your simple ideas of strength, and weakness...let alone the start of the universe(which is in the realm of physics...not evolution), or the dawn of life(which is also a seperate field, and study than evolution). Evolution is simply how life changes over time...which we know to be true due to things like immunization, hereditary conditions, and genetic markers.

Originally posted by alfa1

Showing your ignorance again.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You will never get a cat evolving from dog.

I agree. Because cats and dogs have a common ancestor, there is no reason why a cat (a current day animal) should ever evolve into a dog (a current day animal).
They have a common ancestor that was not a cat, and was not a dog.

Your bogus argument is much like arguing that ...
- you and your brother are different,
- you could never evolve into your brother,
- thus you are not related.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You will never see a rock transform into bacteria

I know you've been told before that abiogenesis isnt evolution, but either you're sticking your fingers in your ears (metaphotically speaking) or you simply dont understand.
Neither one does you any good.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
monkey eventually transform into a human

Same issue as before. You've done it twice now.
Monkeys (modern day creatures) and humans (modern day creatures) have a common ancestor.
That common ancestor was not a monkey.

As the old saying goes... “Evolution is so simple, almost anyone can misunderstand it”

And certainly on the internet, I've never actually encountered anyone who actually understands evolution, and the reasoning behind it... and yet still disagrees with it.

Cat's and dog's do not have a common ancestor, they are different kind's of animals.

In the same way that a banana and a coconut do not have a common ancestor.

You theorise that a cat and a dog have a common ancestor but it can never be proven.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You make a false assumption when you imply that I have not spent time studying the theory of cosmic and biological evolution.

You obviously do not understand it if you think a rock is a living organism with DNA! Of course it's not going to undergo biochemical changes.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
Hitler's & Stalin's policies were heavily influenced by the theory of evolution. Their philosophy was deeply entrenched in the idea that the weak deserve to die and only the strong should remain. Hitler's idea of a master race completely originated in this philosphy. 'Survival of the fittest'. Hitler even had the races listed in order of importance.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" isn't even a scientific description. It was coined by Herbert Spencer and Darwin used it figuratively in his book On the Origin of Species. Hitler's racial hierarchy was based on Ernst Haeckel's scheme of the biological evolution of life forms with Aryans at the apex (he took into account political-state formation). This evolutionary view (which is fundamentally flawed) was adopted by the Nazis and used as a basis for their primacy.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
Macroevolution is baloney.

So you say. Speciation has been documented and observed under controlled laboratory conditions.

I swear. Why do doubters of evolution constantly rely on the artificial distinction between "evolution below the species level" and "evolution above the species level"? It's getting on my nerves. Pick up a book by Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, or Jerry Coyne, and READ IT.

Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

And what about human societies before Darwin was even born ? Everything was perfect ?

The idea of evolution was around way before Darwin was even thought of, so what's your point? For someone who defends such a silly belief, you sure don't know much about it.

It does not matter at all what a Christian says about the dumb theory of evolution, because people who do accept it will say, "that's not what it's about." It's sad, but funny, to see someone defend a RELIGIOUS BELIEF like that so firmly, yet everything you say about it, they claim "that's not what it's about." Either there are a bunch of liars who teach the theory, or there are a bunch of ignorant people who follow them.

Sorry, but I say it's both.

The simple answer ......

Bacteria will breed in a Petri dish and complete for resources.

As soon as the resources start to run out. It kills its neighbours off.


The ensuing war eventually kills of the entire dish.



Have a good day.

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You make a false assumption when you imply that I have not spent time studying the theory of cosmic and biological evolution.

You obviously do not understand it if you think a rock is a living organism with DNA! Of course it's not going to undergo biochemical changes.

With that one statement alone you have just destroyed the theory of evolution.

If you read your textbook you will find that the theory of evolution suggest's that over millions of years rain fell upon the surface of the earth and created the 'primordial soup' (from water and rock we suddenly have biochemical changes???).

Thank you for making my point.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
Cat's and dog's do not have a common ancestor, they are different kind's of animals.

You theorise that a cat and a dog have a common ancestor but it can never be proven.

So you've changed your argument then.

Earlier on, you were arguing that an "evolutionist" would claim that a cat could evolve into a dog.
I showed that this was not the case.

Now you're claiming that its something YOU dont believe.

So at this point, we seem to be in agreement that NEITHER side of the argument would ever claim that a cat could evolve into a dog, so... why did you mention it at all?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

There is no belief in evolution. I accept evolution because it's true. I mean how can you accept there is a diverse family of dogs; compared to primates like gorillas, chimps, and even humans. We share a common ancestor which is why we have similarities and differences. I cannot tell you what to accept, but I would like for you to go study the links I included my first post and ask me anything here or through messages. There is a lot to cover.

You accept it because you believe in it. You have never observed evolution, you are relying on the theories of scientist's based on their interpretation of the data.

I have a little challenge for you: Look up 'geological column', 'fossil record' & 'circular reasoning' as a search and do some research to find out how we date the fossils and the rock. You may be surprised.

You see evolution as a faith like religion; I see evolution as science. I do not accept something just to believe in it. Also we can observe evolution and confirm it as a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Wikipedia Link
Well here is information about numerous fossils about our ancestors and the ancestors of numerous of species.

Transitional Fossils: Fossils that show a transition from one group to another group, e.g. Archaeopteryx, the reptile-like bird; Tiktaalik, the amphibian-like fish; Australopithecus, the human-like ape, etc.

Facts that support evolution
Introduction to human evolution
List of transitional fossils

These are just a few links which give evidence to support evolution.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You make a false assumption when you imply that I have not spent time studying the theory of cosmic and biological evolution.

You obviously do not understand it if you think a rock is a living organism with DNA! Of course it's not going to undergo biochemical changes.

With that one statement alone you have just destroyed the theory of evolution.

If you read your textbook you will find that the theory of evolution suggest's that over millions of years rain fell upon the surface of the earth and created the 'primordial soup' (from water and rock we suddenly have biochemical changes???).

Thank you for making my point.

*facepalm*

You are referring to *abiogenesis* - the origin of life from nonlife, NOT the evolutionary development and diversification of life - the origin of species (uni-cellular life -> multi-cellular life).

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


You're either a second rate troll, or you just happen to severely misunderstand biological evolution.

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

You're either a second rate troll, or you just happen to severely misunderstand biological evolution.

Judging by his history on the site I'll say he's just confused about evolution. I believe he is a Christian so I wouldn't be surprise that his view on evolution is that it's nothing more than a evil belief. We need to help teach him what evolution really is, how it works, and what not. Also answer any other questions he will have about science and disprove the wild rumors about science.

Originally posted by Phoenix267

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

You're either a second rate troll, or you just happen to severely misunderstand biological evolution.

Judging by his history on the site I'll say he's just confused about evolution. I believe he is a Christian so I wouldn't be surprise that his view on evolution is that it's nothing more than a evil belief. We need to help teach him what evolution really is, how it works, and what not. Also answer any other questions he will have about science and disprove the wild rumors about science.

Being a Christian has nothing to do with it.

That is like saying being an atheist skews your view on evolution, let's try and be objective here.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


I was saying that because there is chance you have been expose to negative ideas and myths about evolution that many creationist spread around.

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
You make a false assumption when you imply that I have not spent time studying the theory of cosmic and biological evolution.

You obviously do not understand it if you think a rock is a living organism with DNA! Of course it's not going to undergo biochemical changes.

With that one statement alone you have just destroyed the theory of evolution.

If you read your textbook you will find that the theory of evolution suggest's that over millions of years rain fell upon the surface of the earth and created the 'primordial soup' (from water and rock we suddenly have biochemical changes???).

Thank you for making my point.

*facepalm*

You are referring to *abiogenesis* - the origin of life from nonlife, NOT the evolutionary development and diversification of life - the origin of species (uni-cellular life -> multi-cellular life).

You made my point and now you miss my point.

If you read any textbook on evolution it will teach you (and yes I am keeping this very, very simple) that the primordial soup developed from rain falling on rock over millions (some of the textbooks say billions) of years.

Unless of course you believe that nothing exploded into everything (inlcuding living organisms) at the big bang?

Either way, the theory is totally bunk.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

I was saying that because there is chance you have been expose to negative ideas and myths about evolution that many creationist spread around.

No.

But I have been exposed to the lies of evolution.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

I was saying that because there is chance you have been expose to negative ideas and myths about evolution that many creationist spread around.

No.

But I have been exposed to the lies of evolution.

But what do you mean about "the lies of evolution?" This is new to me. I have never heard of any lies about evolution.

Originally posted by IEtherianSoul9
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

You're either a second rate troll, or you just happen to severely misunderstand biological evolution.

Biological evolution at a micro level is fine, I don't have a problem with it. We have evidence for it and it can be observed. You fail to recognise that there is no evidence for macro evolution and there is no evidence for the transition of non-organic material into organic material (abiogensis). It is all THEORY, therefore it is a belief and/or religious.

Don't try and twist what I am saying.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Did you view the links I have included in my post? I have shared information about the fossil evidence. Also a scientific theory is different from the stander English definition.