Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: Raggedyman

its not nasty or bitter... just honest

I don't have a horse in this race... but many do...

Most just don't have the patience to deal with ignorance

And i don't believe anyone has said life has evolved from star dust... except you

a reply to: Akragon

Ak stop pretending, you are a gnostic (or part there off) and you do have a horse in this race

And clearly by your words you are angry bitter and nasty

Ok just say nobody has said stardirt and starwater, except talk origins of course and new scienc that respected scientific magazine, go at it then, use science to theorise a theory
Practice science

Here you go I will science
Pretend no creator God
One dark stormy night, some stuff, like dirt and water sat in a muddy puddle, lightning and thunder, a meteorite smashed into the ground, big meteorite, actually huge, ginormous in fact
Exactly at the same time lightning struck a nearby rock, splitting it in two equal pieces by chance
Fortunately there were alleles in a nearby crevice, doing nothing and they didn't notice anything, again fortunately ther were some proteins doing nothing nearby as well as amino acids who were just fortunate to be in existence and be there

Where these things come from is still unknown in my theory, I might develop a theory on that at a later date, probably not as this one is already pretty silly I confess

Let's get back to the comet, big asteroid thing, remember it was ginormous, it reduced the atmosphere instantly, the lightning in this sudden reduced atmosphere and the Delorean, oops, no Delorean that's just to stupid, so are the alleles, let's substitute them for say amino acids, not sure where they come from or existed either

Big explosion reducing gravity as well in there, can't hurt, did I say it was snowing, the explosion impact caused heating and the snow melted, there was water on the ginormous comet
Now according to my theory, I will assume ammonia and methane were present, no evidence, just a guess.
Please be aware this is not a recipe for soup, yet we can see them all combining under heat and diffusing together without it burning, kept on low, kinda simmering, infusing

I am getting to my point, hopefully, I am not going to say a jar of peanut paste just yet
According to talk origins there were sugars before life evolved, for the sake of this theory I will just accept that as a given, I won't argue talk origins stupidity on assuming sugars existed before life, it doesn't help me science

So the Aminos and the sugars and the reducing atmospheres linked with the gravity thing coupled with the, ... Ellipses...I like ellipseses...they are there to make you think...they suggest that what I say you should think about
Three dots in a row are called an ellipses.. I don't know what two dots in a row mean..probably nothing... One dot is a full stop.

Doesn't my little theory make you think...

Think about it...

...

a reply to: Raggedyman

hahaha

I love your humor and perseverance on this matter, on occasion I check this thread, when it shows on recent list and I am amused every time.
The usual way it goes in such threads it is the science side which has the last word, but in here you don't let them have it, this is quite a sight : )

I like that, it is a fresh change and it is funny how they try to cling to their, sometimes, more religious and imaginary concepts of how things are, than even the usual straw man, god did it.

I guess science only bothers with "how", and that is the main problem, how is only just the physical appearances and its explanations and workings, but why is equally if not more important and it goes way deeper than "how" question in my opinion.

And some why question can be answered by self experiences during meditation, in my opinion. I like this or similar philosophies:
“He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened.”
― Lao Tzu

And that is why I personally like buddhist cosmology and their teachings or anything similar the most, which are basically teachings on how to train and open our minds, body and speech to realize our real potential and nature and not so much to do with gods, although they do not deny their existence...but for them they are not as important for personal spiritual development and fruition.

oh well, I don't really have anything of value to say, other than I agree with you that science is MAYBE only half right about evolution in my personal uneducated opinion.

Carry on and have fun : )

a reply to: UniFinity

Some people get very heated, take things personal

I am not trying to persuade anyone, just trying to encourage people to study their beliefs, decide for themselves, expose the truth from the assumption

Now as for Buddhism...

a reply to: Raggedyman

yes, I have noticed...

You are great at showing what is an assumption or an opinion and what is a fact and what is fantasy. But a lot of people you are arguing, just don't see it...

well as far as religions goes they are all also a bit of mess just like science...intertwined with truth and lies when it comes to mainstream or general knowledge and I am not buddhist per se, I only like what they are saying, for me it makes most sense.
On that note you won't get any conflict of interest about different religions out of me, I love them all and see what they have in common and what separates them after I have studied and practiced esoteric knowledge of past and present religions...and still do.

And I also have a feeling that science is coming to a point where there will be no doubt of the real deeper nature of our existence...just look at today recent threads about DNA, or the theme about intelligent design for instance.

I feel that the time is near when science will evolve a lot, after this initial step will be made out of materialism.

a reply to: UniFinity

Well I will be clear
I hate religion, hate being a Christian as well, way to mush responsibility, failed at that many times
For the most part dislike most christians, superficial faiths. Love them but you know
Jesus was an amazing man, I would like to be like Him

For the most part I don't blame religion or science, I blame the people, myself included

Went to a Buddhist church once, surreal, lots of chanting, beads, looking at a poster written in an Asian language and some contemporary secular rock
Wasn't bad , the message was relationships and love

I don't know any bad Buddhist though I don't know many Buddhists, having said that I don't know any bad Muslims

Science has been copying the natural from day dot, simply because the natural is far more complex than many care to admit
It's ridiculous that science thinks that it is copying of the random, to make complex design from what they see as random, sheer insanity
Take dna, it's far more complex than we can understand, far more complex than anything we have ever seen and navigating, deciphering it, we are not even at the top of the icebe

Science, or understanding and using the natural environment, manipulating and copying it will evolve.
We are good at copying
Problem is we are good at implementing what we learn to control and destroy others for our own gain

The nature of our existence, God said it was to love him and love each other, relationships, loving caring relationships
That's sounds right to me

a reply to: Raggedyman

So instead of a rebuttal, you post a long winded irrelevant tirade, exactly as I predicted. No need to go any further.

a reply to: Barcs

There was nothing worth replying to
Just jibber jabber

I just can't be bothered wasting my time in explaining in all seriousness
Not if that list of nonsense is your best defence

a reply to: Barcs

Let this thread die man...

Seriously...

That goes for anyone else reading this 54 page waste of space

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Barcs

Let this thread die man...

Seriously...

That goes for anyone else reading this 54 page waste of space

Oh Ak
You dont mean that, you actually were the one who pushed it into 54

54 Pages and no answers about stardirt and starwater

Lots of moaning and denying, lots of mine is bigger than yours, lots of waste
BUT
NO
rebuttals or explanations about stardust and starwater being the instigator of life

a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh Ak
You dont mean that, you actually were the one who pushed it into 54

Right... read the reply at the top of this page... and the one that preceded it...

54 Pages and no answers about stardirt and starwater

which was who's initial premise?

Lots of moaning and denying

Denying what?

That we didn't evolve from monkeys... or fish?

Maybe my first reply should have been... duh?

lots of mine is bigger than yours, lots of waste

Do you actually read your replies?

BUT
NO
rebuttals or explanations about stardust and starwater being the instigator of life

As many people have told you in this one and many others threads... evolution does not/is not an explanation of how "life" got here... only how "Life" got to this point... and we are part of that equation

YOU can't seem to figure that out though

And you don't seem to have the capacity to understand it anyways

Tell ya what.... stick to your bible and let this thread die

a reply to: Akragon

This thread as much as it has been derailed, is about abiogenesis.
Yes I call it evolution, irrespective of what you think, it's a part of evolution, even if it's not
This thread is about abiogenesis not biological evolution

Build that bridge

If this thread bothers you, bye

a reply to: Raggedyman

This thread (as much as it has been derailed)

Is about abiogenesis. Yes I call it evolution, irrespective of what you think, it's a part of evolution, even if it's not This thread is about abiogenesis not biological evolution

Build that bridge

Thank you!

let the wolves begin the feast

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

There was nothing worth replying to
Just jibber jabber

I just can't be bothered wasting my time in explaining in all seriousness
Not if that list of nonsense is your best defence

Classic response. When met with certain defeat, pretend you are winning and keep lying.

Everything I said is scientifically proven or based on hard evidence. NOTHING the article said was based on science or hard evidence. Nothing I said is even up for debate, that is how deep your ignorance runs.

I'd be happy to back anything up that you need if you offer a rebuttal, but we all know that you understand next to nothing about the subject you bash, so that ain't going to happen. It's downright hilarious how you are so dead set in your ways that reality takes a back door to mythology and you just put your fingers in your ears and ignore everything that goes against your precious fundamentalist belief system. Funny for me, but overall a sad indicator about education in the US and strong evidence that home schooling is usually a bad thing.

Yes I call it evolution, irrespective of what you think, it's a part of evolution, even if it's not

And you wonder why people have no idea what you're talking about. You use the wrong terminology constantly and on purpose and use abiogenesis to attack evolution. That's as dishonest as it gets. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, then actually discuss it, just know that it's an unproven hypothesis and nobody claims it is anything more. You equate it to evolution and straw man it. Stop pretending that you actually want to discuss science, you don't. You aren't here to have a discussion, you are here either for a pulpit for your faith or you are a troll pretending to be creationist to make them look stupid. This is obvious by how each piece of evidence that proves your claims wrong is flat out ignored and replied to by rants and tirades about stardust and mud that have nothing to do with the topic.

Close thread.

a reply to: Barcs

The premise of the OP remains true and unfaultering as many attempts have been made by evolutionists in this thread but have all failed miserably...
For it remains intact and true Man did not evolve from fish or monkeys...
Perhaps it is the evolutionists humiliation which is the real wish behind seeing this thread die or be closed...
This thread is not dead...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

There isn't a single person who understands Modern Evolutionary Synthesis who believes humans evolved from fish or monkeys some entire premise is ludicrous. Sure the "premise" of the OP in that sense May still be intact but it's nowhere near an accurate portrayal of biological evolution.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: 5StarOracle

There isn't a single person who understands Modern Evolutionary Synthesis who believes humans evolved from fish or monkeys

There wasn't a theoretical aquatic intermediate (fish) between the evolution of single-cell to the human? There wasn't a theoretical upright two feet, two hand intermediate (monkey) between said aquatic intermediate and contemporary human?

Trace any theoretical family tree and you will see the ancestry contains both of these.

a reply to: cooperton

No there was not a hypothetical, theoretical or real...upright walking monkey in our lineage. I've not only traced but have studied extensively hominid evolution and written a thing or 2 on the matter. Did Archaea originate in water? Yes. That's not quite the same as the oversimplified , incorrect and absolutely ignorant statement that humans evolved from fish or monkeys

a reply to: cooperton

You seem to be misrepresenting what evolution is stating. While you will find primates, and aquatic life in a phylogenetic "tree of life" if you go back far enough. They are not something we evolved from, in that, we evolved from hominins prior to us. When you say "we evolved from fish, and monkeys", it implies they were the direct ancestor. No one would state that.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

No there was not a hypothetical, theoretical or real...upright walking monkey in our lineage. I've not only traced but have studied extensively hominid evolution and written a thing or 2 on the matter. Did Archaea originate in water? Yes. That's not quite the same as the oversimplified , incorrect and absolutely ignorant statement that humans evolved from fish or monkeys

Funny isn't it, it's an ignorant statement to suggest fish and monkeys yet talk arising, new scientist all suggest that life evolved from star dirt and star water, a soup of mud somehow, beyond all logic and reason
As insane as the magical Big Bang
The absolutely insane belief from those respected, educated learned atheists and evolutionists, the downright ludicrous belief life came from mud

Surely it would be reasonable, far more logical that humanity had a monkey, fish ancestor than believe life came from stardirt and starwater