Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

Evolution isn’t a faith.

Marxist/Darwinism had its time, it showed us in very short order what it is capable of in the wrong hands. I just sure hope history doesn't repeat itself.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

Evolution isn’t a faith.

Marxist/Darwinism had its time, it showed us in very short order what it is capable of in the wrong hands. I just sure hope history doesn't repeat itself.

?
What?

a reply to: iamthevirus

Marxism has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution has been expanded upon a lot by other scientists since Darwin. Like most scientific theories. What are you even talking about?

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

Marxism has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution has been expanded upon a lot by other scientists since Darwin. Like most scientific theories. What are you even talking about?

Carl Marx and Charles Darwin corresponded openly didn't you know?

a reply to: iamthevirus

Okay? And the point of that is what, exactly?

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

Evolution isn’t a faith.

Marxist/Darwinism had its time, it showed us in very short order what it is capable of in the wrong hands. I just sure hope history doesn't repeat itself.

?
What?

I am speaking of the inception and rise of Communism on planet earth because of Darwins theory being placed in the wrong hands... is it Darwins fault? Not necessarily but it shows us what Darwins theory can do.

Like all science there's a dark side.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

Okay? And the point of that is what, exactly?

Darwins theory has killed more people in living memory than has ever been alive at the same time on the planet before Darwins theory.

Proceed with caution...

a reply to: iamthevirus

Communism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all. Not even in the same schools of thought, one is a political theory, the other is biological theory.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

Communism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all. Not even in the same schools of thought, one is a political theory, the other is biological theory.

Well one would need to take some time to read the Darwin and Marx correspondence to determine where Marx got his philosophy.

The two are intimately interconnected and can not be separated, the damage is done.

As is the splitting of the atom with the atomic bomb, they are interwoven... we can't talk about one without referencing the other.

I guess I missed the part where we were in the Origins and Creation and not the Science and Technology section of the forums.

a reply to: iamthevirus

lol. No they were both 'children of their time' when poverty and human rights kind of for the first time scratched on the pearly gates of the educated elites.
But Darwin's father and social circle fe was also already toying with a similar idea about the life forms on the Earth.

Also: the damage is done? You mean you are sad that the unwashed masses don't die with 12 from being worked to death like they're supposed to?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: iamthevirus

lol. No they were both 'children of their time' when poverty and human rights kind of for the first time scratched on the pearly gates of the educated elites.
But Darwin's father and social circle fe was also already toying with a similar idea about the life forms on the Earth.

Also: the damage is done? You mean you are sad that the unwashed masses don't die with 12 from beging worked to death like they're supposed to?

Bringing science into a philosophical debate... that's whoa

Yes Marx did that too.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Marx developed his philosophy from his study of history and human sociology.

And once again you have not mentioned what this has to do with anything???

You are just repeating meaningless non-sequiturs over and over.

Even if Marxism was interwined with Evolution (which it isn’t) how does that have any relevance to evolution explaining the diversity of life?

a reply to: Ohanka

I don't recall anywhere along the way attacking evolution myself. I like evolution I think it cool... I like science

I just think creationism is cooler and can expand beyond and that it is romantic to read about all the various opinions.

a reply to: iamthevirus

I think creationism is dangerous because it is 'romantic' leading the Imagination astray to a place where humans are so important they'll be rescued no matter what.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: iamthevirus

I think creationism is dangerous because it is 'romantic' leading the Imagination astray to a place where humans are so important they'll be rescued no matter what.

touche'

Nothing wrong with a little of both, in moderation of course.

Knowledge is a strange thing in and of itself.

We must always know and respect though that it is not you or I who are personally responsible.

I can only claim responsibility for my own actions.

That being said my religious texts are behind bulletproof glass in a museum down in Wash DC and in God I trust.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

So the above is no insult? You want to impose your opinion. But there is no OPINION in how the laws of physics work.

To say you do not try to comprehend what someone says is not an insult, its an observation. You do not reply directly to main points, but jump around with incorrect opinions and call them facts. Maybe it would be better to stick to one point and work it out.

Evolution claims all life forms should evolve to become better, more efficient, stronger. But the contrary is what happens.

You keep repeating this and I need to keep saying it is an incorrect statement. Evolution doesn't know what is better or worst, life changes in both directions. I said that if God made life then it would be perfection, because that is what God is. Evolution does "just good enough" and I gave you my example of our eyes. So in your view God made us crappy eyes OK...

You falsely claim my arguments are simple and you can debunk them. But the only thing you have debunked are your own opinions.

The theory of evolution starts by claiming that life came out of non-life, that the Universe came to being out of nothing by chance, when science itself states matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Creation states something existed before the Big Bang, and that something is God, an eternal and higher intelligence that made and shaped life and everything that exists.

Science proves the existence of God, and science disproves Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

I have said maybe 100 times you can not debate God since it is unprovable from either side of the argument, but you just need to keep mixing God into you responses as some form of proof that is unprovable...lol

Evolution does not try to explain where life came from, so that is another incorrect state. Evolution does not try to say whether there is a God or not, it also doesn't explain the big bang theory etc. etc.

This is what I mean by saying you do not comprehend what other people are saying, and so you just keep playing these same lines over and over like that broken record I suggested.

As I have said many time, evolution is a "how" question not the "why" question, so debating whether life was created by God or not has NOTHING to do with evolution, but your side just keeps mixing it in.

originally posted by: whereislogic

'the probability that humans would emerge by chance is 100% because humans emerged by chance.' (the latter is often implied by the reminder that we're here, instead of your version with "would happen" which is more obvious because you kept it the same when you said "since we did", so then I can keep the paraphrase with the underlying evolutionary storyline, "emerge by chance", the same as well, so I don't change the essence of what you're really saying there)

Though I understand what you are saying it really isn't my point, and it was also kind of a snarky joke. So lets look at the statement put forth.

We can say that humans are a truism, my snarky 100%, but the statement was that intelligent design was required for us to happen because the probability would be something like 10 -50 without intelligent design.

My point was yes I agree if 4 billion years ago we were actually trying to predict that humans would happen, but if humans were just 1 of trillions of lifeforms then there is no probability. I used a simple example of shooting a BB at Mars and making a statement that the BB will hit a grain of sand, but I can not predict the exact grain of sand it will hit even though the chance is 100% it will hit one. Same as with life in there is 100% chance life will happen and humans is one of them, but we can not predict the exact lifeforms that will come about, but that is their argument to suggest intelligent design is required, and why I suggest 10 -50 probability is a really stupid argument though it is used all the time over and over. as some form of undeniable proof.

originally posted by: Ohanka
How does that have any relevance to evolution explaining the diversity of life?

Sorry I missed something, is this a debate about the diversity of life or one of the creation and/or origin of life?

We can talk diversity over in the Science section if you like, I don't want to throw this off-topic.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If evolution can't expand beyond its narrow scope then maybe discussing the diversity of life is donning the wrong robes being all up in the metaphysical realm of origin and creation.