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

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess if we wait around long enough that rock outside my window will magically come to life.

We witness this abiogenesis everyday, it's happening all around us, we can't see it but I promise it just is.

trust me... I'm very scientific

Life from a rock is just stupid...

Life will just spontaneously pop into existence. God help us when Gods gets a wild hair up his ass and says let there be dragons...lol

originally posted by: cooperton

According to the theory if you go back enough generations your great great greatest grandfather was a microbe swimming around in some pond goo. At one point your ancestors were fish. The irony is that these speculations require more miracles than the entire Bible. "God did it", is replaced by "random chance and time did it", without empirical proof to show it could happen.

So says you 100 times over... say it 1000 times and it still doesn't make it true...lol

In my post I suggested we just start with mammals as to genic divergence and here you go right into "none of it can work!" crap with your Primordial soup reference.

The truth is I'm really done responding to you, it gets boring...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

It doesn't and can't. You and others keep looking at this like it is all linear as in if we were going to stick just to mammals at first it would look like rodent like creature to monkey like creature, to apes, to chimps to man. As if that all happens one step at a time and and then say that is impossible and I agree, because that isn't what anyone in the world is talking about.

Think of more along the lines of millions of branches of genic divergence happening all the time. Some continue and some end while this process just keeps going and going. As the branch get farther a part from each other those new branches continue to branch off in some never ending event that is a fundamental part of life. There has been a good number of homo species, but they all died off except for us. Chimp are our closest cousin, but they are still 8 million years removed while the horse and donkey is a million or so apart.

The mistake that people make when they argue against evolution is they see just one line from lets say rat like mammal to man and say it is 10 -50 chance for that to happen, or they say you can not evolve from rat to man in one line. What you need to do is not look from humans to the past that would look more like one line, and instead look from that rat like creature forward and when you do that you see an endless number of genic divergence lines branching off in many directions with most ending, but some continue as you start to get groups that look like Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species over 20 to 30 million years.

According to the theory if you go back enough generations your great great greatest grandfather was a microbe swimming around in some pond goo. At one point your ancestors were fish. The irony is that these speculations require more miracles than the entire Bible. "God did it", is replaced by "random chance and time did it", without empirical proof to show it could happen.

Well genetic engineering itself could kind of disprove evolution whe you think about it.

There are those who say we were created in the likeness of God and now we ourselves are genetically engineering... imagine that

Almost more feasible than waiting around for that non-living matter called a rock outside my window spontaneously coming to life.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Who says the universe came from nothing? Hawking didn't say that.

The title of Krauss' book is literally A Universe from Nothing. Stephen Hawking's central claim in his book The Grand Design is essentially the same.


Of course, as the video above shows, they try to sell the idea and contradiction that "nothing isn't nothing anymore...in physics" (quoting Krauss).

a reply to: whereislogic

Nothing isn't nothing anymore, that really throws the zoologist Dawkins off, it's funny to watch him falter.

If you think about it humans have been genetically engineering for quite some time now just not with science.

And man created Dog to love him and be his bestus friend... not all dogs are nice though, that's just life.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

So says you 100 times over... say it 1000 times and it still doesn't make it true...lol

In my post I suggested we just start with mammals as to genic divergence and here you go right into "none of it can work!" crap with your Primordial soup reference.

The truth is I'm really done responding to you, it gets boring...

If a microbe is the last universal common ancestor, how would the human lineage not be traced back to a microbe?? I just don't get how you avoid that conclusion

a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

a reply to: Randyvine2

I do alright for a trucker don't ya think?

Maybe you should wait till some evolutionary biologist posts some ignorant, stupidly dogmatic claim about trucking, and then go after them. You're sure to win that one. You'll wipe the floor with them.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

What is it about the scientific origin of life on Earth that especially grates with you?

Are you referring to the storylines involving a naturalistic* origin of life on Earth (*: i.e. caused by chance and natural mindless processes)? Please don't conflate philosophical naturalism with science or "naturalistic" with "scientific", makes it harder to answer directly, but since I can assume that you were referring to a naturalistic origin of life on Earth (according to philosophical naturalism), I can tell you right away that I have issues with considering only a naturalistic origin as "scientific". It's circular reasoning.

“Any science of the past . . . that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism.”—Origins Research.

“It is a legend . . . that Charles Darwin solved the problem of the origin of biological complexity. It is a legend that we have a good or even fair grasp on the origin of life, or that proper [or "scientific"] explanations refer only to so-called natural causes. To be sure, these and other legends of philosophical naturalism have a certain stature. One does not speak too harshly of them in polite company. But neither should one accept them uncritically.”—Origins Research. [Between brackets was mine, adjusting it to show how it fits into the context of this comment, quoting your terminology instead.]

“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”—Darwin’s Black Box. [edit: this "conclusion" is a scientific conclusion, as the author of this particular book, Michael Behe, explains in this presentation (video) from 35:21 to 39:28 (you may want to see the context starting at 30:08). It follows the methodology proposed by Isaac Newton for making scientific discoveries, i.e. acquiring science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties/truths, a scientific method if you will (in the Principia), with its emphasis on inductive reasoning rather than hypothesizing and speculation (proposing unverified philosophies and storylines that are sometimes even unverifiable).

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

I didn't want to insert all that again as a side note to the quotations I was using, but whatever, one more quotation to go...]

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. . . . There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that . . . the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

Quotations taken from the article: Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? (Awake!—1997)

I used a different order and skipped a few. That's why I didn't use an external box (also because the quotations themselves come from other sources). [edit: and because now I edited in a lot of additional commentary of my own as to how these quotations relate to this comment and what I'm responding to, i.e. your choice as to how you use the term "scientific" and your possible view as to what you consider to be "scientific" or not.]

And here we are on a conspiracy forum discussing creation as fact in the same section of the forum that discusses bigfoot and ghouls. Tell me in which universe this subject is not seen as a joke.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
At least 1.

Not thousands/millions simultaneously.

A mutation can be handed down from a single parent.

Yes. To ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OFFSPRING.

Now explain how it SPREADS to infect (to use a term that maybe you'll understand) MILLIONS of others?

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

Laugh at yourself once you learn a little more about atomic science.

a reply to: whereislogic

So, it's incredulity? It's too complex or incomplete for you to understand so you don't believe it? But a mystical god is a flawless theory?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

Absolutely nobody who studies this subject has ever said our universe came out of nothing. The most prevalent theory suggests the universe expanded from a very dense core of material. That core is not nothing.

Don't omit the fact that everything all matter in the entire universe was once the size of an atom.

Sounds whack doesn't it? I know I know lol.

Laugh at yourself once you learn a little more about atomic science.

Thanks I will learn more.

It's not odd not at all that all this and all those light-years worth of dark matter came from something which is basically "unseen" called an atom... we see these atom things in our everyday life, there's no imagination involved, we don't have to draw a representation of what these atom things look like because we see them, they are not unseen.

All that dark matter and the other matter stuff... a single atom

heavy stuff

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
At least 1.

Not thousands/millions simultaneously.

A mutation can be handed down from a single parent.

Yes. To ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OFFSPRING.

Now explain how it SPREADS to infect (to use a term that maybe you'll understand) MILLIONS of others?

Most species have more than one offspring.

Those offspring have offspring.

If the gene was passed on twice each generation it only takes 10 generations to reach a thousand new carriers of the mutaions, in twenty generations its a million.

No need for simultaneous mutaions.

Basically who gives a f•ck, whilst everyone's arguing about insoluble questions, other people are stealing the global commons and enslaving everybody (literally).

Also, where does Bigfoot fit into all this lol.

a reply to: karl 12

It's very soluble... Mathematics simply lacks the expression.

We have to use something much older called "language"

a reply to: iamthevirus


Well would agree with you there mate and am a big fan of the progression of skulls at the London museum.

Guess my question iis why are academics such cowardly pseudoskeptics?

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: iamthevirus


Well would agree with you there mate and am a big fan of the progression of skulls at the London museum.

Guess my question iis why are academics such cowardly pseudoskeptics?

I guess it's hip to be square...

But I prefer being well rounded, it's just how nature does things too.