Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by spy66

Well nothing created the creator (God).
Because God the creator was always there.

well if he was always there then the universe in various states could have always been there

You cant have a creator who creates a creator. You would never get to the source.You would go on for ever. And that's quite logic.

thats an infinate regress

which is what your using, your just making a false conclusion and calling it god

until science says there was nothing at all then your argument works for both god and science equally so proves neither

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by spy66

 

didnt we cover this in another thread yesterday/today

yes we did didnt we

Yes we did. But you couldn't give me anything other then denial of logic. Which is not what i am looking for.

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by spy66

Well nothing created the creator (God).
Because God the creator was always there.

well if he was always there then the universe in various states could have always been there

You cant have a creator who creates a creator. You would never get to the source.You would go on for ever. And that's quite logic.

thats an infinate regress

which is what your using, your just making a false conclusion and calling it god

until science says there was nothing at all then your argument works for both god and science equally so proves neither

Well prove me wrong. I believe that this is all God's work. Because that's the only logical explanation.

Why do i say this. Well because if your going to try and explain you have to have something to explain with. And where and have would that something be. Where would you get it from. Who or what made it.
Because you cant just make something up out of nothing. That's impossible and un logic. Even to science.


That's a logical argument.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66

Yes we did. But you couldn't give me anything other then denial of logic. Which is not what i am looking for.

if i remeber right i pointed out where your logic had gone astray and again expalined how what your saying doesnt prove god or the big bang but works for both

reply to post by noobfun

Thank you for your considerate and thoughtful response. It was a pleasure to read.

there is a single theory of evolution

This is the one point I believe where you and I differ and I suspect it may be a matter of semantics about what we mean by a theory.

I think that the scientific community as a whole agrees with the statement “Things change over time, and we think we know some of the ways it happens.” But where the unanimity breaks down is where different models of evolution are debated as the putative mechanisms to explain the changes we have observed. I remember on conference where a punctuated equilibrium-ist became so impassioned claiming his model better than the neo-Darwinst's model that the two gentleman almost came to blows.

You are quite right that those who seek to impose a creationist view take this diversity of evolutionary models as evidence to support their position claiming that scientific debate is somehow evidence that what is being debated is wrong.

your talking about hypotheses either unproven or partially proven that aim to become part of evolutionary theory a proven hypothesis if its a better explanation for a proven hypothesis already included can replace it but the theory its self remains still proven

While I do understand your insistence that we have to maintain methodological rigor and avoid sloppy thinking, I respectfully suggest that this view of science is appropriate for certain areas of study and actually feeds into the Creationist mantra.

We can speak of provability when it is possible to create experiments that can falsify a hypothesis, the Popperian view, which is very valid when it is possible to actually design and conduct experiments, and we can do this with some aspects of evolutionary biology. However, there are certain fields of investigation, the historical evolutionary record, astrophysics, much of modern physics, where we are trying to find a model that is a best fit as an explanation to what we observe. We can't speak of “poof” in the same sense that we can in a chemistry experiment, but we can speak of evidence. As our ability to perform better and more detailed experiments in molecular biology and related areas improves, as does our ability to manage the massive amount of data needed to do this, like genome analysis, we will get to the point where we can speak much more confidently of “proof.” There is just so much we don't know yet but we are learning.

It is this very point that Creationists pounce on and say evolution cannot be scientifically demonstrated because there is no way to conduct experiments that prove the historical record, or some variation of that argument. But then remember, these are people who are far more interested in being “right” than finding the truth. When they hear a biologist say in all honesty “We don't know.” They take it as an admission of error rather than the desire that motives him to find out.

To me, one of the most exciting things about evolution is that we have multiple models of evolution and experimental data that suggests ALL of them are correct to some degree. What a wonderful paradox to start to sort out! We are probably at the point of the five blind men and the elephant and cannot see the big picture. Yet. Nature and it's ways are incredible complex and diverse, and although we are always understanding more and more about how things like evolution work, what is so exciting is that there is so much we realize now that we never even guessed at before.

I think that Creationists would never suspect , as one of my colleagues puts it that “Watching proteins work is to watch god dance.”

Arrrg..

I can't seem to edit my posts, it just keeps discarding my corrections. Please accept my apologies for the typos and other errors in my previous posts.

Originally posted by spy66

Well prove me wrong. I believe that this is all God's work. Because that's the only logical explanation.

well i cant prove you wrong until you actually prove somthing

burden of proof dont ya know

so prove god did it and then we can examine the evidence

or we can use the same logic which leads to both the bigbang and god bieng possible which doesnt really help anything

Why do i say this. Well because if your going to try and explain you have to have something to explain with. And where and have would that something be. Where would you get it from. Who or what made it.

why does there need to be a 'someone' to make anything?

Because you cant just make something up out of nothing. That's impossible and un logic. Even to science.

you keep saying this and i keep agreeing

but that isnt what science is saying that everything just appeared from nothing, they are sying 14.5 billion years ago there was a singularity

beyond that we cant observe or test with the equipment currently available so we cant say there was was nothing before this but causality would certainly suggest there was somthing

so even before the singularity there was somthing in a form were not yet aware of

but where we say were not sure were looking for ways to find out, your saying it must be god

were looking for evidence your making assumptions, which isnt logical

That's a logical argument.

but your applying it to a strawman not what science is saying so the only thing your doing is proving a strawman wrong


[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]

Even IF evolution was wrong, it wouldn't make creationism any less silly. Even Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest physicists of the mid 20th century who rejected abiogenesis didn't resort to old fables.

Originally posted by GeeGee
Even IF evolution was wrong, it wouldn't make creationism any less silly. Even Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest physicists of the mid 20th century who rejected abiogenesis didn't resort to old fables.

And even IF evolution was right, it could not be excluded that that's the way nature was CREATED to form life.

Originally posted by vasaga
And even IF evolution was right, it could not be excluded that that's the way nature was CREATED to form life.

No religious text states we evolved from the primordial soup or anything close to that. So, if you mean nature was intelligently designed by a personal God who monitors our daily sins which in turn spawned us - it is highly unlikely. However, it doesn't rule out a natural pantheist-type God.

sorry for the late reply niece has just broken from school for winter holidays so been spending time with her

Originally posted by metamagic

This is the one point I believe where you and I differ and I suspect it may be a matter of semantics about what we mean by a theory.

I think that the scientific community as a whole agrees with the statement “Things change over time, and we think we know some of the ways it happens.” But where the unanimity breaks down is where different models of evolution are debated as the putative mechanisms to explain the changes we have observed. I remember on conference where a punctuated equilibrium-ist became so impassioned claiming his model better than the neo-Darwinst's model that the two gentleman almost came to blows.

yepp semantics lol we have the stable frame work its the specifics that form the bricks around the frame to make the house and the interior design thats bieng worked on

we have observed the larger mechanisms in action and have a working explenation for them its the up close and personal wheres theres a differance of view on what drives them

its like a car we know its car, we know when the wheels turn it moves, we can open the doors and climb in and turn the big round thing it alters the wheels angle when we play with the switches things happen

now were trying to find out what casues the switch when flipped to turn the lights on or move the wipers and what makes the wheels turn all the intriquate wirings and switch boxes and gears and ratchets are where the fun stuff lies and weve barely even lifted the hood and what it is in nature that starts flipping the switches and how that relates and casues the lighs and wipers to work

we understand it as the whole (a car) but its the bits that make other bits work we have multipul possabilities for which leads to the heated debates, but its still a car

my favorites heated debates are palentologists arguing over reptile like mammal or mammal like reptile when they get close enough to sit either side of the divide

reminds me of the is it bluey green or greeny blue debate weve almost all experienced at some point in life, ive seen one actually lead to physical shenanigans (which was a bit odd)

You are quite right that those who seek to impose a creationist view take this diversity of evolutionary models as evidence to support their position claiming that scientific debate is somehow evidence that what is being debated is wrong.

have a wonder around and read a few of the threads this is the least of thier sins

in this thread alone you can see the all mutations are bad, this from the same person who earlier was trying to argue its not mutation its driven adaption but switched when none beneficial 'adaptions' were pointed out

its just all random so the odds are astronomic for any of it to have happened, when its only partially random but heavily guided by enviroment and predation and thier trillions to one odds are worked out not for gradual steps but form a fully functioning eye to just appear

natural selection always leads to mass extinction, becasue they dont realise its an accumulative selection process that will kill some but not all, theres even a guy around here that has allegedly written a book on evolution that believes natural selection formed the KT boundary (i kid you not)

evolution is resonsible for nazis and communists, when hitlers view of evolution was closer to creationism and personality cult communism wernt to keen on it either as it favoured some not all, which is kinda against communism which supposedly says every one is equal

everything cant come from nothing, or life cant come from unlife, when you ask they cant deffine at what point it becomes life when you explain its organice compounds self forming into more and more complex structures, which can form protocells with basic self replicating nucleotide ploymers in fatty vecicles, no ones about to nail to a wall and claim we have made life but they do pass the 7 deffining characteristics of life. the usual response is 1 of 2 disappear and reappear later saying exactly the same things over again, or out right ignore it and stay in the thread

or the greatest showing of double standards, dating methods are false they dont work, C14 doesnt work its wildly innacurate, but when applied to ancient biblical texts like the dead sea scrolls it suddenly becomes 100% accurate. many seem split on the dating of the turin shroud some say its right and its a fake others say datings wrong and its real

much of the stuff pulled out isnt even about evolution it covers everything from day1 of the universe as we know it onwards

While I do understand your insistence that we have to maintain methodological rigor and avoid sloppy thinking, I respectfully suggest that this view of science is appropriate for certain areas of study and actually feeds into the Creationist mantra.

We can speak of provability when it is possible to create experiments that can falsify a hypothesis, the Popperian view, which is very valid when it is possible to actually design and conduct experiments, and we can do this with some aspects of evolutionary biology. However, there are certain fields of investigation, the historical evolutionary record, astrophysics, much of modern physics, where we are trying to find a model that is a best fit as an explanation to what we observe. We can't speak of “poof” in the same sense that we can in a chemistry experiment, but we can speak of evidence. As our ability to perform better and more detailed experiments in molecular biology and related areas improves, as does our ability to manage the massive amount of data needed to do this, like genome analysis, we will get to the point where we can speak much more confidently of “proof.” There is just so much we don't know yet but we are learning.

agree whole heartedly, we cant observe and test everything simply becasue of thier nature that they are past events or our understanding of them isnt detailed enough to allow it

its like a crime scene we can look at the little bits of available evidence and things we observe at the scene and use those to form a working conclusion of what may have happened that incorporates all the evidence available and can use that frame work to look for more and follow the leads, so while we may never know every exact second and every exact action taken we can still find out the guilty party so we can start to find ways to understand it better

the 'proof' may not be 100% conclusive but its better then just circumstantial (in many cases) and these leads us on to find out more and better scraps of evidence to further build the case

It is this very point that Creationists pounce on and say evolution cannot be scientifically demonstrated because there is no way to conduct experiments that prove the historical record, or some variation of that argument. But then remember, these are people who are far more interested in being “right” than finding the truth. When they hear a biologist say in all honesty “We don't know.” They take it as an admission of error rather than the desire that motives him to find out.

there dose seem to be a trend in the thinking that if we dont know somthing that automatically means they are right, despite the things we do know conflicting

uncomfortable truth is always better then a comfortable lie, if some how it was shown we are an act of god or super aliens playing genetecists for fun it would be at odds with my current world view but id rather know so i can adapt my world view then ignore it and carry on regardless

ignorance dwells in cold dark places, i rather like the warmth of the sun even if it does expose you to a cold breeze by bieng outside

To me, one of the most exciting things about evolution is that we have multiple models of evolution and experimental data that suggests ALL of them are correct to some degree. What a wonderful paradox to start to sort out! We are probably at the point of the five blind men and the elephant and cannot see the big picture. Yet. Nature and it's ways are incredible complex and diverse, and although we are always understanding more and more about how things like evolution work, what is so exciting is that there is so much we realize now that we never even guessed at before.

im glad the day(if it ever comes) that science knows everything about everything wont be in my life time, it just wouldnt be as much fun

a puzzle book with all the puzzles already completed just isnt much fun really

I think that Creationists would never suspect , as one of my colleagues puts it that “Watching proteins work is to watch god dance.”

he sounds like a physicist

[edit on 21/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 21/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 21/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by metamagic
Arrrg..

I can't seem to edit my posts, it just keeps discarding my corrections. Please accept my apologies for the typos and other errors in my previous posts.

its fairly relaxed around here dont worry about them to much

the only time anyone will pick up on it is becasue they cant argue against what you say so try and use how you say it as evidence your wrong, just laugh and call them grammer nazi's

Originally posted by noobfun

adaptation is only improvment, but all the data shows that really isnt the case

mutations are show to be good bad and indifferent so mutations are proven fact, that life breeds with variance is proven fact, that all life is subject to death and subject to enviromental factors that increase or decrease thier chance of dying is also fact

and thats exactly what evolution is

Noob, ( at least that is what you call yourself) when it comes to arguments on evolution, I have seen you make every mistake even most xtians can debunk with ease. First lets be honest about this by starting with Darwin.

The constant use of equivocating the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution as a strawman argument is for amateurs and I won't even entertain the idea of going there much less think I have to explain it or explain what I mean by the two. I think you know the difference but if you say you don't or that they are the same thing, then I am right and we don't have anything more to talk about as I am not about to get into a wordsmithing argument splitting hairs on semantics. If you like their are many threads here already put here by Atheists like yourself that admit knowing such distinctions exist but they were long enough before the merging of such meanings were attempted. The motives behind those mergers of such defintions are well documented and they are nothing more than attempts to language ourselves into painting people in a corner to force one to accept one unproven meaning of evolution ie; "macro" with one that is proven and observable ie; micro evolution or what we once called "adaptation" something that is already within the code of the DNA itself. What we DON'T see in that code is the complete change from one species to another with creatures that must mate female with male as mammals.

I don't expect you to agree with that and I will forewarn you as well that I won't buy into any atheists sophistry behind the guise of science supporting such an idea as I have seen them all and they simply are not true. They invariably degrade into arguments of circular logic and you will fair no better than the best arguments I have already seen given here. The reason such arguments still persist here is why we are not seeing threads about gravity because most people won't argue that one and anyone that does is risking being told they are arguing with a nut AS WE ALL KNOW WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.

It is up to science to figure things out like that and up to science to make it understandable for the average intelligence to grasp and understand. To date, all evolutionary scientists have done is make comstant changes to evolution making it less easy to explain and more illogical than ever before getting more obfuscated with each passing version using excuses for the reasons old now debunked constructs of this science didn't work and even more outrageous reasons to continue supporting it.

Invariably we find over and over again the new theories for it are found to be falsified data and / or compete utter fabrication or manufactured evidence and trust me I have already seen a mountain of incidence listed on these boards numbering in the hundreds. So much so that manufactured false evidence for evolutionary science has become a lucrative industry in China. This science is so corrupted by Atheists attempting to keep it alive that it has been investigated and proven by the untited states congress.

I don't know the exact link but have seen it posted here and checked it out. I have the pdf of the full report if you like Ill email it to you. The bottom line is I do not trust this science any longer because of their motives to keep a divine foot from ever getting in the door. That isn't science's responsibility and it isn't science period.

they clearly are not both religeons

That is arguable and unless you want to argue using your own logic that people have to be like Christians to be defined a religion than that is an argument I would win using the supreme courts definition of what a religion is. If Humanism can be seen as one, Science being used as the doctrine of atheism sure can too.

its not blindingly believeing those sceintists becasue you yourself can go put on a white coat and check what they say is true, and as many other scientists do this for us already infact they encourage people to check thier work its not really blindly following anything

ummmm nice but wrong

observed ..and proven,

Oh Rly? Show me, and Ill be more than happy to show you why it isn't or hasn't been using your own scientific method and proving evolution is so guilty of the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent it fails the same way ID does.

well if its factual it isnt faith based if its factual it has evidence which means it CANNOT BE FAITH.

Oh but it IS faith based and perhaps your fear of faith or your hatred of Religion has blinded you and your objectivity NOOB. Were YOU actually there when Darwin saw the finch's the changes he wrote about?

NO you were not there, as a matter of fact you were not there to see the meteorologists watching the satellite readings when giving this morning's weather report but we have FAITH in what they are telling us is true. We use faith every single day noob and just because you either do not understand that or you may not want to admit it,

Doesn't mean it isn't true.

I hear of the mountains of evidence their is for evolution and ALL of it pertaining to any such thing as molecules to man macro evolution is based on SPECULATION and it is the faith we have the science may be true that a majority of those in science agreeing with it is why they have seen to it to merge once distinct and seprate menaings to mean the same thing as in merging the meanings of micro and macro or theory to mean scientific fact and now they attempt to make scientific fact to mean "law". This is not Science behind this effort, in fact Scientists get pissed off at this obfuscation. No this is the agenda of Atheist materialists and I think it would be advisable that any person who is a Christian, arguing against anyone on these boards that is in support of evolution, to realize that much of their motivation is NOT so much a passion for religion but a hatred for God using evolution to advance their religion of Atheism.

Yeah I called it a religion and so do many other Atheists but that is an argument for another thread.

As I said in my previous post, "Darwin wouldn't even recognise his own theory today so saying "That is what evolution is" can only be understood in the context of what it is to YOU.

Darwin didn't invent the evolution idea. Those attributions flow from the hosannas of personality cults that formed in their lifetimes. Darwin doesn't rate as anything more than a kitchen cosmetologist when we peel away the onion and see who he really is and what he did and didn't do. Much of the hoopla about darwin is the embellished folklore of atheists.

He was nothing special and his theory had it not been for the manufactured false fraudulent evidence of haekle, it would have been debunked long ago. Time after time it was changed. Nothing has replaced it? Oh that is also arguable as i said before, nothing CAN until they allow it and show more tolerance for anyone with a open mind and another idea. Until then, it will contintue to ridicule anyone challenging it or introducing another theory. That is the tactic used by Atheists one that Prof. Richard Dawkins says they copied from the gay rights activists themselves. The idea is to make a connection to religion and do it by any means neccessary. The lessons we learned from Dover VS Kitzmiller is, don't challenge evolution. The attempt to protect it by making it unconstitutional is a testament to how desparate and machavellian machinations this area of science will stoop to and how low they will go which in turn is an indication of how much credibility they have with me and that is ZERO.

Darwin is but one of many distinguished scientists and he is not associated with any public benefit, unlike his contemporary Louis Pasteur, who is associated with the germ theory of disease. Although the mass media commonly identify evolution with Darwin, this is typical of popular garbles of complicated facts. Pasteur didn’t invent the germ theory of disease (let alone vaccination), and Darwin didn’t invent the evolution idea. Those attributions flow from the hosannas of personality cults that formed in their lifetimes. Pasteur received France’s highest honour, the Grand Croix of the Legion of Honour, and the Pasteur Institute was established under his direction. He was buried in the Notre Dame Cathedral with great ceremony and an air of superiority to the British.

Another curiosity is that the primary bicentennial testimony, the lavish Darwin Exhibition, was created not in Cambridge but at New York’s American Museum of Natural History. It opened in November 2005, and migrates to other museums until it comes to rest in London’s Natural History Museum in February 2009. My initial contact with the Exhibition was its website, whose home page conveys the tale in a short message: Discover the man and the revolutionary theory that changed the course of science and society, and, For 21 years he kept his theory secret. A highlighted tag reads Featuring live Galapagos tortoises, iguana, and frogs! In the background are images of the HMS Beagle and the Galapagos Archipelago. Prominently to the left is the familiar photo portrait of the aged Darwin in his prophet-like mood: remote, yet near; intense, yet detached; suffering, yet serene.

As a historian preparing a book on nineteenth-century evolution, I keenly toured the online Exhibition; six months later I walked the real thing in New York and confirmed my expectation that the online version is an accurate representation. The Exhibition’s story is also consistent with the 1959 centenary of the publication of The Origin of Species, hosted by the University of Chicago, and with the 1909 celebration of the golden anniversary of the Origin’s publication. All tout Darwin as an epic hero, ascribing imaginary achievements and glossing over the all-too-human flaws. But there are some differences.

Evolution theory in 1909 was in turmoil because cell-based experimental biology had recently discovered an explanation of inheritance inconsistent with Darwin’s speculative inheritance theory. Contributors to the commemorative conference represented this intense conflict and they reached no consensus. Yet in the introductory essay of the book Fifty Years of Darwin, zoologist Edward B. Poulton ignored the conflict to celebrate Darwin’s remarkable command of the fine detail of plants and animals. The Darwin Exhibition duplicates Poulton’s evasion—there’s no mention of the “eclipse of Darwinism” phase of evolution’s history. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and the only nineteenth-century scientist to discover quantitative biological laws, gets no mention. The public are encouraged to believe that contemporary evolutionary theory is just Darwin’s theory extended over an ever-widening domain. In reality it required a major reconstruction, called “Neo-Darwinism”, that reconciled the Darwin–Mendel conflict with a new tool devised in the 1920s, population genetics.

Originally posted by noobfun

adaptation is only improvment, but all the data shows that really isnt the case

mutations are show to be good bad and indifferent so mutations are proven fact, that life breeds with variance is proven fact, that all life is subject to death and subject to enviromental factors that increase or decrease thier chance of dying is also fact

and thats exactly what evolution is

Noob, ( at least that is what you call yourself) when it comes to arguments on evolution, I have seen you make every mistake even most xtians can debunk with ease. First lets be honest about this by starting with Darwin.

The constant use of equivocating the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution as a straw man argument is for amateurs and I won't even entertain the idea of going there much less think I have to explain it or explain what I mean by the two. I think you know the difference but if you say you don't or that they are the same thing, then I am right and we don't have anything more to talk about as I am not about to get into a wordsmith argument splitting hairs on semantics. If you like their are many threads here already put here by Atheists like yourself that admit knowing such distinctions exist but they were long enough before the merging of such meanings were attempted. The motives behind those mergers of such definitions are well documented and they are nothing more than attempts to language ourselves into painting people in a corner to force one to accept one unproven meaning of evolution IE; "macro" with one that is proven and observable IE; micro evolution or what we once called "adaptation" something that is already within the code of the DNA itself. What we DON'T see in that code is the complete change from one species to another with creatures that must mate female with male as mammals.

I don't expect you to agree with that and I will forewarn you as well that I won't buy into any atheists sophistry behind the guise of science supporting such an idea as I have seen them all and they simply are not true. They invariably degrade into arguments of circular logic and you will fair no better than the best arguments I have already seen given here. The reason such arguments still persist here is why we are not seeing threads about gravity because most people won't argue that one and anyone that does is risking being told they are arguing with a nut AS WE ALL KNOW WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.

It is up to science to figure things out like that and up to science to make it understandable for the average intelligence to grasp and understand. To date, all evolutionary scientists have done is make constant changes to evolution making it less easy to explain and more illogical than ever before getting more obfuscated with each passing version using excuses for the reasons old now debunked constructs of this science didn't work and even more outrageous reasons to continue supporting it.

Invariably we find over and over again the new theories for it are found to be falsified data and / or complete utter fabrication or manufactured evidence and trust me I have already seen a mountain of incidence listed on these boards numbering in the hundreds. So much so that manufactured false evidence for evolutionary science has become a lucrative industry in China. This science is so corrupted by Atheists attempting to keep it alive that it has been investigated and proven by the united states congress.

I don't know the exact link but have seen it posted here and checked it out. I have the pdf of the full report if you like Ill email it to you. The bottom line is I do not trust this science any longer because of their motives to keep a divine foot from ever getting in the door. That isn't science's responsibility and it isn't science period.

they clearly are not both religeons

That is arguable and unless you want to argue using your own logic that people have to be like Christians to be defined a religion than that is an argument I would win using the supreme courts definition of what a religion is. If Humanism can be seen as one, Science being used as the doctrine of atheism sure can too.

its not blindingly believing those scientists because you yourself can go put on a white coat and check what they say is true, and as many other scientists do this for us already in fact they encourage people to check their work its not really blindly following anything

ummmm nice but wrong

observed ..and proven,

Oh Rly? Show me, and Ill be more than happy to show you why it isn't or hasn't been using your own scientific method and proving evolution is so guilty of the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent it fails the same way ID does.

well if its factual it isnt faith based if its factual it has evidence which means it CANNOT BE FAITH.

Oh but it IS faith based and perhaps your fear of faith or your hatred of Religion has blinded you and your objectivity NOOB. Were YOU actually there when Darwin saw the finch's the changes he wrote about?

NO you were not there, as a matter of fact you were not there to see the meteorologists watching the satellite readings when giving this morning's weather report but we have FAITH in what they are telling us is true. We use faith every single day noob and just because you either do not understand that or you may not want to admit it,

Doesn't mean it isn't true.

I hear of the mountains of evidence their is for evolution and ALL of it pertaining to any such thing as molecules to man macro evolution is based on SPECULATION and it is the faith we have the science may be true that a majority of those in science agreeing with it is why they have seen to it to merge once distinct and separate meanings to mean the same thing as in merging the meanings of micro and macro or theory to mean scientific fact and now they attempt to make scientific fact to mean "law". This is not Science behind this effort, in fact Scientists get pissed off at this obfuscation. No this is the agenda of Atheist materialists and I think it would be advisable that any person who is a Christian, arguing against anyone on these boards that is in support of evolution, to realize that much of their motivation is NOT so much a passion for religion but a hatred for God using evolution to advance their religion of Atheism.

Yeah I called it a religion and so do many other Atheists but that is an argument for another thread.

As I said in my previous post, "Darwin wouldn't even recognise his own theory today so saying "That is what evolution is" can only be understood in the context of what it is to YOU.

Darwin doesn't rate as anything more than a kitchen cosmetologist when we peel away the onion and see who he really is and what he did and didn't do. Much of the hoopla about Darwin is the embellished folklore of atheists.

He was nothing special and his theory had it not been for the manufactured false fraudulent evidence of haekle, it would have been debunked long ago. Time after time it was changed. Nothing has replaced it? Oh that is also arguable as i said before, nothing CAN until they allow it and show more tolerance for anyone with a open mind and another idea. Until then, it will continue to ridicule anyone challenging it or introducing another theory. That is the tactic used by Atheists one that Prof. Richard Dawkins says they copied from the gay rights activists themselves. The idea is to make a connection to religion and do it by any means necessary. The lessons we learned from Dover VS Kitzmiller is, don't challenge evolution. They attempt to protect it by making it unconstitutional to challenge it hence they can keep arguing it is the best we have because it is the ONLY thing they will allow. If they continue to connect any other theory to anything having an intelligence then they connect that to God and God to Religion and religion to separation of Church and State and out that theory goes.

This is not to argue the virtues of ID as i have as much against that theory as well. It is the IDEA that GOD is religion that i have a problem with. What if there is a GOD being out there and if so, what the hell does that have to do with religion? I say it has nothing to do with it nor does a GOD we don't know exists or claims doesn't anyway, say he is any of the religions we see on earth. So why then is THAT the reason for keeping such revolutionary new concepts and Ideas like ID, on the fringe of Science and so ostracized being accused of creationism? They are NOT the same but I know you will argue that as well.

This is a testament to how desperate and Machiavellian machinations this area of science will resort to and how low they will go to keep it sacred. Just like the Bible of their Religion is to a Christian, the Books of Dawkins and Darwin are to the Religion of Atheism and they protect it with religious like fervor like any other religious zealot they also act as self righteous as I have seen you do here using the same dogma of your belief as the dogma called Christianity.

This in turn is an indication of how much credibility they have with me and that is ZERO.

Darwin is but one of many distinguished scientists and he is not associated with any public benefit, unlike his contemporary Louis Pasteur, who is associated with the germ theory of disease. Although the mass media commonly identify evolution with Darwin, this is typical of popular garbles of complicated facts. Pasteur didn’t invent the germ theory of disease (let alone vaccination), and Darwin didn’t invent the evolution idea. Those attributions flow from the hosannas of personality cults that formed in their lifetimes. Pasteur received France’s highest honour, the Grand Croix of the Legion of Honour, and the Pasteur Institute was established under his direction. He was buried in the Notre Dame Cathedral with great ceremony and an air of superiority to the British.

Another curiosity is that the primary bicentennial testimony, the lavish Darwin Exhibition, was created not in Cambridge but at New York’s American Museum of Natural History. It opened in November 2005, and migrates to other museums until it comes to rest in London’s Natural History Museum in February 2009. My initial contact with the Exhibition was its website, whose home page conveys the tale in a short message: Discover the man and the revolutionary theory that changed the course of science and society, and, For 21 years he kept his theory secret. A highlighted tag reads Featuring live Galapagos tortoises, iguana, and frogs! In the background are images of the HMS Beagle and the Galapagos Archipelago. Prominently to the left is the familiar photo portrait of the aged Darwin in his prophet-like mood: remote, yet near; intense, yet detached; suffering, yet serene.

As a historian preparing a book on nineteenth-century evolution, I keenly toured the online Exhibition; six months later I walked the real thing in New York and confirmed my expectation that the online version is an accurate representation. The Exhibition’s story is also consistent with the 1959 centenary of the publication of The Origin of Species, hosted by the University of Chicago, and with the 1909 celebration of the golden anniversary of the Origin’s publication. All tout Darwin as an epic hero, ascribing imaginary achievements and glossing over the all-too-human flaws. But there are some differences.

Evolution theory in 1909 was in turmoil because cell-based experimental biology had recently discovered an explanation of inheritance inconsistent with Darwin’s speculative inheritance theory. Contributors to the commemorative conference represented this intense conflict and they reached no consensus. Yet in the introductory essay of the book Fifty Years of Darwin, zoologist Edward B. Poulton ignored the conflict to celebrate Darwin’s remarkable command of the fine detail of plants and animals. The Darwin Exhibition duplicates Poulton’s evasion—there’s no mention of the “eclipse of Darwinism” phase of evolution’s history. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and the only nineteenth-century scientist to discover quantitative biological laws, gets no mention. The public are encouraged to believe that contemporary evolutionary theory is just Darwin’s theory extended over an ever-widening domain. In reality it required a major reconstruction, called “Neo-Darwinism”, that reconciled the Darwin–Mendel conflict with a new tool devised in the 1920s, population genetics.
www.darwin-legend.org...

[edit on 22-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Jeez, con, are you still pushing this evolution = atheism tripe?

You need to get this over to Ayala, Miller, Collins et al. Some of the strongest supporters of evolution are christians and theists. But you know all this already...

Originally posted by melatonin
Jeez, con, are you still pushing this evolution = atheism tripe?

You need to get this over to Ayala, Miller, Collins et al. Some of the strongest supporters of evolution are christians and theists. But you know all this already...

Just because Miller says he is a Christian doesn't mean he is and I believe in evolution as well but I like most Christians who say they also believe in it do NOT believe in being painted in a corner by equivocations of Atheists who insist on suggesting that because I Believe in micro evolution means I believe in macro. That is the point made in the above post mel.

Are you here to chat or are you just expressing your feelings?

If you want to debate the meaning of what a true christian is then I suggest you read some of what Chuck Missler has to say on the subject.

Oh and I am not a "Con" as you say I resent the con artist accusation as I would any ad-hominem. You and noob wouldn't happen to be Atheists would you?

I rest my case

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Just because Miller says he is a Christian doesn't mean he is and I believe in evolution as well but I like most Christians who say they also believe in it do NOT believe in being painted in a corner by equivocations of Atheists who insist on suggesting that because I Believe in micro evolution means I believe in macro. That is the point made in the above post mel.

Aye, and I suppose any christian who accepts evolution is now a questionable christian. Because, of course, fundies determine such things.

www.butler.edu...

Are you here to chat or are you just expressing your feelings?

Dunno. I'm just amazed that you keep pushing the same old tripe.

Oh and I am not a "Con" as you say I resent the con artist accusation as I would any ad-hominem. You and noob wouldn't happen to be Atheists would you?

I rest my case

You know what I meant, and that is quite a disingenuous answer. OK, Mr True Christian...

Were you the user previously known as 'conspiriology'?

Before you answer I'll remind you: "Thou shalt not bear false witness"

editing

[edit on 22-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

WOW never seen that before an air of arrogant condecending with a smattering of passive agressive in an attempt to create a false position of authority....

ahh and the old classic

if you dont agree we have nothing to talk about, invariabley this says to me "im going to draw out the same old stuff and pretend im right" ...lest see shall we

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Noob, ( at least that is what you call yourself) when it comes to arguments on evolution, I have seen you make every mistake even most xtians can debunk with ease. First lets be honest about this by starting with Darwin.

well lets see how you manage shall we? wow darwin why? are you talking about evolution or a 150 year old version? shall we talk about alchemy isntead of chemistry too?

The constant use of equivocating the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution as a straw man argument is for amateurs and I won't even entertain the idea of going there much less think I have to explain it or explain what I mean by the two.

actually i think you better becasue im guessing your version is still along the strawman variant that usually dragged out and flogged like a big dead straw donkey from a spanish gift shop

microevolution (n.) evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies

changes at the genetic level in individuals or breeding populations that do not casue a change to it taxonomic or phylogenetic classification

macroevolution (n.) evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups

changes within a breeding population that result in changes to it taxonomic or phylogenetic classification, these can be a single change in plants but more normally a collection of accumulated changes in a breeding population that combine to give a change at the macro level

now the reason i call strawman is simple, becasue the words are recklessley falsely and purposely misrepresented to be actual parts of evolution which they are not, they are measures of evolution

like centimeteres and meters are a meassure of distance, they are not the distance its self but merley a way to meassure it

micro/macroevolution are not the changes them selves they are a measure used to quantify the changes

well thats the page i and most everyone else who reads about evolution are on, becasue we pay attention to the real deffinitions not the misreresentational ones

I think you know the difference but if you say you don't or that they are the same thing, then I am right and we don't have anything more to talk about as I am not about to get into a wordsmith argument splitting hairs on semantics.

well for somthing your not prepared to do your haveing a dam fine crack at it, it appears i know the differance between the two but is that waht your using? lets see

If you like their are many threads here already put here by Atheists like yourself that admit knowing such distinctions exist but they were long enough before the merging of such meanings were attempted.

no merging sorry just misrepresentations put about by the creationists leadership and repeated verbatum by the followers

The motives behind those mergers of such definitions are well documented

yes rediffine as falsety and attack rather then really take it on

a standard tactic and they are nothing more than attempts to language ourselves into painting people in a corner to force one to accept one unproven meaning of evolution IE; "macro" with one that is proven and observable IE; micro evolution or what we once called "adaptation" something that is already within the code of the DNA itself.

ahhh so hybridisation of two plants that give rise to a tottaly new species that is viable but able to reproduce with either parent species has never been observed? even though we have twice with i believe it was species of sage

how about the underground mosquit populatons of londons underground who are now completley unable to hybridise as above ground variants of moletus and pipens can and do, isolated breeding formed an new insipid species

and theres a whole pile of studies that show similar, isolated breeding populations no longer bieng able to produce viable offspring with sub-species they normally could hybridise with or could no longer breed with other populations of the original species

i guess speciation and minor macro evolution has been observed many times

but not the strawman variant of macro evolution that usually involves dogs giving birth to cats and other sillyness

What we DON'T see in that code is the complete change from one species to another with creatures that must mate female with male as mammals.

well thats not strictly true now is it because its not an instant switch as the strawman says its an accumulated process so rather then 1 change you would expect to see several changes along side the many more similarities

I don't expect you to agree with that and I will forewarn you as well that I won't buy into any atheists sophistry behind the guise of science supporting such an idea as I have seen them all and they simply are not true.

wow lets add atheist hater to your list of charming charachteristics

The reason such arguments still persist here is why we are not seeing threads about gravity because most people won't argue that one and anyone that does is risking being told they are arguing with a nut AS WE ALL KNOW WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.

but you argueing somthing that uses the same scientific method ......

It is up to science to figure things out like that and up to science to make it understandable for the average intelligence to grasp and understand

wow and add belitteling attitude to

its up to scinece to understand science and find aplications for its knowledge, not to convince people that the many and varied flase hoods put about are false, as long as it knowns what it is doing and isnt interffered with it should care little for what we think

thats the job of teachers and lectureres to find a way to pass on that knowledge in a way thier students can understand and use

skip the rest of this bit as its based on a flasehood

Invariably we find over and over again the new theories for it are found to be falsified data and / or complete utter fabrication or manufactured evidence and trust me I have already seen a mountain of incidence listed on these boards numbering in the hundreds. So much so that manufactured false evidence for evolutionary science has become a lucrative industry in China.

i think your reffering to the chinses trade in faked fossils which does nothing to detract from any others fossils found outside china or inside china when found in situ by palentologists

and the fact chinese farmers are gluing fossils together has no bearing on the numerous piles lab based scientific papers but youd rather wrote them all off with another falsehood rather then actually tackle them head on and just call them all lies and fakes

please im presuming we are both intelligent and have a clue what we are talking about here so dont try simple misdirections and massivley incorrect generalisations to try and form a general rule

This science is so corrupted by Atheists attempting to keep it alive that it has been investigated and proven by the united states congress.

id like to see evidence of this, your also making the assumption all scientists are athiests which is clearly not the case many are christians hindu's muslims buddists pnathiests deists and some are atheists ... more generealisations and falsehoods

I don't know the exact link but have seen it posted here and checked it out. I have the pdf of the full report if you like Ill email it to you. The bottom line is I do not trust this science any longer because of their motives to keep a divine foot from ever getting in the door. That isn't science's responsibility and it isn't science period.

wow its just this bit of science huh? actually no science as a whole removes the supernatural and refuses to even bother with it becasue it doesnt explain anything

and the fact they wont say god did it means thier work is wrong? is a carpeneter who doesnt beleive in god incapable of making tables? the very fact they wont allow supernatural to be a valid explenation makes thier work more believable and thorough in its scope as the need to find real explenations for what happens and they cant just give a blanket some god did it so they actually have to work out why

how absurd an argument you make

this is arguable and unless you want to argue using your own logic that people have to be like Christians to be defined a religion than that is an argument I would win using the supreme courts definition of what a religion is. If Humanism can be seen as one, Science being used as the doctrine of atheism sure can

but you would have to show that atheism is reliant on science it isnt, you can be an athiest and deny science so your argument while amusing is badly flawed

your using generalisations again, many athiests are interested in science becasue we A)arnt a specific group more a random assortment of people without dogma and gods B) have no creation myths to beleive in so look at what could really have caused it which is what science tries to do explain how we came to be

you can be an atheists and distruct and dislike science, all athiesm is is a disbeleief in supernatural things until such point as they can be proven to have some reality to them. this mirror's scientific method but does not exist becasue of it athiests throughout time have always asked exactly the same question, can you prove it?

but feel free to try ill enjoy the laugh


[edit on 22/12/08 by noobfun]

as religeon is based on faith and athiesm requires a lack of faith then it cannot be classed as a religeon

also isnt helped by the fact we have no specific set of dogma's we must adhere to or believe in to be atheists

religeon relises on faith not evidence
athiesm reliese on evidence not faith

see the problem right there? probabily not its easier to deny and ignore then absorb question and alter perceptions

Originally posted by Aermacchi
ummmm nice but wrong

can i you or anyone go thorugh the education system to gain relevant qualifications allowing us access to labs that can be used to redo the same experiments and observe it for our selves? yes

so apparently its not me thats wrong

Oh Rly? Show me, and Ill be more than happy to show you why it isn't or hasn't been using your own scientific method and proving evolution is so guilty of the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent it fails the same way ID does.

please carry on this could get interesting

ID fails becasue it A) hasnt objectivley set out its methodology B)hasnt set out a complete hypothesis of what it aims to show just generalisations C) contains supernatural elements which then make it unfalsifiable

it cant prove its self as it has nothing laid out for it to prove, and cant be proven false as it relies on magic

Oh but it IS faith based and perhaps your fear of faith or your hatred of Religion has blinded you and your objectivity NOOB.

oooo another athiests strawman (you must live in americas corn belt to have all these this much straw to hand) fear of faith? why would i be afraid in beleiving in magic? i spent much of my childhood believeing in the toothfairy and santa and just over 1/2 my life believing in god, no fear sorry just an unwillingness to beleive in sanat for grown ups without evidence, i also believe the sky isnt really blue but im not scared when i look up and see it as blue

but nice try at another dead horse flogging exercise

Were YOU actually there when Darwin saw the finch's the changes he wrote about?

dont really care sorry Darwin was 150 years behind what we know now so some of what he said is a simplified version of what we now know and some was wrong

do you insist on tryin to prove astrophysics wrong becasue the accepted model was once a geocentrism model? do you show how that was wrong to show how all astrophysics based on a heliocentric model must be wrong?

either work with the current version or jump in a time machine and do it 150 years ago when what your arguing was reality

NO you were not there, as a matter of fact you were not there to see the meteorologists watching the satellite readings when giving this morning's weather report but we have FAITH in what they are telling us is true.

you might have faith they are accurate, persoannly i see it as a general guide as our grasp of weather phenomina is anything but accurate, and here comes the usual you didnt see it so it cant be right

did you see god make the world? noah build the ark? jesus die on the cross? YOU need faith

i can go find the satelite data myself and interpret it myself, that doesnt require faith just understanding of what they show and our best working(but still not very accurate) understanding of weather patterns

We use faith every single day noob and just because you either do not understand that or you may not want to admit it,

Doesn't mean it isn't true.

the fact you insist i do without evidence and just generalisation doesnt mean your right either

i have faith this computer would be working when i switched it on but thats not really faith its based on the evidence that it was previously working, based on the fact i can see lights showing it be at least recieving power

thats not faith sorry thats use of available factual information to form a logical conclusion

snip out the same argument addressed above thats based on sillyness and false misrepresentation pretending science relise on faith when your talking about somthing that has already been tested and proven

merging the meanings of micro and macro or theory to mean scientific fact and now they attempt to make scientific fact to mean "law". This is not Science behind this effort, in fact Scientists get pissed off at this obfuscation.

well as i know the differance between hypothesis thery and law in scientific terms your talking sillyness

a scientifc law referes only to 1 action or reaction that has been proven

as evolution deals with many it cannot by deffinition become law

but why let a little misrepresentation spoil a perfectly good falsehood of argument

No this is the agenda of Atheist materialists and I think it would be advisable that any person who is a Christian, arguing against anyone on these boards that is in support of evolution, to realize that much of their motivation is NOT so much a passion for religion but a hatred for God using evolution to advance their religion of Atheism.

you really are funny ever thought of taking up stand up comedy?

the agenda of athiests? well for that wouldnt we need dogma to inform us of the direction our agenda should head?

and not believing in somthing is vastly different to hating somthing, its difficult to hate somthing that doesnt exist else we would all run around hating santa and the toothfairy and the monster in the closet and fairies and dragons and unicorns

personally i like dragons and thier mythology it fascinates me but i dont use faith to insist they are real

Yeah I called it a religion and so do many other Atheists but that is an argument for another thread.

yes ...im sure they do ...

by deffinition if they have a religeon of athiesm they are not athiests

As I said in my previous post, "Darwin wouldn't even recognise his own theory today so saying "That is what evolution is" can only be understood in the context of what it is to YOU.

and galileo would be unable to recognise most of astrophysics ..which is a good thing it means our understanding is getting better

id rather stick to modern science then old outdated stuff even though you seem to feel the need to attack out of date hypothesies

would you rather religeon was practiced in the way it was in the darkages?

skip the rest as its an absurd character assination of Darwin and has nothing to do with current evolutionary theory as we know it

so basically your misrepresenting micro/macroevolution
misrepresenting atheism and its supposed agenda

which are both strawmen constructs

add in a bunch of patronising arrogance to try and assume a position of authority

then throw in a bunch more sillyness and generalisations .... i guess your not one of the most christains that can refute my arguments then

nice try anyway

[edit on 22/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 22/12/08 by noobfun]