Origin of life pushed back even earlier (body, philosopher, choice)

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Christians would be a lot more "christian" if they took the bible metaphorically and allegorically. Once it gets into literalism, the real teachings are gone. Interestingly enough, even the most literal christian recognizes that parables are allegory.

Of course the Bile has a lot of figurative language but it has more that is literal. You just can tell when it is literal and when it is not.

You also don't understand allegory. ALL allegories are based on a literal event. I agree the literalist usually don't understand the Bible properly, but then neither do those who think it is all figurative.

Jn 3:16 is not figurative. That Jesus died for man's sins, also in not figurative .

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I am interested in showing that NOTHING the ToE preaches has ever been proven.

And yet I showed you not one, but two things that in fact were. Which you responded to merely by running away claiming the post was too long for you. So you are openly attempting to establish a lie as truth.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

what is still called a THEORY

If I went around claiming to be an expert on American Football and then I said Tiger Woods was one of the best players of it ever.... people would instantly know I knew very little about American Football. And probably very little about Golf either.

Similarly when you openly display a complete misunderstanding of what the words "Theory" means in science, especially after having been corrected on it, you show that you know very little about science at all. And probably very little about basic English either.

Though there are a few signs that English is not your first language. If this is in fact the case please inform me as I can certainly modify the English I use to be more accessible to a non-native speaker.

Once again: There is no "still" called a theory in science. When something is called "Theory" in science there is never likely to be a point where it is relabeled to anything else. Atomic Theory will always likely be called Atomic Theory. As will Evolution Theory.

If... and I stress the "if" here..... you have ANY interest in being taken seriously in what you say on this topic.... I would strongly advise you to at least get the linguistics basically right before anything else. But as you admitted yourself: You have no interest in reading and study.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

It always ends up that if you reject evolution it is because you don't understand it.

Not always. I know a few people who understand it just fine, but reject it. That YOU do not appear to understand it however is abundantly clear at this juncture. That you have little interest in trying to is also something you appear to have admitted, which is more than a little telling.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I do understand it, that is why I reject it.

As yet I have seen nothing to suggest you in fact do understand it. You can not even get the MOST basic linguistics correct.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You accept it because you don't understnd the laws of genetics.

Which laws exactly, and how does Evolutionary Theory breach them?

Originally Posted by omega2xx

NOT CONNECTED with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

And yet Whale evolution is one of the cases where we have a STEADY stream of fossils. We can literally lay them out and see the progression of all the changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. Changes that, I hasten to repeat from the post you dodged and ignored, were predicted by Evolutionary Theory before the fossils were ever seen.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Aer you so dull you don't know that a creation can't just pop into existence out of nothing?

Yet you have not established THAT anything came from nothing. You merely ASSUME that "nothing" is the default and that the "something" must be explained. Why does "nothing" have to be default? Why can not "something" always have been? Especially given that is exactly what theists assume themselves about their god. So in the same breath as saying "It can not be X Y or Z" they will tell us that their god IS explained by X, Y and Z.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

None, and I emphasize NONE has even tried yet

Which is patently untrue as anyone can see if they scroll back over the thread. You simply outright ignored the content of many posts, my own included.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Similar doesn't count. No human has ever had a kid with a flipper; no whale has eve had a kid with a hand.

Yet evolution does not require any of these things, so why you bring them up is entirely unclear to me and, I suspect, to you too.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Do you really not understand that if it is still classified a s theory, it had not been fully proven.

Do you really not understand that that is not how the word is used in science?
Do you really not understand that NOTHING in science is ever FULLY proven?
Do you really not understand that if you want to talk science you should at least get the terms right?
Do you really not understand that a business degree, if you actually do have one and are not just inventing it, says nothing about your level of understanding of science?

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Then answer the two questions I keep giving you and demonstrate that you do understand it.....

Then start getting the terminology correct and demonstrate that YOU do understand it.......

Originally Posted by omega2xx

One does not need a degree in science to read and learn and understand some of the basics.

No one suggested you do. It was you that brought degrees into it as if it meant something when it means nothing at all, even if it could be verified that you even have one. What you say is what is important here, not what qualifications you pretend to have while saying it.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

It is evident that most proclaiming evolution is true in the forum , do not understand the basics of genetics.

And yet you have neither displayed a working understanding of genetics yourself, nor shown a single aspect of genetics that is in contrary to Evolutionary Theory.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You parroting the opinions of the ToE without offer any supporting evidence doesn't make you look smart, quite the opposite.

Nor does your constant belittling insults of other users, coupled with your self-congratulatory praise at how smart you believe yourself to be, make you look smart, quite the opposite. How sad.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I have the ability to read and understand the basics of biology.

Then please do so, because evidently you have not done so yet. But I would suggest forgetting biology for the moment and concentrate on FIRST getting a science 101 foundation on what the terms of science..... like Theory and prove for example...... actually mean in science. Without a basic understanding of the methodologies and linguistics of science itself, you are going to get almost nowhere in your attempts to educate yourself on biology.

But I am noticing a stark contradiction in your posts now. Here you say you have this capability to read and understand biology. Yet before you told us "I am academically and intellectually challenged." and "I dislike reading and I hate to study." How sad.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Do you consider disagreeing an insult?

No, but I am interested in people who can explain the BASIS of their disagreement. Otherwise they are just peddling white noise. So far you have not offered any basis for your disagreement other than to tell us how smart and informed and qualified you feel yourself to be. How sad.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Do you not know that you can't jut make a statement with no supporting evidence and think you will be taken seriously?

Then stop doing so. Because you are, so far, the only one on the thread I have seen do it. How sad.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I am trying to get one of you evo fundies to provide some real scientific evidence to support evolution and you don't know enough to do so.

A false narrative that you support solely by ignoring the posts and content that do not fit it. How sad.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I am going to suggest that my knowledge of science is more than yous is.

And suggestion is about as far as you will get. You certainly will not establish it. Especially when you have demonstrated a complete lay man position on understanding even how basic terms work in science. Your mis-use and mis-understanding of the words "Theory" and "prove" for example are MORE than enough to establish your credentials as a COMPLETE non-scientist.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

You and the others are proving you cant provide the evidence for even one thing the TOE preaches

Except I did and you ignored it with some cop out excuse about the length of my post. The only one suffering from an abundance of "Can't" here is you, you and you alone.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Did you not know they mis-titled that book. It was originally titled Dummies for Evolution.

So now you are switching to simply making up wanton lies about reality too? Wow, just wow. How sad.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Right. When you have not answers, change the subject.

That would be why you keep bringing up non-sequiturs like your alleged degree, and bones, then? Because when you can not answer someones post (like mine) you simply change the subject.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Anyone who says evolution has been proven is a liar or ignorant. Has evolution ever been proven?

Once again to allay your ignorance about science 101.... "prove" in science merely means to "test" and yes when using the word "prove" CORRECTLY (which you have not done) in science, Evolution has very much been proven. At some length.

I have seen nothing from you that displays an understanding of how Theory works, or is verified, under the methodologies of science. But one of the BIG ways in which it is done in science is through prediction. That is a good Theory has to make predictions, and those predictions have to be tested and verified. This has been done REMARKABLY well in science at the macro level (see the post I made, which you dodged and ignored, on whale evolution) and the genetic level (see the post I made, which you dodged and ignored, on the fusion site discovered in Human DNA).

Originally Posted by omega2xx

A theory is not science until it is classified as a law of science.

You have simply made that up and it is entirely untrue.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

All 3 of those men not only reject evolution, they also refute it with accepted science.

I have never seen that occur anywhere. Perhaps you have citations you can make? The best I have seen Hovind do, for example, is get outdated copies of text books...... editions so old that their errors have been corrected long ago..... and refute those errors as if he was refuting current scientific thought.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I also ask you another question, you have not answered--are there any transitional fossils?

Except ONCE AGAIN the question was answered and you simply ignored the answers, such as your wanton and fetid dodging of my entire post.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

they certainly will not answer any of my questions, indicating they can't.

Or, more accurately, they do answer your questions and you simply, and openly, ignore them.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Get a good dictionary and look up "said."

Given the awful grammar and spelling that permeates every single post you make, you are in no position to be recommending others look up words. Further given your complete misuse of scientific terms you are certainly in no position to admonish others on linguistic definitions. The person on this thread who needs to look up words and understand them is you, you and just you.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Here is some more Scripture that might help you see HOW God did it:

Have you a modicum of evidence, argument, data or reasoning to offer that lends even an iota of credence to the claim our universe, or the life within it, was created by an intelligent and intentional agency??? And you talk about people asking questions you CANT answer? You have dodged this one time and time again.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Jn 3:16 is not figurative. That Jesus died for man's sins, also in not figurative .

Yet that religion also claims that Jesus lives in a state of eternal bliss and dominion beside his father. So it seems your book is lying and your Jesus character did not die at all! You pretend others fail to understand allegory, when you appear to not even understand the word "die".

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Amen, Trout! They tried to merge the ancient ignorance and barbaric superstitions about God in the OT with the revelations and demonstration of God's TRUE NATURE by Jesus completely missing the point and corrupting the Gospel egregiously.

What ancient ignorance?

What superstitions?

What corruptions?

Be specific and post your source.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by Freak80

Jesus taught much of the same barbaric stuff that was in the OT.

Where do you think the fire and brimstone preachers get their material?

The truth is not barbaric. When you stand before God when you die, better have a good lawyer with you to defend saying God and Jesus are barbaric. Of course no lawyer is that good. Then you will be able to say you were not told.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I apologize if I over estimated your attention span. However the entire post was "broken into smaller bits". And nothing in it is negated by attention span difficulties.

If you want to respond to it fine, if you want to dodge it, that's fine too.

My Attention span is not the problem. Have you never heard of the KIS principle. I omitted the last S, because you are not stupid.

I did skim through it and if you answered the question I ask, I missed it and I do not respond to post that do not first answer a question I ask.

What determines if the offspring will have bones?

If you want to answer this, we can continue, if not, it is you who is dodging.

I am willing to respond to any post that doe snot continue into infinity and beyond.

If you are not willing to make it shorter, then have a nice day.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

My Attention span is not the problem.

No I genuinely did not think it was. I think your problem is you wanted to dodge my post and you simply grasped at the length of it as your cop out excuse for doing so. However neither dodging my post, nor issues with your attention span, address a single thing in my post.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I did skim through it and if you answered the question I ask, I missed it and I do not respond to post that do not first answer a question I ask.

Except you never asked me ANY question. So you are once again grasping at cop out excuses for not reading or replying to my post. You made posts on this thread, I answered many of those posts, and you simply ignored my reply. Simple as that, regardless of whatever spin you now want to put on your dodge.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

What determines if the offspring will have bones?

You have ignored my entire post and are now asking me a question that has nothing to do with my post at all, but you have in fact been asking a different user to me?

Quid Pro Quo sir. If you are going to ignore the totality of my first reply to you, then I am under no moral or ethical obligation to answer a complete non-sequitur question from you that you have introduced out of nowhere into our discussion.

I can more than answer your question, but until such time as you stop ignoring my posts, I do not have to deign to answer questions in yours that you have thrown in as a new red herring following my post.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

If you want to answer this, we can continue, if not, it is you who is dodging.

Nope it is still you.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

I am willing to respond to any post that doe snot continue into infinity and beyond.

Which is clearly a lie given the length of my post is quite finite.

Originally Posted by omega2xx

If you are not willing to make it shorter, then have a nice day.

If you are not willing to stop dodging and ignoring my post, and acting like this is my failing rather than yours, then have a nice day.

[badlander]

Originally Posted by omega2xx

Anyone who says evolution has been proven is a liar or ignorant. Has evolution ever been proven?



They do reflect myself and I stand by my evaluation of you based on your posts.


>>I never asked you to accept conventional biology, just to learn a few basics such as what a theory is and is not. As has been mentioned to you a theory is science is about as close to proof or the truth as science goes. Proof is for mathematics. <<

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand granades. A theory is not science until it is classified as a law of science. I ask you a basic question about biology and to date you have not answered, so I will ask it again: What determines if the offspring will have bones?




Why not? Are you not confident you can show I m wrong?



Except for Hovin the others you mention are far more qualified in science than you are. You can't call Ham, Gish or Morris liars because you would have to show where they are wrong and you can't do that.

All 3 of those men not only reject evolution, they also refute it with accepted science. So I don't need a great science background to read and understand what they say.

I also ask you another question, you have not answered--are there any transitional fossils?

So before you run away and put me on ignore, I think the other evo fundies would like you to show that I am wrong. they certainly will not answer any of my questions, indicating they can't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut...act_and_theory


Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[SIZE=2][1][/SIZE]






LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).


It is the discipline of science not yourself that gets to define facts, theories or laws in science. Obviously you know not what you speak of.


That you think Hovid or the others are great scientists is only your opinion and not a fact. One only needs a basis of understanding in the disciplines of natural science in order to read and evaluate the books and articles that they have written and those writings are full of flaws.


And if you think you are free to insult me sure go ahead, I put those who are deliberately provoking others with taunts or are just plain outright jerks on ignore. The very first person I did so was a poster who thought running over cyclists was a great idea. So far you do not qualify for the ignore list, which I think is up to 4 for me and doubt you ever will. But to make you happy I will read and not respond to you so that you may fill fulfill in your lashing out.


That you think your 3 or scientists who do not do any actual science are superior in knowledge over the 150 years of all the other scientists who actually did the study and field and lab work plus made the efforts to submit their findings to the world for others to tear apart, that is your choice. I think little of your choice nor much of your attempts at insulting those you disagree with.


Before you asked me that question I mentioned that I was not going to discuss the aspects of evolution with you. Trying to taunt me into changing my mind does you no favour as all it will lead to is you changing and adding more questions that you can easily get from the anti evolution sites that are so full of hints to stump the "evil evolutionists" What determines if an offspring has bones 21 million hits in bing. Are there transitional fossils, that depends of whose definition of transitional, the scientific one of course there are. If you are speaking about the transitional ones that creationists demand that are impossible in evolution then I might as well be asking you to prove Christianity by demanding evidence that Thor is Odin's son.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by Rafius

I'll save you the trouble. We'll start with the Bible contradiction you asked for, I gave and you ignored...

1 John 4:8 - "God is love."
1 Corinthians 13:4 - "Love is not jealous."
Exodus 20:5 - "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."

Just as soon as you answer the questions I gave you.

1. Explain the general idea of DNA genome mapping and how it is used to track the genotypic background of a modern species.


2. Explain three types of tRNA or DNA transcription errors in mitosis.




...and no.It isn't changing the subject. It is relevant to what we are discussing.


Know about it?? You can't even frickin' spell it.

'What' not 'who'.

Make your mind up. Are we discussing what evolution has proven - in which case your question about bones is not the subject or are we talking about genetics - in which case you can answer these questions.

1. Explain the general idea of DNA genome mapping and how it is used to track the genotypic background of a modern species.


2. Explain three types of tRNA or DNA transcription errors in mitosis.


Yes...that's what fundies usually do when they get their balls caught in a vice. They run away....but the vice is still there. Jeff and Vizio do it all the time. You're clearly no better. But hey! No worries if you run. It just shows that you don't know what you claim to now.

If I ask about bones, that is the subject. When you answer my question, I will answer yours.

Since I said I will answer your questions, I am not running away. If you don't answer my question, it is you who is running away. If you answer my question, I will also respond to what you posted as a Bible contradiction.

I will also ask you another question that must be answered---have you ever made a typo?

You also didn't post anything evolution has proven, which you said was the subject. So I see no need to answer your questions.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

I think where Christianity took a lethal wrong turn was marrying itself to the OT and trying to force-fit Jesus into the genocidal, psychotic Jehovah's son.

And then trying to spin-off that disastrous union with a mysterious Holy Ghost as a sort of not-gay triune of male godling-type figures.

Altogether way too weird for this simple fisherman to accept as true.

Thanks for confirming the accuracy of a verse in the Bible---I Cor 2:14

Peter was a simple fisherman and he accepted it. He accepted it because he understood it.

[omega2xx]

Originally Posted by wolf39us

I've already decided based on your previous posts that you really don't know a thing about science or how a theory relates to science.

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points

I have already decided that since you wont answer my simple question about bones, that you really don't know a thing about science. Answer my question and prove me wrong instead of your insanely, idiot opinion. It seems you would rather insulting than discuss. I have to assume you do not know enough to answer it.

Don't feel bad, none of the other evo fundamentalist have answered it either---they, like you, would if they could, but they can't.

Not only do i not award you any points, I am going to take away the only 1 you have.