U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2010, 06:10 PM
 
608 posts, read 515,481 times
Reputation: 33

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur

[...]
  • Quote:
    evolution also said the universe was not created but rather evolved. and these self proclaimed know it all scientific "intellectuals" use these science discoveries to insult the opposing people as if those "facts" give them the automatic right to do so.

No evolution doesn't say that at all...Evolution is only concerned with life, not the birth of the universe.


Well, that is a very selective and hence truncated therefore deficient view of the origin of species.


Evolutionists also keep telling people that they are not into the origin of life, but into the origin of new species.

And when you ask them what about the origin of the very first species of life, they will tell you that it is not the concern of the theory of evolution to examine the origin of the very first species of life.


It's like a guy who lives within a furnished room and who never goes outside or asks what's going on outside, and he tells visitors that he is into examining how the kinds of furniture already in the room get to become other kinds of furnitures, i.e., by way of evolution from the kinds already inside the room when he came to occupy the room.

And he feels that he has discovered a terrific theory of the evolution of kinds of furnitures in his room from earlier furnitures in the room, but never ever bothers to find out how the very first kind of furniture got into existence.


And he claims to be scientific.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2010, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,691,572 times
Reputation: 12214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Well, that is a very selective and hence truncated therefore deficient view of the origin of species.


Evolutionists also keep telling people that they are not into the origin of life, but into the origin of new species.

And when you ask them what about the origin of the very first species of life, they will tell you that it is not the concern of the theory of evolution to examine the origin of the very first species of life.


It's like a guy who lives within a furnished room and who never goes outside or asks what's going on outside, and he tells visitors that he is into examining how the kinds of furniture already in the room get to become other kinds of furnitures, i.e., by way of evolution from the kinds already inside the room when he came to occupy the room.

And he feels that he has discovered a terrific theory of the evolution of kinds of furnitures in his room from earlier furnitures in the room, but never ever bothers to find out how the very first kind of furniture got into existence.


And he claims to be scientific.




Ryrge
First life is called abiogenesis. Evolution describes how life has changed and diversified from that start....If you want to discuss abiogenesis start a new thread. By the way, like most people I know, I believe in the theory of evolution as well as many other things, but I wouldn't call myself an "evolutionist"...That is just a word made up by the folks that believe in creation.

I believe in computers, but don't call me a computerist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 02:10 PM
 
608 posts, read 515,481 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Well, that is a very selective and hence truncated therefore deficient view of the origin of species.


Evolutionists also keep telling people that they are not into the origin of life, but into the origin of new species.

And when you ask them what about the origin of the very first species of life, they will tell you that it is not the concern of the theory of evolution to examine the origin of the very first species of life.


It's like a guy who lives within a furnished room and who never goes outside or asks what's going on outside, and he tells visitors that he is into examining how the kinds of furniture already in the room get to become other kinds of furnitures, i.e., by way of evolution from the kinds already inside the room when he came to occupy the room.

And he feels that he has discovered a terrific theory of the evolution of kinds of furnitures in his room from earlier furnitures in the room, but never ever bothers to find out how the very first kind of furniture got into existence.


And he claims to be scientific.




Ryrge
First life is called abiogenesis. Evolution describes how life has changed and diversified from that start....If you want to discuss abiogenesis start a new thread. By the way, like most people I know, I believe in the theory of evolution as well as many other things, but I wouldn't call myself an "evolutionist"...That is just a word made up by the folks that believe in creation.

I believe in computers, but don't call me a computerist.

I am saying that the theory of evolution claims to be about the origin of species, but in fact it is not about the origin of species in the sense that before the origin there were no species, but it takes off from already the existence of species.

So, your response is irrelevant and I can't see how you cannot even have any inkling in your head that it is irrelevant.

What I can see with the socalled theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of species is that it is nothing about any origin of any species, but all just a lot of words at the end of which still not you and not I and not anyone knows anything about the origin of species, which should mean how from no species species came about.


Here is what you should say if you are a proponent of the socalled theory of evolution, that you really don't know the very origin of species, but you are entertaining the idea that when the very first ever one or several species have already started to exist, then how these very ever first species before which there were no species whatsoever gave rise to latter species -- but again you must admit that you really don't know how the ever first species came about.

But I fear you don't know what I am talking about.

Sad.



Here, I will try again.

Suppose you are explaining the origin of the bicycle, do you start from a point in time when bicycle was already available to people, or you start from a point in time when there was no bicycle whatever.

If you start from a point in time when bicycle was already available to people, then you cannot be calling your explanation of the appearance of the bicycle as the theory of the evolution of the bicycle.

So also with the socalled theory of evolution to explain the origin of species.


See? I guess not, and it is very sad that you don't or more correctly can't see.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,070,360 times
Reputation: 3717
Wink Literally, a veritable wall of errors! Nine little gross errors, all documented. Good stuff!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Well, that is a very selective and hence truncated therefore deficient view of the origin of species.

Wrong # 1.

Evolutionists also keep telling people that they are not into the origin of life, but into the origin of new species.



And when you ask them what about the origin of the very first species of life, they will tell you that it is not the concern of the theory of evolution to examine the origin of the very first species of life.




It's like a guy who lives within a furnished room and who never goes outside or asks what's going on outside, and he tells visitors that he is into examining how the kinds of furniture already in the room get to become other kinds of furnitures, i.e., by way of evolution from the kinds already inside the room when he came to occupy the room.

WTF? Anyhow, Wrong # 2.

And he feels that he has discovered a terrific theory of the evolution of kinds of furnitures in his room from earlier furnitures in the room, but never ever bothers to find out how the very first kind of furniture got into existence. And he claims to be scientific.

So? Wrong # 3.

Quote:
It's not that evolutionary theory ever tries to explain abiogenesis. It's simply and honestly that Evolutionary Theory is only about how existing life diversified. It's only a key element in the story of life on this planet. It also does not directly explain photosynthesis or why ants live in anthills. Or when the next meteor will strike. But if that's how YOU choose to believe, well.... there's really nothing I can say then is there?

To your stultifyingly stupid comparison, it would be like arguing with your furniture owner about the technology of the glues used, and claiming the glue-makers are somehow responsible for the stylings of his furniture, because, as you know, "yah can't have furniture without glue!"

Geez... And you claim to be logical....
Ryrge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
I am saying that the theory of evolution claims to be about the origin of species,

Wrong #... what is it? Oh yeah: "4"? I'm losing track here; sooo many errors, so little time...

but in fact it is not about the origin of species in the sense that before the origin there were no species, but it takes off from already the existence of species.

√ Now you're thinking right for a change! That's all it does, and it does it so well...

So, your response is irrelevant

Why again? Wrong # 5.

...and I can't see how you cannot even have any inkling in your head that it is irrelevant.

Who, again, is irrelevant? Us? You? I'm voting, final answer, that it's YOU. Wrong # 6.


What I can see with the socalled theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of species is that it is nothing about any origin of any species, but all just a lot of words at the end of which still not you and not I and not anyone knows anything about the origin of species, which should mean how from no species species came about.

Note: I wonder if you even know what the definition of "species" is. I'm betting not. (Being generous, I won't call this # 7.... Call it a little gift from me. You're welcome.)

Here is what you should say if you are a proponent of the socalled theory of evolution, [Oh should I now! Why would I repeat idiotic statements, unfounded in science? huh?] that you really don't know the very origin of species, but you are entertaining the idea that when the very first ever one or several species have already started to exist, then how these very ever first species before which there were no species whatsoever gave rise to latter species -- but again you must admit that you really don't know how the ever first species came about.

Quote:
Agreed, sort of, on the origins of original life, although we have some pretty good clues, and a team of British scientists have, in fact, almost finished up their research paper on how they've done exactly that. Then whatcha gonna say? Life from some household chemicals, mixed up in a beaker, hit with abit o' the ol' lightning, or some hot bubbling volcanic gasses, and BINGO: reproducing, sustainable DNA-based life, which they will then go on to watch like hawks until, in a few years, it produces a different strain, then eventually a different [waayyyyytttfoooooritttttt....] SPECIES. Oooops, and Oh. My. Gawd! Eh?

"Species" refers to a group of similar organisms which are, generally, reproductively isolated, but have a documentably unique genotype. The first unicellular life types were, indeed, a species, but there was almost unlimited experimentation going on, on an hourly basis. To classify it back then would have driven a taxonomist nutzo.

But after a few thousand years, the really inappropriate types, with poor adaptability or survival techniques (i.e.: adaptable biochemical solutions) failed, and a lot fewer "types" would have settled out and become more predominant. Like us seeing a lot more tiny, funny-looking Honda Civics after the 1970's fuel shortage crisis. A form of socio-economic sorting and adaptation of the "fittest" to be sure. "Whatever works best" becomes the adopted and preferred norm. Sure, a few Caddies still lurched around, but who gave them the time of day in the end?
But I fear you don't know what I am talking about.

Wrong # 7, to which I'll add: "But I fear you don't know what I am talking about."

Sad.

Agreed. V. Sad.

Here, I will try again. (Oh please don't. It makes my head hurt to see formulaic ignorance repeated...)

Suppose you are explaining the origin of the bicycle, do you start from a point in time when bicycle was already available to people, or you start from a point in time when there was no bicycle whatever.

Well, since Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life, this is not a valid, nor even logical, comparison.

Wrong # 8.

Here: I"m going to compress and fade your illogical argument so it takes up less of the space-time continuum.


If you start from a point in time when bicycle was already available to people, then you cannot be calling your explanation of the appearance of the bicycle as the theory of the evolution of the bicycle.So also with the socalled theory of evolution to explain the origin of species.See? I guess not, and it is very sad that you don't or more correctly can't see.Ryrge
I still can't resist: Wrong # 9.

You argue from an apparently preferred position of total ignorance on the subject of Evolution. It's exactly like you showing up at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, CA and assertively tell them they don't understand how to get a rocket off this planet (even though it happens all the time, just like Evolution...), and then you start loudly yelling how sad it is they don't understand, but that the truth is that rotted cabbage juice is the best propellant, and that gravity is not a factor in rocket design, and how " it is very sad that you don't or more correctly can't see".


Yep. That'll work. Give it a try, but please... make sure you get it on video for us all to watch.

Last edited by rifleman; 04-06-2010 at 03:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,691,572 times
Reputation: 12214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
I am saying that the theory of evolution claims to be about the origin of species, but in fact it is not about the origin of species in the sense that before the origin there were no species, but it takes off from already the existence of species.
The theory of evolution is NOT about the origin of life.
The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:
It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.

The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.

Quote:
So, your response is irrelevant and I can't see how you cannot even have any inkling in your head that it is irrelevant.
You must be confused, so you turn to insults?

Quote:
What I can see with the socalled theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of species is that it is nothing about any origin of any species, but all just a lot of words at the end of which still not you and not I and not anyone knows anything about the origin of species, which should mean how from no species species came about.
Again...Evolution is NOT an explanation of the beginning of life. The origin of life (abiogenesis) is an entirely different topic

Quote:
Here is what you should say if you are a proponent of the socalled theory of evolution, that you really don't know the very origin of species, but you are entertaining the idea that when the very first ever one or several species have already started to exist, then how these very ever first species before which there were no species whatsoever gave rise to latter species -- but again you must admit that you really don't know how the ever first species came about.
Why do you insist on talking about abiogenesis, when the topic of this thread is evolution?

Quote:
But I fear you don't know what I am talking about.

Sad.
Actually it is you that seems a bit lost....very sad.



Quote:
Here, I will try again.

Suppose you are explaining the origin of the bicycle, do you start from a point in time when bicycle was already available to people, or you start from a point in time when there was no bicycle whatever.

If you start from a point in time when bicycle was already available to people, then you cannot be calling your explanation of the appearance of the bicycle as the theory of the evolution of the bicycle.
Using your example, lets see if I can explain it so that you can understand....
The bicycle already exists, but over the years it evolves through many small changes until we have a new species....A Harley Davidson motorcycle.
Quote:
So also with the socalled theory of evolution to explain the origin of species.


See? I guess not, and it is very sad that you don't or more correctly can't see.
I see very well thank you. It is you that seems confused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 03:42 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,836 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Using your example, lets see if I can explain it so that you can understand....
The bicycle already exists, but over the years it evolves through many small changes until we have a new species....A Harley Davidson motorcycle.
You could even say that the wheel exists, and that it has become a bicycle, motorcycle, car, plane, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,070,360 times
Reputation: 3717
It's OK at this point to insult him back, san. He's earned it. After all, what if we went back and audited his various pronouncements about scientists and all the others who "don't know what they are talking about"?

I also fear this thread's now like wrestling with a pig in the mud. (You know the rest....

but... one free rep point to anyone who completes the rest of the line about wrestling pigs...)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,691,572 times
Reputation: 12214
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it". George Bernard Shaw ...
Nice, but I like this one too... “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 06:36 PM
 
Location: alabama
200 posts, read 258,758 times
Reputation: 55
I don't really know enough about evolution to argue the issue. But I do have several problems with the way it is presented. This gradual change from one species to another seems to have hit a roadblock during the "cambrian explosion" (I hope i spelled it right). It seems as though a miriad of species just suddenly appeared in the fossile record, and from some of the stuff I have read (not creationist websites) there is little explaination for it.

At first it was thought that soft bodied fossiles did not fossilize because if the soft tissue, but this has been proven false with the fossiles found in the western Canadian rockies.

Can someone enlighten me?.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2010, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,691,572 times
Reputation: 12214
The Cambrian period was not a "sudden explosion". How could it be when it lasted about 50 million years....I don't see why you are troubled by it.

The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that the Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now to be found in the earlier Vendian strata

The Cambrian Period
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top