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.
I know you think you can just DECLARE what truth is to suit your position ... but you cannot.
Guy... remember the first rule of holes. Stop digging. To this point you have proven incapable of making a single affirmative statement regarding the science of biological evolution that bears any resemblance to the actual thing.
Not your bananas and stockbrokers, and not your insertion of abiogenesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Abiogenisis ... or life from non living material is firmly seated in the evolution model .... and certainly finds no roots from an Intelligent Design or Creation standpoint.
Abiogenesis has exactly nothing to do with evolution and never has... just as the genesis of chemical elements has exactly nothing to do with chemistry and never has. But what demonstrates the greatest pathos in your assertion otherwise is that it is a bone not even worth throwing. Abiogenesis is not only irrelevant to evolution, it is irrelevant to creationism as well.
I have debated creationists for more than thirty years, to include a few of the big ones; Duane Gish, Walter T. Brown and the late A.E. Wilder-Smith. For all of them the driving detail of evolution that was unacceptable was the origin of human beings. They eventually conceded almost all of neo-Darwinism to be demonstrably true... to include conceding that speciation has been observed to occur, and allowing for vast amounts of morphological change among non-human animals. In fact, they adopted neo-Darwinism as their own explanation for how Noah got all those animals on the Ark... asserting that most species alive today evolved after the deluge.
But it is the evolution of humans that drives them crazy. This is, of course, entirely for religious reasons mostly having to do with dependence on a "fall of man" to provide a rationale for the salvation scheme that culminates in Jesus's crucifixion. Without an actual Adam and Eve neither Christianity nor Islam (the two creationist faiths) make much sense.
So even were I to arguendo concede that the first living thing was created by an "Intelligent Designer"... the creationist conundrum is untouched. Humans still evolved from apes. There still was no Adam or Eve. There still was no fall. There still was no need for a savior.
I do not care if this is your personal theology or not... the irrelevancy of abiogenesis to evolution remains. No matter how the first living thing arose, all life on this planet ever since has evolved from that original form or forms by a process of descent with modification that is explained best (and to the exclusion of either creationism or ID) by the "modern synthesis" of Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics.
Let me stress that again:
No matter how the first living thing arose, all life on this planet ever since has evolved from that original form or forms by a process of descent with modification that is explained best (and to the exclusion of either creationism or ID) by the "modern synthesis" of Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics.
And since you cannot argue with this, you run away completely and try to change the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The facts are, "Abiogenisis" is CHEMICAL EVOLUTION.
But not biological evolution. And so it has nothing to with the evolution and creationism/ID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Moreover, Darwin himself in writings spoke of a primeval soup from which life may have emerged through natural processes. Though he didn't delve into that in his "Origin of Species", that doesn't disconnect him or his theories from the subject.
He wrote about a lot of things. Not all of them had to do with evolution. See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
From the moment Darwin's evolution model was embraced, evolutionists have tried to recreate the process of abiogenisis to complete the natural cycle ... since speciation relies on "natural selection" and natural selection requires a self replicating organism to function, that formation of the first replicating cell is essential to complete the model of naturalist biology.
Now you're just making stuff up. Worse, you're assigning the origin of research into abiogenesis to the wrong guys.
Abiogenesis (in the form of spontaneous generation) was excepted without objection for all of human history until the 17th century. It took another two centuries for Pasteur to drive the nail into the coffin of its original form.
You will note (I hope) that Darwin and Pasteur were essentially contemporaries. So how you manage to blame Darwin for a set of ideas that is as old as mankind is... well... typical of the goofy things you contribute to almost every thread you join.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The discovery of DNA in the 1950's pretty much sunk abiogenisis theory as the nature of DNA was unraveled ... like the question of which came first, the Chicken or the Egg, DNA poses a similar dichotomy since DNA requires proteins for it's construction, and protein is constructed by instructions contained in the DNA.
Look up research into the "rNA world." This neatly tackles the "chicken and egg" problem that you pose, yet which even then you manage to get completely wrong.
Given your apparent vacuum of understanding of the current state of abiogenesis research, we can comfortably snip the rest of error filled and fictional descriptions of the work.
It is no less a straw man than bananas evolving into jewelers.
Abiogenisis ... or life from non living material is firmly seated in the evolution model .... and certainly finds no roots from an Intelligent Design or Creation standpoint.
No, it is not. Abiogenesis is about creation of life, evolution is about evolution of life forms. Giving you a benefit of doubt, is your opposition to evolution solely on the premise of creation? Or the claim that there is no such thing as evolution?
The existence of ghosts has nothing to do with creation or evolution.
This is a thread masquerading as an excuse to argue evolution or creation.
When threads like these pop up the original focus of the thread gets lost which is questioning the existence of ghosts with regard to altering the view of evolution or creation - then it all goes to hell with people arguing about evolution or creation, Darwin and God.
The existence of ghosts has nothing to do with creation or evolution.
This is a thread masquerading as an excuse to argue evolution or creation.
When threads like these pop up the original focus of the thread gets lost which is questioning the existence of ghosts with regard to altering the view of evolution or creation - then it all goes to hell with people arguing about evolution or creation, Darwin and God.
Supported many times, and documented as clearly as can be. It's already been addressed many times, the fraudulent manufacturing of "evidence" to fill in the "missing links" ..... i.e. ........You have some "Splainin'" to do L U C Y
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
This statement evidences a serious misunderstanding of evolution. How can you denigrate that which you obviously do not understand?
No, it is a metaphor for bananas and stock brokers having the same ancient parent organism, which is equally absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Then how do you explain its widespread acceptance, and the utter lack of a competing scientific theory?
You are willfully ignorant. There's really no excuse for that.
First, do you understand what a "Lemming" refers to in the metaphorical sense? You know, there is an old saying that "if everyone is thinking the same thing, somebody isn't thinking". Wide spread acceptance is the LAST reason one should accept a belief, as history has proven over and over again that popularity very often has an inverse relationship with truth. More bluntly ... accepting popular belief is the abdication of one's own responsibility for thinking. Intelligence is demonstrated by thinking one's OWN thoughts ... not someone else's. Education, on the other hand is the process of memorizing someone else's thoughts and opinions.
Consequently, it is your refusal to think for yourself that has you embracing a belief that relies on knowledge that only offers the first layer of the onion, which explains why you cannot grasp the fraudulent nature of that belief. This is why you keep arguing someone else's nonsensical points, presenting their nonsensical evidence in support of it ... all the while calling me ignorant. This is the epitome of stupidity ... as ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge ... while stupidity thumbs it's nose at new, more legitimate information, and dismisses any information that conflicts with the existing belief. Such a mentality guarantees that you will be no smarter or more knowledgeable than you were yesterday, or last week, or 10 years ago.
You're probably also unaware of the fact that Darwin was a plagiarist, and that the majority of his theory was developed from reading the materials of Edward Blyth, published in 1835, long before Darwin presented HIS theories, which were not Darwin's at all. Darwin gave no credit to Blyth, but did make some significant "alterations" to Blyth's realistic assessments and observations, such as the part about "Speciation" which Blyth rejected entirely. That "speciation" is in totality, the foundation of Darwinian NONSENSE, and is an important aside, no?
Read and become more knowledgeable before continuing to make a monkey out of yourself by calling me ignorant (that's another euphemism, BTW, since this is YOUR strong contention here ... that you are indeed an evolved monkey. The originator of the theory of natural selection, Blyth, would not agree that you are a monkey, and neither do I. You should set your personal bar higher, and agree with us)
But, since this is America, if believing yourself to be an evolved monkey helps you along your path of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you have a right to be a monkey. By the same token, others have a right not to follow you, no matter how much company you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Ah yes, the anti-intellectual comes shining through...
Let me guess, resentful of people more educated than you are?
Indeed.
And just what would you know of such things? Hmmm? I'm specifically referring to both intellectuality in general, or my education level? You know as much about the former as you do the latter.
There are two choices here .... you can be a member of the human race of which there are many who demonstrate magnificent intellectual capacity as well as others not so gifted, or you can be a highly educated monkey that thinks someone else's thoughts.
I've never been particularly fond of bananas, nor am I jealous of well trained monkeys.
Supported many times, and documented as clearly as can be. It's already been addressed many times, the fraudulent manufacturing of "evidence" to fill in the "missing links" ..... i.e. ........You have some "Splainin'" to do L U C Y
Supported many times, and documented as clearly as can be. It's already been addressed many times, the fraudulent manufacturing of "evidence" to fill in the "missing links" ..... i.e. ........You have some "Splainin'" to do L U C Y
Already done, and it was pearls before swine with you.
No amount of evidence will convince you, because your position has no basis in fact or logic, as HD has spent considerable time proving on more than one thread on this topic.
And he's right. You lost this argument long before you started it. Over and over again you prove that you really do not understand evolution in the first place.
Enjoy playing with your straw man.
Quote:
No, it is a metaphor for bananas and stock brokers having the same ancient parent organism, which is equally absurd.
Why?
Quote:
First, do you understand what a "Lemming" refers to in the metaphorical sense? You know, there is an old saying that "if everyone is thinking the same thing, somebody isn't thinking". Wide spread acceptance is the LAST reason one should accept a belief, as history has proven over and over again that popularity very often has an inverse relationship with truth. More bluntly ... accepting popular belief is the abdication of one's own responsibility for thinking. Intelligence is demonstrated by thinking one's OWN thoughts ... not someone else's. Education, on the other hand is the process of memorizing someone else's thoughts and opinions.
Which would be true, except for all that evidence you choose to ignore.
Oops.
Quote:
Consequently, it is your refusal to think for yourself that has you embracing a belief that relies on knowledge that only offers the first layer of the onion, which explains why you cannot grasp the fraudulent nature of that belief. This is why you keep arguing someone else's nonsensical points, presenting their nonsensical evidence in support of it ... all the while calling me ignorant. This is the epitome of stupidity ... as ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge ... while stupidity thumbs it's nose at new, more legitimate information, and dismisses any information that conflicts with the existing belief. Such a mentality guarantees that you will be no smarter or more knowledgeable than you were yesterday, or last week, or 10 years ago.
Blather. I see your opponents making sense, and you engaging in blather.
Quote:
You're probably also unaware of the fact that Darwin was a plagiarist, and that the majority of his theory was developed from reading the materials of Edward Blyth, published in 1835, long before Darwin presented HIS theories, which were not Darwin's at all. Darwin gave no credit to Blyth, but did make some significant "alterations" to Blyth's realistic assessments and observations, such as the part about "Speciation" which Blyth rejected entirely. That "speciation" is in totality, the foundation of Darwinian NONSENSE, and is an important aside, no?
You are very bad at guessing and even worse at science.
Also, even if it were true, it's completely irrelevant to the validity of evolution. If anything, it bolsters it.
Quote:
Read and become more knowledgeable before continuing to make a monkey out of yourself by calling me ignorant (that's another euphemism, BTW, since this is YOUR strong contention here ... that you are indeed an evolved monkey. The originator of the theory of natural selection, Blyth, would not agree that you are a monkey, and neither do I. You should set your personal bar higher, and agree with us)
You are clearly ignorant of the science of evolution, and this has been pointed out many, many times on this thread and others.
Quote:
But, since this is America, if believing yourself to be an evolved monkey helps you along your path of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you have a right to be a monkey. By the same token, others have a right not to follow you, no matter how much company you have.
You certainly have the right to be wrong, and you exercise it every day on this board!
Quote:
And just what would you know of such things? Hmmm? I'm specifically referring to both intellectuality in general, or my education level? You know as much about the former as you do the latter.
I think we know all we need to know about your intellectual qualifications.
Quote:
There are two choices here .... you can be a member of the human race of which there are many who demonstrate magnificent intellectual capacity as well as others not so gifted, or you can be a highly educated monkey that thinks someone else's thoughts.
Or you could be both.
Quote:
I've never been particularly fond of bananas, nor am I jealous of well trained monkeys.
You should be.
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.
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.
