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.
Yawn. No one uses "Darwin" when debating evolution in 2013. You just outed yourself.
Oh, a different tactic ... how refreshing compared to the worn out "you obviously don't understand what evolution is" which is NEVER followed by an explanation correcting my misunderstanding. So Darwin is so ... yesterday, huh? Tell me what are the major differences between Darwinian Evolution and Modernized 2013 Evolution? Please do enlighten me, so that I can free myself from this antiquated nonsense ... maybe your version of evolution will make more sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Evolution isn't the origin of life, it is the mechanism. You whole argument is basically we don't know everything so we don't know anything. How convenient.
No .. my whole argument is extremely simple, and straight forward. Creation theory suggests that God created life. Intelligent design suggests that the complexity of a living cell and DNA shows clear signs of intelligent design, without actually attempting to identify any specific designer. Evolutionists claim that both theories are myths and have been disproved by evolution (the darwinian version or any other you might care to embrace). My point is, evolutionists are either deceptive little double talkers, or they are as dumb as a box of rocks, because you can't disprove the origin of life with a theory that doesn't even address it.
A very simple point of pure logic ... yet still none of you are willing to admit that evolution does not disprove either creation or intelligent design. You just do what you always do, tap dance and distort.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Oh, a different tactic ... how refreshing compared to the worn out "you obviously don't understand what evolution is" which is NEVER followed by an explanation correcting my misunderstanding. So Darwin is so ... yesterday, huh? Tell me what are the major differences between Darwinian Evolution and Modernized 2013 Evolution? Please do enlighten me, so that I can free myself from this antiquated nonsense ... maybe your version of evolution will make more sense to me.
No .. my whole argument is extremely simple, and straight forward. Creation theory suggests that God created life. Intelligent design suggests that the complexity of a living cell and DNA shows clear signs of intelligent design, without actually attempting to identify any specific designer. Evolutionists claim that both theories are myths and have been disproved by evolution (the darwinian version or any other you might care to embrace). My point is, evolutionists are either deceptive little double talkers, or they are as dumb as a box of rocks, because you can't disprove the origin of life with a theory that doesn't even address it.
A very simple point of pure logic ... yet still none of you are willing to admit that evolution does not disprove either creation or intelligent design. You just do what you always do, tap dance and distort.
Answer a question
Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis, and theory and do you understand what it takes for it to get from one to the other ?
Good grief, get an education already...Evolution and science has no agenda, but bio-genesis can and does shoot your fairy tale down...Too bad if that threatens you.
This coming from someone who OBVIOUSLY can't even bother to look up the definition of biogenesis or spell it correctly.
Apparently your education is lacking in that biogenesis is life from existing life .... Omne vivum ex vivo. How that could possibly "shoot down my fairytale" could only be reconciled by a dysfunctional mind. The correct term (and concept) applicable to your argument is abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, or life from non living matter.
What a turn of events .... not only must I now explain my argument to you, but I have to explain yours to you too? Incredible! What a genius.
Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis, and theory and do you understand what it takes for it to get from one to the other ?
Sent from my Nexus 4
No, you answer my question. There is already an established agreement that evolution is a theory ... but you would be correct in your insinuation that technically, it is woefully lacking in the criteria to call itself a theory, if that was your point? Oh wait ... I get it now .... you're insinuating that creation and intelligent design are lacking the evidence to be called theories ... forgive me ... I'm just a little slow.
As I keep saying, but apparently falls on deaf ears ... I'm not a creationist .... I don't believe in fairytales, which is why I also don't believe that you are a monkey's uncle, even if some of you evolutionists do skin your knuckles when walking.
But if you want to believe that Mt Rushmore was a product of natural erosion ... well, it's a free country .. and you have a right to remain .... you know ...
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
No, you answer my question. There is already an established agreement that evolution is a theory ... but you would be correct in your insinuation that technically, it is woefully lacking in the criteria to call itself a theory, if that was your point? Oh wait ... I get it now .... you're insinuating that creation and intelligent design are lacking the evidence to be called theories ... forgive me ... I'm just a little slow.
As I keep saying, but apparently falls on deaf ears ... I'm not a creationist .... I don't believe in fairytales, which is why I also don't believe that you are a monkey's uncle, even if some of you evolutionists do skin your knuckles when walking.
But if you want to believe that Mt Rushmore was a product of natural erosion ... well, it's a free country .. and you have a right to remain .... you know ...
It is clear you have no idea of the scientific process. You throw words like theory around using the secular not the scientific context. In other words you truly have no idea how to stage your argument except in the most banal lay perspective.
You really don't know the difference between a hypothesis and theory do you?
Wow, never have I seen so many on one thread committing intellectual suicide. One thinks Darwin invented evolution, many don't have a clue what a scientific theory means, others think biology and evolution are not related, still others don't know the difference between evolution and bio-genesis, yet another thinks the history channel airs facts and is not just entertainment....
I can only conclude that the state of education in the US is in dire straits if so many people put ID (creationism) and evolution on equal footing...ID is based on myths...Evolution is science backed up by shed loads of evidence.
Congratulations .... this could win the Guinness Book of World Records if they had a category of the most idiotic nonsense packed into three sentences, albeit a couple of run-on ones.
First, I haven't noticed anyone claim that Darwin "invented" evolution ... but he did invent the theory of "Origin of the Species", and is hence recognized as a type of father of evolution, and is usually the main figure attributed to modern day evolutionary theory. I think you're a little confused here .. or just splitting hairs.
Secondly, I've addressed your error in mistaking biogenesis for abiogenesis, so see that correction previously. Moving on to the confusion you suffer, mixing and matching ID with Creationism, part of that may be a natural result of some intrinsic overlap, but I've already explained that too. A creationist would necessarily believe in the concept of intelligent design unless they thought their God was not intelligent, which is unlikely. On the other hand, there is no default link going the other way ... those who subscribe to Intelligent Design may have no interest or belief in religion or God. Intelligent design is simply the recognition of the undeniable elements of complexity of life which demonstrates clear characteristics of purposeful design ... the designer could be a deity, or could be some esoteric consciousness that is part of the natural universe. Gasp .... it could even be a universal, inbuilt mechanism of evolutionary processes that exist as a physical law, just like gravity and energy exist ... you don't consider gravity a fairytale, do you?
I'll let you chew on this for a while .... I don't wish to over tax you.
This coming from someone who OBVIOUSLY can't even bother to look up the definition of biogenesis or spell it correctly.
Apparently your education is lacking in that biogenesis is life from existing life .... Omne vivum ex vivo. How that could possibly "shoot down my fairytale" could only be reconciled by a dysfunctional mind. The correct term (and concept) applicable to your argument is abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, or life from non living matter.
What a turn of events .... not only must I now explain my argument to you, but I have to explain yours to you too? Incredible! What a genius.
Wow, a grammer and spelling genius...I guess this is the first time you have ever seen anyone make a typing error... Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation genius.....Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.
Abiogenesis is a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds or chemicals.
It is clear you have no idea of the scientific process. You throw words like theory around using the secular not the scientific context. In other words you truly have no idea how to stage your argument except in the most banal lay perspective.
You really don't know the difference between a hypothesis and theory do you?
Sent from my Nexus 4
Clearly you will not answer my simple question, and I knew you wouldn't. It would expose you and your ilk as the frauds you are.
Secondly ... you apparently aren't a whiz kid when it comes to the English language and definition of terms, so I'd refrain from questioning other's command of the language, if I were you. For your information, "secular" means something that has no religious or spiritual basis, which is the exact opposite of what you were trying to attribute to by position. Science is Secular, or it is supposed to be ... though the modern day physical matter science is at least as dogmatic and reliant on deception and myth as any religion in history.
Thirdly, those hostile to the theory of Intelligent Design do not get to dismiss it by claiming it lacks the qualities to call itself a theory. That would be extremely convenient I'm sure, but "I don't thin so lucy". (this is one of my favorite little humor items for you evolutionists ... you do get it dunt you lucy?)
Yeah sure why not? We're already falling behind on education, why not go all the way and make it final? Time to pass to the torch to the Chinese and Indians.
Congratulations .... this could win the Guinness Book of World Records if they had a category of the most idiotic nonsense packed into three sentences, albeit a couple of run-on ones.
The best I could hope for is runner up, genius.
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.
So Darwin is so ... yesterday, huh? Tell me what are the major differences between Darwinian Evolution and Modernized 2013 Evolution? Please do enlighten me, so that I can free myself from this antiquated nonsense ... maybe your version of evolution will make more sense to me.
