Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: Raggedyman

You need a real argument sport. When does a creationist need proof?..LOL!

I know as well as anyone reading this thread, your not interested in any evidence or proof. Your shady defense lawyer tactics are worthless in this debate. They only serve as a distraction for the easily dissuaded and offer nothing of substance.

As always.. The creationist proves they are deceivers or believers. We see who you are, making your word and credibility worthless.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton
Evolution does not work by randomly mixing up old parts until a human magically emerges.

Wrong, evolution in theory relies on random mutations. You evolutionists act as if random chance could ever assimilate into the infinitude of complexity involved with say, for example, the human eye. Do you know how long it would take random chance to code for a novel protein that would actually be constructive? The endless synchrony of activity involved in general homeostasis insists that this stuff did not 'evolve' in a piecewise fashion, but rather, it was an all-at-once construct that was given built-in adaptation mechanisms - which the ignorant have confused for proof of evolution.

entropy applies only in a closed or isolated system. The earth gets energy from the sun, so assuming it would become disordered when it is constantly getting new energy is silly.

A system by definition is a complex synchronized construct - (hint: complex synchronized constructs do not self-generate from randomness). Do you think its a coincidence that the earth remains in a consistent orbit? It is like a golfball perpetually twirling around the ring of the cup. Not to mention all the other planets and moons have also reached such an improbable equilibrium. Do you think chaos begets such order? Get real. You can step in line all you want to the mainstream secularist swill, but stop parroting these ideas as if they actually remain sound against any logical scrutiny.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh look, another one of those old chestnuts those who want to say evolution is "impossible" drag out. We have had thermodynamics (specifically the second law) already.

Ok so evolution of the "human eye".


The evolution of eyes has been extensively studied. It is very well understood. This is aided by the fact that every stage of the evolution of the eye is still extant in nature today. Starting with light sensitive cells all the way up to eyes MORE complex than human ones. Couple this with genomic research, it is clear, that YES the human eye can evolve...

You are also assuming that evolution follows the early linear models, when there is evidence that it does not always work that way.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You are also assuming that evolution follows the early linear models, when there is evidence that it does not always work that way.

I'd love to hear you explain a non-linear model while simultaneously explaining how such a model passes the infertility gap between different species. The best defense for the evolutionist is that there is no definitive definition for, well, anything really. Have you teachers of the law decided on a definition for species yet? Or has the semantic ambiguity rendered you complacently smug with indifference regarding genuine truth?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman

You need a real argument sport. When does a creationist need proof?..LOL!

I know as well as anyone reading this thread, your not interested in any evidence or proof. Your shady defense lawyer tactics are worthless in this debate. They only serve as a distraction for the easily dissuaded and offer nothing of substance.

As always.. The creationist proves they are deceivers or believers. We see who you are, making your word and credibility worthless.

So is your complete lack of evidence, sport

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

The science has been repeatedly posted in this thread. You repeatedly have chosen not to acknowledge it. Thus one can only assume, that you would not know science if it bit you.

Again you confuse my religion (Gaelic hard polytheistic practices) with my job (science).

Assumption and belief, its not science

Post some up, let me tear it down in minutes

I am keen to play the game, why wont you

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

So you admit to Ad Hominem tactics for your arguments, finally. You just capitulated. Good game, shame you were not up to the task.

Now onto the science of evolution. Please indicate in a clear and concise matter where science is thrown out of the window. It is most certainly not thrown out of the window neighbor. Every single published piece of research is held to the same standards as every other scientific publication.

You again seem to be confused that every single scientist is NOT an atheist. A great many of those who have worked in the field are religious people. Myself included. You will of course ignore this, or dismiss it, as you can not change with the evidence. Thus why you attack science.

Ad Hominems?

Get out the supposed scientific evidence, stop asking me to box shadows

You post the papers I will belittle them

a reply to: Akragon

Come on AK, science has been practiced for thousands of years

The word not existing does not mean science and people studying science didnt

Thats foolish, utter foolishness

a reply to: cooperton

Neighbor, why is it that those who try to discredit evolution and science, hang onto outdated models and definitions? Why do you not actually make an effort? Is it too hard? Is it scary?

The idea of evolution is uni linear has been discredited for decades. Indeed certain versions of this idea had a name, orthogenesis, which was a form of neo-Lamarckism in a lot of ways.

You seem to be another of these people who does not understand that science changes with the evidence. This is why the term evolutionist is nonsensical, the definition of evolutionist involves belief, belief does not change with evidence, it remains the same. SO I can only conclude that science, actually being science (eventual basis of ideas) is something you can not understand.

So define "genuine truth" for us. If it involves anything closely resembling gnosis, you loose

a reply to: Raggedyman

The evidence has been posted in several places in this thread. I'm not posting mine again, just because you can not or will not acknowledge it. Papers were posted, you ignored them.

Ad Hominem attacks, you know "We don't attack science just the credibility of the scientists". Attack the person, not the argument, is the very definition of an Ad Hominem attack. A logical fallacy. Thus you have just admitted, you can not attack the science. Just try to attack the people. God Job, take your ball, go home neighbour

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Neighbor, why is it that those who try to discredit evolution and science, hang onto outdated models and definitions? Why do you not actually make an effort? Is it too hard? Is it scary?

The idea of evolution is uni linear has been discredited for decades. Indeed certain versions of this idea had a name, orthogenesis, which was a form of neo-Lamarckism in a lot of ways.

You seem to be another of these people who does not understand that science changes with the evidence. This is why the term evolutionist is nonsensical, the definition of evolutionist involves belief, belief does not change with evidence, it remains the same. SO I can only conclude that science, actually being science (eventual basis of ideas) is something you can not understand.

How do you manage to say nothing relevant in three paragraphs? I never said it was unilinear, its obviously multilinear - hence the "tree of life".

The theoretical tree of life involves branching linear progressions, otherwise the theoretical barrier between species would be completely erroneous.

So define "genuine truth" for us. If it involves anything closely resembling gnosis, you loose

Gnosis, meaning knowledge, would be a good place for anyone to start regarding the search for truth. It is ironic that you are mocking knowledge.

a reply to: cooperton

Actually neighbor gnosis means more than "knowledge". Intellectual knowledge is eidein, spiritual knowledge is gnosis. Gnosis relies solely on belief, while eidein relies on evidence. If you can in some way incorporate both, I'd be willing to listen, but if you stick to just the belief based knowledge, be it a shared or personal gnosis, it is not "genuine" beyond those who believe it, and can thus be countered with a competing gnosis. I'm a polytheist, thus my gnosis is the gods are many, a monotheist is not going to agree with that, thus there are two competing, but unprovable gnoses, and never the twain shall meet.

I said several relevant things, you just don't understand them apparently. As someone who has constructed phylogenetic diagrams (aka tree of life for you) from genomes, I think I might just understand them a tad more

Something rather interesting that is both science and points to one creator is the 64 letter alphabet that is the instruction set for all dna called codons...
Something else that is rather tell tale about the desperation of evolutionists is that they have to turn the table to creation and faith...
as if it is some sort of counter claim...
when in reality evolution has nothing at all to do with creation...
However no form of evolution could ever transpire without creation...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Just playing devils advocate, and not a scientist here. How does that point to a singular creator, and not say many? I am not going to talk to the science of that (and how it proves no such thing, or that the alphabet is really 4 or 5 letters long, not 64, as the code is made up of the nucleic acids of DNA/RNAco). But rather lets assume hypothetically there was a divine creation. Why singular, and not a group? You cna not extrapolate a single being from codons, any more than you can exclude many, or none.

a reply to: Noinden

Well I'd have to say it's like a finger print or a signature on a work of art...
If you and I or everyone set out with a similar assignment we are given a piece of paper and crayons and told to create a language that can not be based on any other language and that the alphabet for the language has to range from 5 to 100 characters. And for any of the languages to be the same they would have to be the same characters same order same amount and the same color none would be identical...
I wouldn't create something and sign your name or vise versa I would be taking the credit for myself...
So if there were more than one I'm sure they would have done something original to show a clear separation from the other...
DNA does not indicate this it shows the language is the same for all things...
What is more if we want to alter or create new things ourselves with DNA... We are forced to do so with this language that is provided by the creator...
Any other attempt is like speaking gibberish or using incompatible software it just will not compute and the results will be fruitless...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Come on AK, science has been practiced for thousands of years

The word not existing does not mean science and people studying science didnt

Thats foolish, utter foolishness

Foolishness eh...

How is it that you accept science before the dawn of what is considered "modern science" where things are testable and provable, yet refuse to accept it in an age where we can see distant galaxies, and the very smallest aspects of the physical world?

Almost as if you seem to believe the people of the past know more then we do now?

a reply to: Akragon

Let me reiterate

To say science didnt exist till the word existed is foolishness, as foolish as staring and flagging gnosisfaith

but whatever floats your boat

and I wont answer the other foolish question

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

The evidence has been posted in several places in this thread. I'm not posting mine again, just because you can not or will not acknowledge it. Papers were posted, you ignored them.

Ad Hominem attacks, you know "We don't attack science just the credibility of the scientists". Attack the person, not the argument, is the very definition of an Ad Hominem attack. A logical fallacy. Thus you have just admitted, you can not attack the science. Just try to attack the people. God Job, take your ball, go home neighbour

and i have explained why its not evidence but a faith statement

I will happily attack the pseudo science if you post it

How can I attack unexplained science
How can I attack what is not known

Ok I will attack the scientist theory, post your best

I am already at home

a reply to: Raggedyman

Of course you won't... Just like you won't answer anyone elses questions that happen actually make sense in this thread...

unlike myself, there are people that actually know and understand "science" in this thread... and all you do is mock what they tell you...

You even said it yourself above... and i quote

You post the papers I will belittle them

so... as usual i will just back away from your nonsense... and let the wolves have at you

though keep in mind, your credibility is all but gone...

this thread should be closed... its pointless

a reply to: Akragon

Oh woe is you, someone disagrees

In fact I love science, hold it to test
Unlike others who need science to comfort them, need science to justify them.

Unlike others who manipulate science to sustain them, I am happy to question it.

My opinion, you hate science, it abhors you, you deny it. Transfer your own beliefs onto science to justify your beliefs.

Hate that anyone would question your sacred cows

You need science to justify your gnosticism, to hate God, to live your life the way you want

But lets not play that game, I ask for evidence