Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry man...

thats out of my scope of knowledge on the topic...

And anything put forward would only be theoretical...

We don't know how consciousness happened...

No kidding ak, well done to you, plenty of others around here cant admit that simple statement, to much pride

Gnosis, the secret knowledge hasnt revealed it to you yet?

Atheists bitch and moan if anyone suggests even flippantly that mankind evolved from fish and monkeys, yet "We don't know how consciousness happened..." Isnt an issue to anyone who believes in what I can only see as the religion of evolution

Finaly AK is starting to understand the thread, 50 odd pages from the first post "We don't know how consciousness happened..."
But hell and hatred if you say we are descended from monkeys and fish

AK you have nothing to offer but calling people names, theoretical nonsense, half way to being an evolution biological scientist, just missing a white coat and pocket protector

Well done to you

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again... Calling people names isn't my usual conduct

this particular person is "special" though... lol

I was actually sitting in an extremely strict church while watching this... surrounded by like minded people who applauded everything he said...

Funny thing was at the end everyone just walked out silently... I think even they knew he humiliated himself

it was painful...

Chances are you won't be able to watch the whole thing... its pretty long, but feel free

Dear old dumb Kent Hovind schooling some lecturers in the failures of evolution

www.youtube.com...

The dumb creationist making 3 renown evolutionary scholars look like they evolved from monkeys or fish

3 against 1 and all three look like they havnt a single clue what to do or say

I am embarrassed for these scholars, they look like helpless children

I expect all three should have been sacked for stupidity

I should get a list of Hovind schooling academics, he was a thrill to watch
No wonder Dawkins and Hitching didnt have the courage to debate him.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour you confuse the start of life with the change in life. Every post yoiu make illustrates that this is a logical flaw of yours.

a reply to: Noinden

Please go read the scientifically accepted link from new scientists that I linked explaining how science calls abiogenesis evolution

Then go argue with new scientist the magazine for and from scientists

Having a sook at me is not going to change what's written by scientists

You call me confused

a reply to: Raggedyman

Truth is no-one actually knows - its all speculation and opinionated.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

Yeah it is and so is evolution

I don't see why religion and science are so different. Two sides of the same coin. Some of us are looking at one side others are on the other side. I can believe the Big Bang theory as a Christian especially after sitting in on a lecture on it at a well known college. I just can't get behind the whole random dumb luck. If you put an outside force acting to get things going I can totally get behind it.

I can read and science that proves creatures on this planet have changed and evolved. It doesn't challenge my faith in a creator at all. It encourages it. If a program that someone creates isn't functioning optimally the creator changes things so it is more functional. Species don't evolve overnight. From my very limited understanding at least, it takes time and usually one oddball to launch it. A first case. Patient Zero. I am not completely sure how to describe it scientifically because as I said I only have a basic understanding.

That however is my two cents on the matter. Off to read some other threads now!

Cheers

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Abiogenesis is evolution, see the above link by new scientists

Newscientist isn't a peer reviewed journal, they host articles about science that are often dumbed down for folks that don't understand the technicalities. Abiogenesis could be described as chemical evolution, not biological evolution (theory of modern synthesis)l. Biological evolution requires genetic mutations. You can't have genetic mutations without DNA.

Abiogenesis describes the emergence of the first self replicating RNA/DNA molecule and how it could have happened. Obviously there's much more to learn in that area. But biological evolution is absolutely slam dunk proven. Your problem is you equate the 2 fields as equal when they are not. Evolution as a word has multiple meanings and you are using the layman's term to try to debunk the scientific term. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work like that.

Atheists dont believe in God, though they can believe in the force? Aliens who crated us? what ever isnt God evidently?
Thats just soft reasoning, you just push the question back, where did the force come from, aliens, whatever you want to believe.

Like I said, atheists can believe in anything they want to, provided it doesn't include god. That isn't soft reasoning, that's a fact. All atheism means is lack of belief in god. That doesn't mean they can't believe in other things.

I know this is difficult to understand since you come from a religious background, but not everybody needs to make up an answer to everything they don't understand. Some simply admit that we don't know the answer. Some insert answers that make them feel comfortable (god). Some wait for proof. That's the crowd I'm in.

So Barcs, you believe that a supernatural entity, identity created life.

No. I do not believe that. You said "the supernatural" which can refer to almost anything unknown, not just god and ghosts.

Unless you dont believe that and lack the courage to actually tell the truth, are scared to say "I dont know"

I've already said numerous times that I don't know the answer to the origin of life. Now if only you had that same courage instead of blindly believing ancient god myths as literal truth. Are you scared to say, "I don't know"? It sure seems like it.

Atheists bitch and moan if anyone suggests even flippantly that mankind evolved from fish and monkeys, yet "We don't know how consciousness happened..." Isnt an issue to anyone who believes in what I can only see as the religion of evolution

Those 2 statements are not related. We do not know how consciousness emerged exactly but there are some ideas. It's not just atheists that agree with evolution, STOP PIGEONHOLING THEM. People that understand evolution get annoyed when you straw man the theory of evolution and equate it to stardust and dirt, yes, because it has nothing to do with that.

Evolution also has nothing to do with atheism. You need to step down off the pedestal, you aren't above anybody, your arguments rely on fallacies and this thread has already been proven to be nothing more than an attack on atheists. Your confidence in your belief system must be dwindling because threads like this are a complete waste of time when you don't understand the science being discussed. Instead of attacking what you don't understand, take some time to understand the opposing position. When you make a straw man thread specifically designed to attack a certain group of people, you have already failed and hurt your cause.

a reply to: Raggedyman

New Scientist is not a peer reviewed magazine. Evolution, by definition is the change of life, and as a consequence it must first exist. Abiogenesis/proteogensis is first life, and thus it can not involve evolution. You are weak in logic.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Raggedyman

Truth is no-one actually knows - its all speculation and opinionated.

Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.

originally posted by: Cypress

Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.

Objectively define species. Objectively define evolution. You can't.

True objective fact would be, for example, E = mc^2; we repeatedly observe this equivalence through experimentation. There's no ambiguity, no semantics, just facts. Evolution fails to establish such a concrete objective truth.

a reply to: cooperton

You seem to be confusing the physical sciences with the life sciences neighbour. Objectivity involve the lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Not equations. Nice try. No cigar.

New scientist isn't peer reviewed, you would eat your own children

Amazing

The truth, you can't handle the truth


Biological evolution is a 99% blatant lie
Micro evolution, there is no evidence for anything else

You can't build evolution without a foundation, you can't have evolution without life, you can't have humanity without conscience and emotion, you have no evidence for it, you have nothing, not a drop of evidence at all, no proof, just a few meager bones and imaginings from men who need peer reviewed papers, peer reviews because they have no evidence, peer reviews because they need to justify amongst themselves their stupid guesses

"I have no evidence, let's have a guess, let's call it a peer review and then it's still a guess but we can say it's more than a guess because a few agree it's a good guess"

That's very silly, very silly indeed

A peer review is nothing more than a group of individuals who agree that a person made a really really really good guess

Think about it

a reply to: Raggedyman

How is it eating "our own children"? The difference between a journal and a magazine is that a magazine like New Scientist will have non scientists writing for them. It will not follow the rules of science, and thus may make mistakes in reporting. A journal will peer review the hell out of anything it publishes, and recant on a publication proven to be spurious.

New Scientist is written for the masses, just as popular mechanics is not an engineering journal.

Another hint, it would be unlikely that any thesis, paper, or such would cite New Scientist. As it does not follow the strict requirements of being a reliable source.

But again it returns to you (and others) not getting that HOW life started, does NOT have to be related to HOW life changes. They don't have to be linked. They are separate operations. A Pastry chief does not have to be a farmer, or miller, etc who knows how to get all the ingredients grown and processed.

You also continue to not understand science, and now illustrate that you don't understand what peer review is.

originally posted by:
]

I was of the same opinion, I didn't have an issue with evolution.

I was challenged one day about some pre conceived thoughts

Go watch some Kent Hovind videos, be challenged

There is a reason so many people around here hate Kent Hovind, why while many tv evangelists rip millions of dollars of people they are allowed to get away with it, why Kent Hovind went to prison for tax evasion and those wealthy businessmen who have just been outed will never face prosecution.

Kent Hovind is a thorn in the side of the devil, the world hates his message, hates his stand for God

Go watch a few Kent Hovind DVDs, they are on youtube

Bill Nigh, what a joke, he would not have the courage to be in the same room as Kent Hovind

That would be like watching a Heavy weight against a little girl in the boxing ring

Ok lets lay it out right here

Raggedy man, you continue to make the comment that "Biological evolution is a 99% blatant lie " and "Micro evolution, there is no evidence for anything else " (despite evidence being posted repeatedly here)

Prove it.

Don't use rhetoric. Use evidence. Otherwise, you are the one who is a blatant (and biased) liar.

Oh and drop the "atheists this" and "atheists that". Science is not the preview of atheists. Evolution is science.

a reply to: Raggedyman

So this Kent Hovind? The one who has an ongoing series of legal problems?

Yeah he's trustworthy

a reply to: Noinden

Biological evolution is a blatant lie, it's a fallacy, go watch some Kent Hovind if you want evidence, you have no intention of listening to me

You atheists hate the fact that you can't control people's thoughts, can't brainwash everyone
You atheists hate that people don't worship your gods and follow your religion

Sorry noinden, I figure you may be an adult, go do adult things like study, learn, use you knowledge to expand your mind
Don't just study what you believe, study what you don't believe, learn to understand, you brainwash yourself

a reply to: Raggedyman

No no no, I said no rhetoric. I've seen Mr Hovind, and I've seen him repeatedly destroyed.. But that is not evidence, as he gets debunked repeatedly.

No list the evidence, your self.

Also do not imply things about me either, with out being able to prove them Ad Hominem are an indication of your defeat.