What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: edmc^2

Look at these 2 guys trying to discuss a topic they know zero about. That is hilarious. This is like watching 3rd graders try to refute calculus. By all means carry on, I'm going to get the popcorn.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

Look at these 2 guys trying to discuss a topic they know zero about. That is hilarious. This is like watching 3rd graders try to refute calculus. By all means carry on, I'm going to get the popcorn.

Bummer. Another nonsensical diatribe from Mr. genius. I hope you have enough popcorn because is not only calculus were discussing but integral equation.

In any case, I think it's the other way around, you're the one who keeps saying you don't know exactly how evolution occurred.

originally posted by: edmc^2
In any case, I think it's the other way around, you're the one who keeps saying you don't know exactly how evolution occurred.

Where have I ever said that? Scientists know exactly how evolution occurs. It is you that does not.

For God's sake make America intelligent again.

a reply to: Barcs

Once again, these luddites confuse evolution, with how life started. Its the same blasted argument every time.

(a) Explain how evolution occurs, with evidence
(b) Get told "but evolution needs to include how life first occured".
(c) head desk.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

Once again, these luddites confuse evolution, with how life started. Its the same blasted argument every time.

(a) Explain how evolution occurs, with evidence
(b) Get told "but evolution needs to include how life first occured".
(c) head desk.

Speak for yourself dude.

We "Luddites" are not confused about evolution. We're just trying to help you get a clearer picture of the whole thing.

Simply put, we "Luddites" know - biological evolution theory - in it's simplest term means " ... change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." While Abiogenesis theory, on the other hand, deals with how life first occurred.

But since you seem not to see the connection between the two "peas in a pod" theories, we try our best to elucidate "geniuses" like you and Barcs about the matter.

originally posted by: edmc^2
We "Luddites" are not confused about evolution. We're just trying to help you get a clearer picture of the whole thing.

So by lying about evolution, and blindly denying the evidence, it counts as a clearer picture? GTFO. You aren't a scientist you don't even grasp the basics, you are here to defend your religious faith and that's it.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
We "Luddites" are not confused about evolution. We're just trying to help you get a clearer picture of the whole thing.

So by lying about evolution, and blindly denying the evidence, it counts as a clearer picture? GTFO. You aren't a scientist you don't even grasp the basics, you are here to defend your religious faith and that's it.

Ha!

Truth is truth. Nothing I can do about it but tell it as it is and what I said is the truth. But if you can't take it, stinks to be you.

here again, dispute it and prove me wrong:

we "Luddites" know - biological evolution theory - in it's simplest term means " ... change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." While Abiogenesis theory, on the other hand, deals with how life first occurred.

a reply to: edmc^2

No you are indeed deeply confused. You are logically deficient over the entire subject. As for helping us get a "clearer picture". If you were actually educated in the subject, that would be cute. But you are essentially a religious zealot, "mansplaining" to subject matter experts.

Oh and show the connection between "beginning" and "change". You can't, but it will be cute to watch you try.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

No you are indeed deeply confused. You are logically deficient over the entire subject. As for helping us get a "clearer picture". If you were actually educated in the subject, that would be cute. But you are essentially a religious zealot, "mansplaining" to subject matter experts.

Oh and show the connection between "beginning" and "change". You can't, but it will be cute to watch you try.

To the contrary, I studied these two theories in depth and unfortunately "Luddites" like me, can easy debunk it without even using any religious words. But the fact that you and Barcs keep bringing up religion into the mix leads me to believe you want to create a strawman argument.

But for starters, can you at least try to disprove what I stated:

We "Luddites" know - biological evolution theory - in the simplest term, means " ... change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." While Abiogenesis theory, on the other hand, deals with how life first occurred.

Is there anything inaccurate in what I said above?

a reply to: edmc^2

Go ahead and debunk it. Don't say you can, do it.

I bring up religion, because you and your kith go there every single time. I'm a deeply spiritual peson, but I manage to divorce my faith, from my job. Science.

You keep trying to tie how life started, with how it changes. We know how it changes.

So don't try the weasel words. Go forth and debunk it. Using scientific method. That which can be examined. NOT say you can.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Go ahead and debunk it. Don't say you can, do it.

I bring up religion, because you and your kith go there every single time. I'm a deeply spiritual peson, but I manage to divorce my faith, from my job. Science.

You keep trying to tie how life started, with how it changes. We know how it changes.

So don't try the weasel words. Go forth and debunk it. Using scientific method. That which can be examined. NOT say you can.

Hence, I never brought it. You and Barcs are always the ones who keep bringing up faith/religion into the mix. But if you want to discuss it, I can divert the discussion there.

a reply to: edmc^2

Uh uh, you made the claim, that you can "easily debunk" this. I asked you to do so. YOU are making it a side show over religion. You can't disprove my pagan religion, any more than I can disprove your Abrahamic one. You certainly can't debunk evolution, and well any of the hypotheses of the beginnings of life, I doubt you understand. But go for it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Uh uh, you made the claim, that you can "easily debunk" this. I asked you to do so. YOU are making it a side show over religion. You can't disprove my pagan religion, any more than I can disprove your Abrahamic one. You certainly can't debunk evolution, and well any of the hypotheses of the beginnings of life, I doubt you understand. But go for it.

The theory of biological evolution has been debunked so many times already, but since your worldview will not permit you to accept it, then it's impossible to explain it to you with clarity.

In any case, let's give it a try.

let's start simple:

Back in an earlier post, I stated that "biological evolution theory" and "abiogenesis theory" are just two peas in a pod. In other words, they are one and the same. To prove it to you that I'm correct, let me posit this simple fact. The two theories are one and the same because there's no demarcation between the two.

Try as you may, you will not be able to show the division between the two theories, that is when the process of "biological evolution" started.

On this fact alone, I'm correct.

Question is - what say you?

Good luck.

a reply to: edmc^2

No, you said you could debunk it. So do so.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

No, you said you could debunk it. So do so.

he he. Already did, you just don't get it.

a reply to: edmc^2

See, this is where you fall into the Zealot and/or Luddite category. You've not disproven anything. You have written a lot of meaningless words, with out touching on the subject.

So:
(a) Disprove Evolution.
(b) Do so in a manner that can be examined. Tested, and questioned
(c) Be open to questions.

That is what every scientist must do. Every paper I've published, patent I've filed, and report to a client, has to do so.

But no, you shall not do so. You will dodge and distract.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

See, this is where you fall into the Zealot and/or Luddite category. You've not disproven anything. You have written a lot of meaningless words, with out touching on the subject.

So:
(a) Disprove Evolution.
(b) Do so in a manner that can be examined. Tested, and questioned
(c) Be open to questions.

That is what every scientist must do. Every paper I've published, patent I've filed, and report to a client, has to do so.

But no, you shall not do so. You will dodge and distract.

Hehehe. So you're asking me to disprove a conjecture? i.e. a fish turning into an amphibian, to reptile, to a bird, to mammal to human. OK, what's your time frame? And how would you examine it?

But since evolution theory as in MACRO evolution claims that it took millions of years for it to occur, do you have the time to observe it happening?

In addition, what are the parameters for proper observation and testing?

let me know so that I can proceed.

originally posted by: edmc^2


But since evolution theory as in MACRO evolution claims that it took millions of years for it to occur, do you have the time to observe it happening?

So there's no actual proof but just guesses.

Why does it have to take millions of years? Can't a fish just be born with limbs or without? Why the ridiculous amount of time for something to happen? Did fish grow legs and then came to land, or did it go to land and after a few millions of years grew limbs? I assume you will try and explain a slow mutation because simply there's no evidence for such changes but wild imagination running this fantasy.

Tell me where it hurts.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

No, you said you could debunk it. So do so.

he he. Already did, you just don't get it.

These clowns must be trolling to make religious people look stupid. It's the only explanation. This dude basically says evolution is wrong and has been debunked many times, yet can't even refute a single piece of evidence or make a single logical argument. Pure comedy. These guys have no integrity at all.