Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by weedwhacker


First paragraph, Aer, after the excessive quoting above,

There is no excessive quoting weed and if you don't knock it off with your childish attempts to force an infraction of T&C's I am going to take a very long string of your posts I have already collected and let them rotate one after another like the instigator you are so even YOU can see you have a problem where the issue is YOU and not me or anything you keep suggesting I am saying. For example!

in THIS post...

you say..."...and weed comes in here..."Comes in where, exactly?

That would me THIS THREAD and I think most people would have arrived at that logical conclusion.

Then we have this next one where whoaaaa you busted me ! Sheeesh you crack me up you are so desperate to feel insulted by me so you can justify your next reprisal but you keep MISSING the target weed!

EXAMPLE:

Is THIS your thread?

No it isn't my thread.

and again:

Last I checked, it isn't.

Well if it wasn't the last time you checked and you were lucid, sane and sober, what in the hell would make you think it would have changed from what it was to being mine!

The obvious (to most) irony of the title of this thread is: The burden of proof from 'creationists' falls into their laps.

The title of this thread is NOT "the burden of proof from creationists falls into there laps" so that might explain why you think twice about whose thread this is eh?

Again, just bewcause I disagree with your views, nevertheless I am attacked (not just me, BTW) and then we are all subjected to a sermon, a diatribe about just how WRONG I (and others who disagree) are.

Then, with audacity, YOU claim an ad-hom attack by me?

What I said in my post about you weed was in FACT true and unless you can show me what I said that was NOT true, anyone else can dedeuce the same conclusion I did by reading your post. You posted what i said you posted and gave thre same description of your post as anyone else would have so if you can say it, Ill use it in my post giving my reason for not responding to it. If you don't like it then too bad! You saying it is an ad-hom for pointing out your ad-hom is not going to stop me for pointing out the fact that it is all you seem to do when posting to me or about me.

case in Point: The very post I am responding to, you do what again?

The same thing you always do, and then when I tell someone why I didn't respond, they know why because as usual, your post serves nothing to the discussion and would only interest a TROLL so

Now....the topic. As I stated above, with a slightly defensive stance, admittedly, after being impugned and maligned....there is possibly hundreds of mountains of verifiable evidence in support of evolution

.
Then weed,,,

SHOW ME THE EFFING MOUNTAIN!

and DON'T show me anymore videos I have to drive accross town to see. If you want to paraphrase whats on it, Ill be more than happy to read it.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Well, then...Aermacchi....please do me a favor, as I've already asked once before, and skip back to page 59, and click on the YouTube link I've provided. I invite you to watch the entire series.

Instead of your hair-trigger responses, perhaps you can continue to post in an adult manner, as I have always. It's about showing respect.

EDIT...

This is part six, to comprt with part one, up above.....

[edit on 4/9/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Well, then...Aermacchi....please do me a favor, as I've already asked once before, and skip back to page 59, and click on the YouTube link I've provided. I invite you to watch the entire series.

Instead of your hair-trigger responses, perhaps you can continue to post in an adult manner, as I have always. It's about showing respect.

I am watching it as we speak, if the first one is without problems I have either seen exploited by others Ill continue watching it. I won't be burdened by proving something supernatural to someone using a scientific method that so finite to disqualify something infinite.

in the time where we have seen abiogenesis explained, there are no best attempts and if darwin wanted to explain away god, using a more plausible mechanism in a quasi lamarkian darwinian theory, then he has failed and only offers an excuse to trivialize the concept of God by offering an explanation that only brings the argument to methods and not origins at all.

Several factors would limit the possibility for random mutations in very small biological genomes to produce novel, complex functions.

Examples include no possibility for a graceful degradation of existing
logic functions due to mutations, and no penalty for carrying superfluous genetic material.

Extrapolating to biologically reasonable settings suggests neo-Darwinian theory is incapable of explaining more than inconsequential changes in cellular processes.

The last video you suggested I watch I was mildly impressed in BAC's biogenesis thread however, after seeing four evolutionists each come back with very long arguments I felt it was overwhelming me to win an argument I was more than happy to lose if they wanted to win one that way, then so be it. No skin off my back.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Once again, Aermacchi....with all due respect....I am NOT claiming anything to do with abiogenisis.

YOU keep bringing it up.

In fact, if you listen carefully to the narration, he will refer to abiogenesis and state that it is NOT part of his lecture, in this series.

Again...the intent of THIS thread is evolution, and evolution ONLY!

Yes, it resides in a 'forum' titled "Origins and Creationism Conspiracy"....but that is not the point! The title, and the intent of the thread, is the point!

Sometimes, I don't know when to shut up, so I'll keep goin'....perhaps this thread is intended to be where it is...God did it!

Argue THAT!

(oh dear....well....I have two choices...leave 'stet', or delete...I choose to 'stet')....

Let loose the red tags!!! I bare my chest in anticipation!!!!

reply to post by Aermacchi


No disrespect, your answer was well thought out and all... but it didn't answer my questions at all.

I think the most interesting idea of how we all came to be that I've ever heard, went something like this.

So God decided that he wanted things to go a certain way, he provided the floor plan, the laws of physics and all that, how things are supposed to be if you will. Anyway, after he throws all this down, he let things run their natural course, and voila, you have earth as she is. Not seven days, but over the course of hundreds, maybe thousands or millions of years.

The Science is the 'how' and the God is the 'why'. Personally, I think that would be the only plausible Creationism idea that I've heard. Like I said though, I'm not sure how things came to be, or why they are this way, I kind of like it, but I've always asked why, but I really don't expect to find the answer in this life time, or if there is a next, then it won't matter, because I'll be dead.

reply to post by Kiltedninja


You're referring to "Deism", IIRC. The idea that the Great Sky Fairy put things in motion and then kicked back and just let things happen. Personally, I don't think such a god would be much use, no more than a blind force of nature.

If you want to get the whole picture you have to study dimensions and time. And get that everything that exists within the infinite dimension changes dimensions all the time no matter what it is. It will never disappear but become something else.

Everything that exists within the original dimension is bound by time and time means changes. And changes mean creations of new dimensions constant.

The only thing that is not effected by time and changes is the infinite dimension that everything exists within. Everything that exists have to be within a dimension. And only one dimension of space time can be infinite.

The infinite space can't expand. It will always be the same. But whats inside will change all the time as time moves on.

Its like the Bible tells us. God never changes like we do because we are bound by time and God is not.

God is a dimension and so are we. So is everything that exists. But god is not created by time. But we are so we will change all the time and science can confirm that and you can just by looking at your own history and time lap. You have aged right

In the beginning there was only one dimension a dimension that always was and always is and we call it God.

God created time. And time creates a new dimensions as fast as time lets matter change. The first dimensions are the oldest and some where down the line of changes our Big Bang theory appears and creates our world.

We are bound by our dimension of space time and the infinite dimension. We can never leave this dimension in the same shape and form (dimension) we are in at present space time. Because we are bound by time and changes. Because we are matter. And matter changes all the Time.

If the dimension God can create time. God could surly create other things as well. As eternal life. Eternal life can exist within infinity. By definition that is a true statement. A beginning can be eternal. Just like we know that energy never can go away it just becomes something else.










[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


"Its like the Bible tells us. God never changes like we do because we are bound by time and God is not."

So the Bronze Age goat-herders who wrote the BuyBull were conversant with hyperdeminsionality? That's most impressive. And utterly silly.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66

 

"Its like the Bible tells us. God never changes like we do because we are bound by time and God is not."

So the Bronze Age goat-herders who wrote the BuyBull were conversant with hyperdeminsionality? That's most impressive. And utterly silly.

Don't misunderstand what i say. God is just a name. A name dosent do anything but the dimension that has the name dose.

And if you care to think everything that exists has a connection to a source of a kind. And everything that is is a result of changes of time.

Matter changes at different rated of time but can never go beyond the limit of time it self.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66

 

"Its like the Bible tells us. God never changes like we do because we are bound by time and God is not."

So the Bronze Age goat-herders who wrote the BuyBull were conversant with hyperdeminsionality? That's most impressive. And utterly silly.

Don't misunderstand what i say. God is just a name. A name dosent do anything but the dimension that has the name dose.

And if you care to think everything that exists has a connection to a source of a kind. And everything that is is a result of changes of time.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Well, if we chose our own definitions for words the communication process is somewhat dehabilitated. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66

 

"Its like the Bible tells us. God never changes like we do because we are bound by time and God is not."

So the Bronze Age goat-herders who wrote the BuyBull were conversant with hyperdeminsionality? That's most impressive. And utterly silly.

Don't misunderstand what i say. God is just a name. A name dosent do anything but the dimension that has the name dose.

And if you care to think everything that exists has a connection to a source of a kind. And everything that is is a result of changes of time.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Well, if we chose our own definitions for words the communication process is somewhat dehabilitated. Have a nice day.

How you understand a definition is all up to you. We read the same words but dont see the same thing. Its like that with most things. That's why we argue so much.

reply to post by spy66


If I say "potato" and you say "potato", but you mean "rhubarb", we won't be having hash browns for dinner. You're free to use your own definitions if you wish, but be ready for confusion and frustration.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66

 

If I say "potato" and you say "potato", but you mean "rhubarb", we won't be having hash browns for dinner. You're free to use your own definitions if you wish, but be ready for confusion and frustration.

Yes your right. So who is getting this wrong you or me.

A sentence can change the property of a definition.

I guess you should study that before you study something as complicated as this.

reply to post by spy66


Well, since we're talking about "hash browns" for dinner, what would qualify as ingredients? Potatoes or rhubarb?

Saying "God" can be anything is a null statement. Saying "God" is something we can't understand is not communicating an idea, just an opinion.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66

 

Well, since we're talking about "hash browns" for dinner, what would qualify as ingredients? Potatoes or rhubarb?

Saying "God" can be anything is a null statement. Saying "God" is something we can't understand is not communicating an idea, just an opinion.

Of course when we talk about a topic like this everything becomes a opinion. A opinion of knowledge and philosophy. We weren't there to record the beginning. We are a result of it.... everything is.

Everything that exists is a victim of time. Just like our present time is moving on right now. And it is right on time. Because time can't move beyond the speed of changes in matter. Matter moves within a time frame. Not all matter changes at the same rate. Matter has to change in a specific order of time.

Now if you want to turn back time to figure out the beginning you would have to stop all the matter from changing. Meaning you would have to stop time. Then you would have to reconstruct the past by putting all the energy and matter exactly where it used to be in the exact same and correct order of time. That way you could actually reconstruct the past space time.

If you do this step by step all the way back to the beginning. Because time has got to have a beginning. Because everything that changes has got to have a source to start out with.

Now what dose this have to do with God! To me God is just a name. There is a big problem with giving a source a name. Especially the name God. Religion has given this name a character by saying lets create man in our image. The other problem is that we have given the name God infinity.

Infinity is a fact something has to be infinite. If not nothing could never have existed. Not even a God.

Now the complicated philosophy starts. If God exists. God must be a dimension of some kind. And if God is the source to everything God has to be infinite. God must have always existed.

Only one thing can be infinite. A infinite takes up all space that is possible to have. It has no beginning and no end. Not even God can exist out side infinity.

Infinity is all the time that is possible to have. But time cant be past and present at the same time. Time is right her and right now. So the infinite must have created time inside its own space and time at some point.

"Now the complicated philosophy starts. If God exists. God must be a dimension of some kind. And if God is the source to everything God has to be infinite. God must have always existed."

Start with a conclusion, then work backwards to find proof. If that's the way to you want to do it, do have a good time, you hear?

Evolution is a good theory.

The problem is the misunderstanding on both sides. They seem to think that evolution is anti-christian. Many proponents of evolution claim that it 'proves' that religion is myth, and christians believe that evolution means to prove that their religion is a myth.

Both sides? Wrong.

Evolution is a brilliant, elegant and unapologetic system of life-form development.

reply to post by DohBama


Evolution is no longer a theory. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. (Well, if you don't live in the Bronze Age, anyway.) Evolution is certainly good for debunking creation myths.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"Now the complicated philosophy starts. If God exists. God must be a dimension of some kind. And if God is the source to everything God has to be infinite. God must have always existed."

Start with a conclusion, then work backwards to find proof. If that's the way to you want to do it, do have a good time, you hear?

Is there any other way to look at it ?

If there is you must know the truth already