The Relgion of the New World Order : Darwinism

reply to post by Astyanax


Now I have read every post you have made from the links you gave me. I have not seen a letter stroke which derails my proposal. (In fact some of what you wrote helps prove it.) So you really didn’t have to write it all over again, none of it would have made any sense.

Most of what you wrote was a speculative as your aggressors, other bits are torn from the work and study of others with no real relevance to the topic, as if you googled it. And most of the rest was nonsensical quips, with no reason or proof behind them.

I must apologize to you however, or at least feel sorry for you. It seems that in your arrogance you truly believe yourself a scientific thinker, or another possibility would be that you simply crave the attention of others.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Gawdzilla

Anyway, the creationsts' last straw - the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis in the absence of a Creator - is now being gently pried from the poor fellows' desperate hands.

Actually you did, You said (or implied) that the creation of ribonucleotides shows the possability of Abiogenesis. But all it proves is that we can create the building block of life.

Failing to admit your own folly, only serves to make you look more foolish,
and by continuing to use the term creationist incorrectly, you are again making yourself look Ridiculous.




[edit on 3-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

reply to post by NRA4ever333

I do believe you've posted in the wrong thread.

* * *

Originally posted by Toughiv
Creationists only need to hold Mankinds position as not derrived through evolution.

Yes, a blindfold and earmuffs should just about do the trick for them.

We still have no missing link.

It is true that no-one has found the fossilized remains of the common ancestor of chimpanzees (our closest relative) and humans. That ancestor, which lived about five million years ago, is not a link between 'man and ape' but a link between two kinds of ape: chimps and humans. We are apes.

Nobody 'tried to suggest a lemur' as that link, by the way. Ida, the 'lemur' in question, is proposed as the common ancestor of apes and monkeys. Ida is 47 million years old; much too ancient to be the famous 'missing link'.

Astyanax, since we have been talking about the big bang etc a lot lately, im sure we can both agree there is a huge level of unknowns.

Oh, sure, no argument with that.

Who are we to say that the Big Bang wasnt "God's" intervention, and the laws of nature that exist today are part of his creation.

Nobody can say such things with certainty. But toughiv, this isn't the topic of this thread. If people want to say such things they may do so and welcome, but then they, too, must accept the same uncertainty regarding those statements. They don't, do they? They insist that they are Divine Truth, and do their best to stuff them down our throats - and our children's.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
Saying that scientist can make the building blocks of life equals Abiogenesis is like saying tumpty tumpty tum...

I never said that.

You said (or implied) that the creation of ribonucleotides shows the possability of Abiogenesis.

I did say that. Or something like it.

Are these statements equivalent? Are abiogenesis and the possibility of abiogenesis the same thing? It's theoretically possible for you to make a billion dollars - does that make you a billionaire?

Here's what I really said:

Originally posted by Astyanax
Anyway, the creationsts' last straw - the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis in the absence of a Creator - is now being gently pried from the poor fellows' desperate hands.

Or, to put it another way: abiogenesis is looking more and more possible - indeed, likely - all the time.

Failing to admit your own folly, only serves to make you look more foolish,
and by continuing to use the term creationist incorrectly, you are again making yourself look Ridiculous.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? A little sermon for creationists to ponder.

Capitalizing one's adjectives looks pretty ridiculous too.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NRA4ever333

 

Originally posted by Toughiv
Creationists only need to hold Mankinds position as not derrived through evolution.

Now this is why I keep telling you how wrong you are about my creationist status. I do believe mankind derived through evolution. I said as much in my proposal.

You are clearly the one with a blindfold and earmuffs.

If people want to say such things they may do so and welcome, but then they, too, must accept the same uncertainty regarding those statements.

I do admit the possibility that I could be wrong (in fact my entire proposal is formed as a question, not a statement.); you are the one defending the atheist stand to the very end. I was looking for a discussion on the matter, but you are too concerned with telling me I am wrong with no consideration or reasonable argument.

It should be noted; that any good scientist must be willing to accept evidence that contradicts their stance. I have continued to ask of evidence of your claims, and received nothing but banter. Are you willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong? Based on your replies I would have to say no.

reply to post by Astyanax


Actually the statements are equivalent. Saying that something is probable in the way you did, serves to defend its possibility. And by defending its probability you are saying that the outcome of the experiment will probably lead to abiogenesis (still with me?) So by defending Abiogenesis in this way you are claiming that this is more probable than a “creationist” way of looking at it. Thus stating that the creation of Life’s building blocks will probably lead to the artificial creation of life.

So, like I said, you are jumping the gun on your assumptions. I never said having a little faith in science is bad. You should have defended your statement and your assumption or admit your over enthusiasm . But instead you denied it like a coward.


[edit on 3-6-2009 by NRA4ever333]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

...Darwinism is indeed a faith based initiative.

Bigwhammy,

Certainly it is faith-based! OT doesn’t have that MUCH faith…it kinda like my new John Deere G110. You see…many many years ago…in a far far away galaxy…you see some heptane, wizzled its way over to some isooctane, they got married and had some cycloentane, who married ethyl benzene. After much TIME and CHANCE, and probably some WestVirginian marriages, the right mixture made ‘gasoline.’
Now it gets good… carbon, manganese, sulfur found themselves together and walla…sheet metal painted green….the gasoline defied gravity, jumped up in the tank…not sure how the rest happened to put it together…but I guess it did, cause it cuts darn good.


Nice, thoughtful thread!

OT

Good video so far must watch rest later maybe?

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
Actually the statements are equivalent. Saying that something is probable in the way you did, serves to defend its possibility.

Of course it is possible. You were accusing me of saying abiogenesis had been achieved. Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
Saying that scientist can make the building blocks of life equals Abiogenesis, is like saying a tree can make wood which equils a house.

Remember?

And by defending its probability you are saying that the outcome of the experiment will probably lead to abiogenesis

There is no connection between the two statements whatsoever.

So by defending Abiogenesis in this way you are claiming that this is more probable than a “creationist” way of looking at it. Thus stating that the creation of Life’s building blocks will probably lead to the artificial creation of life.

Oh, so that's what scares you - life in the lab. Well yes, I do think abiogenesis not just likely but inevitable. I think it happens all the time, all over the universe. However, that is not the same thing as saying it has been achieved in the laboratory, or any of the other lies you accuse me of telling.

I never said having a little faith in science is bad.

Faith in science? What on earth are you talking about now?

You should have defended your statement and your assumption or admit your over enthusiasm. But instead you denied it like a coward.

Prettily said. Have you ever considered a career in customer-relations management?

Oh yes, and would you mind fixing your quotes so that your posts are legible? Thanks.

reply to post by Astyanax


This whole misunderstanding is my fault; I assumed you were capable of understanding me. As you are clearly impotent in the field of discussion, I shall explain myself very very very clearly.

My tree analogy did not say it was abiogenesis, nor did it imply that you said it was abiogenesis. I implied that your argument for the possibility of Abiogenesis was premature. That all the pieces were not yet in play, or to simplify it more it was a comparative analogy.

Now, as a science major, it would be terribly exciting if we were to create life, the realms of possibility would be even more open to the idea of a creator being. It would in no way hurt my hypothesis, but be supporting evidence of it. (If we with our minds could do it, that increases the odds of something greater than ourselves doing it.)

You still leave me unimpressed. Especially since you are still bantering on and on, leavening the topic entirely in order to pick apart my phrasing. If you have nothing relevant to say, I will not answer you again. My time is too precious to give to a novice. I am sorry if my proposal differs from your world view, but that is how science evolves.

reply to post by OldThinker


Ofcourse you dismiss the idea that your Deere is the result of many many generations of other engines that were somewhat similar but ultimately different. You don't believe that the shape of the seat is a result of the shape of the ass. You don't think that the function of the lamps on the front is the result of the fact that it gets dark sometimes.

You claim that since everything works and everything is complicated that it must have been consciously designed and cast aside naturalistic evolution by misrepresenting it to be just "random chance." You ignore the fact that functional traits are nationalistically selected for which is why it's called Natural Selection, not Natural Random Chance. NS explains the diversity of everything which is why evolution is compared to a blind watchmaker.



misrepresenting the science like you have is pathetic.

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
This whole misunderstanding is my fault.

It is assuredly your fault, since it is a deliberate misunderstanding - on your part.

I assumed you were capable of understanding me.

I understand you all too well. You are just another creationist, twisting the words of honest, honourable people to serve your own political agenda.

My tree analogy did not... imply that you said it was abiogenesis.

You are lying.

Here, for the third time, is what you wrote:

Saying that scientist can make the building blocks of life equals Abiogenesis, is like saying a tree can make wood which equils a house

Perhaps you can answer a question I have asked of creationists before, only to receive silence in reply: why are so many creationists liars? Why can't they present their case without misrepresenting some and attempting to decieve others? If their God is a god of truth, why are they constantly lying?

You still leave me unimpressed.

I am not here to impress you. I am here to expose you. As I have.

reply to post by Astyanax


Ouch haha.

P.s. Cant remember ur name, sorry, but you have a wolf in your picture. You said that you are a creationist who believes in evolution of mankind from apes to human. So i assume you are a creationist who simply argues for "souls", that God is the creator of LIFE? Correct?

Right, so...let me ask what type of God do you believe in? The god of classical theism? Omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient? If so this is where your belief system falls. How can you have an omnibenevolent god, when evolution itself is most of the time, a very painful progress of extinction and development? Lives full of pain and death, to promote a "better" species?

Ultimately, if you are a creationist who believes in evolution etc, you have to be prepared to answer the problem of evil. Something which you cannot do if you hold steadfast to the God of Classical Theism.

Get back to me, let me know what you believe the nature of God to be and how that ties into your ideas of Creation. For example, do you feel animals have souls as well? If they do how about Trees? Viruses? The list just keeps going and going.

Creationism would gain SO MUCH more support if they could at least propose some type of basic Theory or Hypothesis on HOW God created everything. To say that Every Animals and Plant was created by a God is a good starting point.

BUT YOU CANNOT END IT THERE!

You have to at least start to accumulate evidence to suggest HOW God might have done it.

Like the theory of the Big Bang. It has some evidence to back it up (Which I know people refute) BUT

BUT BUT BUT

At least people are making theories and Hypothesis about HOW it happened or what caused it.

Not just saying THE BIG BANG HAPPENED END OF THE LINE

GOD CREATED EVERYTHING ON EARTH AS IS end of the line.

B.S.

If God individually created Man separate from any other Animal you need to EXPLAIN the similarities BETTER than Evolution can.

You need to EXPLAIN why our Reproduction Organs are in the same place that our Excrement comes out of and you need to point out how this is a good design.

You need to explain why there are different Skin Colors in a way that is NOT "GOD MADE IT THAT WAY END OF DISCUSSION"

You need to make an effort to explain why God creates Mutations

You cannot just say

GOD CREATES MUTATIONS END OF DISCUSSION

Make a freaking effort to explain why

You Creationists fight SO HARD to explain things but once you come to the point of where GOD DONE IT you completely shut down, give up and make no effort to propose an explanation.

"Ours is not the place to question God's will"

Yes it most certainly is.

If you are willing to question how something was created you sure as shoot better be asking why.