Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes Dawkins comes on a little too strong for me in his views on religion, but he makes a good case for evolution, especially since I think he disbelieved evolution at one time himself until the evidence convinced him.

There are many of us like that, myself included. I was a creationist fundie not 2 years ago.

Originally posted by Welfhard

If you actually knew anything about the science other than what the ill-informed creationist websites told you, then you'd know that Evolutionary Theory doesn't suggest that we came from Chimps, or Monkeys, or Gorillas, or even Neanderthals.

It isn't "science" he needs to know about in this case, it is EVOLUTION. Ph and by the way, it IS evolutionists that first published pictures using the gibbon monkey progressing to the chimpanzee to several concocted versions of various cave men until Homo Erectus represented us.

It was the early 60's and as a child fascinated with prehistoric animals by the third grade I was able to name more than 300 by heart and had already read my first copy of Chuck Darwins Origins book.

So far I have seen you talk a lot about nothing. Do you want to get to the bottom of this or not? Lets start at the begining and because I kinda got the impression, you think if a new food source was not i nthe garden of eden, somehow that makes what ever eats it, a "New Species"

I can assure you, nylon eating bacteria would have enjoyed ingesting it in eden just as much as Adam and Eve would have enjoyed a Big Mac if that had been invented at the time. Both have no bearing on their evolution and the fact this bacteria eats nylon? So what? You seem to think this has some significance and I'm asking you, no I'm telling you,

It doesn't

In the words of contemporary philosopher of science, Mary Hesse , "the lesson of the history of science seems to be that the theories we currently hold to be true are as likely to be overturned as the theories they replaced"

This has been true of evolution in the extreme but not only that but an underlying anti religious sentiment which has become so strong a bias to keeping the perceived threat of creationism out of they consider to be "their domaine" , that honest and objective interpretation of evidence is rarely if ever seen in this area of science.

Here ya go Prof., Which one of these best describes your opinion
Choose one:

(A) Science gives us objective knowledge of an independently existing reality.

(B) Scientific knowledge is always provisional and tells us nothing that is universal, necessary, or certain about the world

Copernicus's heliostatic (stationary sun) theory of the solar system, which has undergone continual change since it was first proposed in 1543:

Copernicus called for the planets to move in uniform circular motion around the sun, slightly displaced from the center.

Johannes Kepler revised the Copernican model of circular motion, which did not fit the data. he guessed that the planets move in elliptical orbits.

Galileo ignored Kepler's corrections and opted for circular motion. the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for heresy. Although atheist's like to use this in some asinine way to disparage Christians as imbeciles of science, in doing so they prove it themselves ignorant, as the church was actually correct and that Galileo had no basis for claiming the heliocentric theory was true, but was merely his interpretation of experience.


All the names I mention never held such a paranoid and totally illogical idea that religion or atheism for that matter, makes one a better or worse member of Science.

Darwin, on the other hand, is the most over hyped, insignifcant, pseudo discoverer of a pseudo theory that has been so disproven so often by so many, I submit to you that the ONLY reason this theory is still taught today is because of the vice like grip a monopoly of an agenda progressed militant atheist activism that pervades this area of science using some of the most criminal acts of fraud, spying, discrimination harrassment and venemous ridicule to keep it standing alone without challenge and not in the interest of science but in the disdain for religion and any religious implications evidence may have is summarily discarded as "bad evidence".

the tortureuously tedious pseudo scholarly language used by evolutionists is now the minced up muffled up machiavellian machinations of an intentionally bastardized science vernacular consisting of stretched out over elastic slippery semantics and verbal gymnastics that make debate an arduous task to engage in correcting that frankly is too much exercise for anyone with any experience debating the dogmatic diaribe of the average Darwinist using his stops most from examining this subject in detail. Left frustrated, most people assume evolution to be true.

One must whether personal attacks to their religious belief and while they argue creationism is not science, they invariably contradict themselves the moment they compare their theory. The have black listed Christians from ever getting papers peer reviewed so they can say they have zero peer reviewed documentation. They have black listed Christians from getting anywhere without keeping their faith top secret. They do this so they can say atheist's make up the bulk of science and what we end up with is a homogenous cadre of atheist yes men never forgetting to always impart in their description of this so called science, an ample suppy of adjectives to embellish its significance and they do it like CLOCK WORK.

I have never seen an argument given for evolution by one of its knowitalls that wasn't guilty of the following logical fallcy

assuming the consequent in a broad Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all cars everywhere are red.

Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as circular logic. Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.

Argument to Future: Darwins first mistake was making this logical fallacy in his book origins. The moment he made the statement it will eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation, that hoping the future would bring the transitional fossils that to date: have never been proven without a confirmation bias and apriori partisan protocol for picking similiarities in species rather than looking for things that are problems for making the ideas stick, they work at finding evidence that could fit the theory. Stating that while something is not true now,

Calls to Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate a conclusion some might understand this to be an ad populim fallacy. I see Jaxon Roberts dabbling in the protocols of logical fallacy while unskilled and unaware of it, he mistakes his interlocutors responses a strawman when it is he making the strawman and I have proven this to him everytime he has accused me of it.

His last attempt at Talking tough was to challenge me in a more formal debate while he again suggested my tactics in forewarning the MODS, his attemtp to say : Watch out for his straw man tactics because basically he needs the kind of experienced assistance of a subliminally suggested and imaparted bias going for him. Not that it would matter, Jaxon Roberts, but in any research debate especially on Science, you aren't even in the same league much less the same experience I have but Ill accept your challenge if it is one we both agree to disagree on.



Hypothesis Contrary to Fact:

What Is Evolution? The question comes in many definitions. In its most basic form, it is Charles Darwin's, The Origin of Species, Where a closet atheist named Chuck Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previously, more simple substances.

In spite of what we see being used as an opportunity to "expose" the creationist as ignorant of this theory, the example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes. Yes, FACT evolutionists can blame themselves for that one.

There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.

the most often rejected by Creationists is, macro-evolution, being the natural assumption being already proven and observed by science and this couldn't be more absurd and anyone thinking this is true, OBVIOUSLY has no idea how it was proven because invariably they use a universally accepted and observed example of micro evolution to prove an impossible to observe therefore not empiracle, macro evolution. Once this typical canard of their was being shot down by so many catching on to the tactic, evolutionist's started using "insinuation tactics" for proving it, simply insinuating they are the same.

irrespective, of all that, is the impasse of proving events alleged to have happend millions of years ago. This makes DME, impossible to falsify hence NOT a Theory that can be tested much less proven. Any Baconian supporter of the scientific method, knows this.

The have also done this using many other terms once defining specific distinctions between two different suppositions, are now ambiguously disguised in the murky nebulous worldview of atheist's trying to prove something casting intellectual integrity to the wind.

Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. This old and already proven wrong Idea is the one I see the most and by the poster I am responding to. The difference between this and macro-evolution is, micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Those mosquitos you spoke of, prove micro evolution and is not an issue of dispute,
the nylon eating bacteria is an example of micro evolution and is not an area of dispute, in fact ALL the "stuff" you spoke of, resorts to the equivocation tactic so over used by evolutionists equivocating micro for macro and vice versa.

I am not trying to disprove evolution, but rather following the correct protocols for proving what evolution is NOT and not disproving what it is.

It is NOT a tried and tested fact. You get this idea it is because you keep hearing it from other supporters of it and that is the very reason they insist they use the NLP to language people into believing it is a fact. However, a scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From the quotes above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that evolutionists themselves have not accepted evolution as true in this context and I think when 16 of the top evolutionary scientists meeting in atenberg to revamp the theory while all of them are arguing among themselves, proves unequivocally and absolutely

It is NOT a fact and I am certain, it never will be

Now you poked some fun at John Matrix by showing us how atheist's can play dumb with the metaphorical creation of adam using the clay or dirt of the ground.

Clever, but it only adds another issue to an already bad argument and that is you ad hom a lot and you have too. I was speaking of the atenberg 16 suggesting they needed you help for being so confused and I guess calling them idiotic is something you take personal and is attacking you? I didn't know you were part of the atenberg 16 but Ill remember to do likewise now that I know all one has to do is refer to Religious people and it is the same as talking about me directly attacking me.

I suggest when people like you and ATS best answer to Ed McMahon as a side kick supporter, none other than ATS's own, "WeedWhacker" who gets indignant at our insisting evolution not cop out on the biogenesis fact. Instead of addressing the Law of Biogenesis, which they cannot get around, evolutionists attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer.

Biogenesis is a law and states that LIFE came from life and that life does not come from non life. This is louis Pasteur here people, so don't get off in the self assembled RNA speculation. It is a proven fact and their is no getting around it using just so story.

So don't tell me we don't have the technology to know how biogenesis happened when we know for a fact how it DIDN'T happen. It didn't come from nothing.

Now you can mock the only Model that comes close to answering how matter became matter but I suggest if you wanna mock John Matrix's God, you do it when you can figure out how to make man from dirt or anything else you think you can create like God did.

The fact is if the God Model is correct, you can't make a damn thing without using what he made. Not even dirt. if you think you can, prove it,


Oh and by the way, God says, " if you're going to try that,

Use your own Matter"

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Stylez]

One in four, I repeat, one in four Americans believe the world is only 6000 years old.

What idiots.

Originally posted by Stylez


This has been true of evolution in the extreme but not only that but an underlying anti religious sentiment which has become so strong a bias to keeping the perceived threat of creationism out of they consider to be "their domaine" , that honest and objective interpretation of evidence is rarely if ever seen in this area of science.

Here ya go Prof., Which one of these best describes your opinion
Choose one:

(A) Science gives us objective knowledge of an independently existing reality.

(B) Scientific knowledge is always provisional and tells us nothing that is universal, necessary, or certain about the world

Copernicus's heliostatic (stationary sun) theory of the solar system, which has undergone continual change since it was first proposed in 1543:

Copernicus called for the planets to move in uniform circular motion around the sun, slightly displaced from the center.

Johannes Kepler revised the Copernican model of circular motion, which did not fit the data. he guessed that the planets move in elliptical orbits.

Galileo ignored Kepler's corrections and opted for circular motion. the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for heresy. Although atheist's like to use this in some asinine way to disparage Christians as imbeciles of science, in doing so they prove it themselves ignorant, as the church was actually correct and that Galileo had no basis for claiming the heliocentric theory was true, but was merely his interpretation of experience.


All the names I mention never held such a paranoid and totally illogical idea that religion or atheism for that matter, makes one a better or worse member of Science.

That is totaly untrue considering a majority of christians are evolutionists. Evolution is not an atheistic theory, it is agnostic about god, as every scientific theory should be.

So don't tell me we don't have the technology to know how biogenesis happened when we know for a fact how it DIDN'T happen. It didn't come from nothing.

We dont know that for a fact. The conditions on primordial Earth were different than now (namely no oxygen, sterile...), so that we dont observe abiogenesis now does not make it impossible.

It is NOT a tried and tested fact. You get this idea it is because you keep hearing it from other supporters of it and that is the very reason they insist they use the NLP to language people into believing it is a fact. However, a scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.”

The same could be said about history. We have indirect evidence - morphologic and genetic similarities and fossils.
There may be some open questions, there are in history, too. But creationism is like saying Caesar slept with Mary, Queen of Scots, and their son was Hitler. Absolutely no evidence.

Also, speciation (reproduction barrier) is by your definition an observed fact.

Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. This old and already proven wrong Idea is the one I see the most and by the poster I am responding to. The difference between this and macro-evolution is, micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macroevolution IS microevolution+longer time. You cannot separate the two, its against logic. Or do you know about some mechanism which stops change accumulation in a population after a certain amount of time/difference? Difference from what? There is no such thing as "default" unchanging species prototypes...

www.talkorigins.org...

One in four, I repeat, one in four Americans believe the world is only 6000 years old.

The only thing that matters is how many scientists believe it. Science is not a democracy.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Maslo]

reply to post by Stylez

I can assure you, nylon eating bacteria would have enjoyed ingesting it in eden just as much as Adam and Eve would have enjoyed a Big Mac if that had been invented at the time. Both have no bearing on their evolution and the fact this bacteria eats nylon? So what? You seem to think this has some significance and I'm asking you, no I'm telling you,

Nylon is a synthetic material - it doesn't occur naturally. Why would a bacteria have the ability to digest this material? Why not other synthetics? Why is it found in this specific bacterium, why not in everything?

The bacteria found itself in a nylon-rich environment and evolved to digest it - at least that's the simplest explanation for why a bacteria would digest a synthetic material.

You analogy of the bigmac is inaccurate. Put Adam and Even in a synthetic-bigmac-rich environment and see how long they last without any kind of innate ability to digest and live off this food source.

All the names I mention never held such a paranoid and totally illogical idea that religion or atheism for that matter, makes one a better or worse member of Science.

Kepler and Galileo didn't make god an essential assumption in the science, not did they require miracles in their science. Evolution says nothing of God so it's not atheistic like creationists like to claim, it just happens to run counter to Genesis.

assuming the consequent in a broad Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all cars everywhere are red.

There isn't much in Zoology or Genetics that is like a single car dealer. I mean you can see that some animals are very similar to others, and others are not so close - giving rise taxonomy. THEN when we sequence DNA, we can see that they are related by varying proximity. To simply ignore the genetics of the system is profoundly stupid.

Everywhere that evidence of life is sampled, nothing is found that compromises the theory, instead refine it to a more specific and developed one, especially since the time of Darwin.

Calls to Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate a conclusion some might understand this to be an ad populim fallacy.

This is the main content of creationist arguments on ATS, quoting some creationist website whom don't actually do any research.

What Is Evolution? The question comes in many definitions. In its most basic form, it is Charles Darwin's, The Origin of Species, Where a closet atheist named Chuck Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previously, more simple substances.

You shouldn't confuse biology and everything else.

In spite of what we see being used as an opportunity to "expose" the creationist as ignorant of this theory, the example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes. Yes, FACT evolutionists can blame themselves for that one.

Yea because it's our fault that you guys can't keep up with mainstream science.

for proving it, simply insinuating they are the same.

How are they not? Why wouldn't they be? Why does all of biology indicate that they are? Why is it that we keep digging up bones that look like bones of today's creatures yet a little different, or more different and once you find heaps you can see a trend of change going on?

That's not to mention speciation events witnessed in insects, bacteria and viruses today.

We can't see the long term effects of plate tectonics either, but there is no reason to suggest that after awhile the small detectable movements stop.

This makes DME, impossible to falsify hence NOT a Theory that can be tested much less proven. Any Baconian supporter of the scientific method, knows this.

Well firstly, no theory in science is proven. Proof only occurs in mathematics, outside of which we have the scientific theory - fits the evidence and makes testable predictions. Secondly if genetics or some other mechanism of evolution was found not to work, it would be falsified. All the predictions that we can make and test within the human lifespan have conformed to expectations.

I am not trying to disprove evolution, but rather following the correct protocols for proving what evolution is NOT and not disproving what it is.

HA! You won't even recognise that evolution has nothing to do with and makes no assumptions about a god. It's about naturalist change in species, it's got nothing to do with theology, but you keep roping evolution-ists, darwinists and atheists together.

Clever, but it only adds another issue to an already bad argument and that is you ad hom a lot and you have too

Pardon? I don't attack people, I attack their ideas but I like how you ignore all the similar ad homs being spouted out of the creationist camp.

Instead of addressing the Law of Biogenesis, which they cannot get around, evolutionists attempt to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer.

Evolution deals with change in biology and as such, new emerging species. It's not the job of evolution to explain how life originates in the first place - that is going to be a different mechanism. If you wanna take on abiogenesis, then do so. But don't pretend it's the same thing as evolution or that evolution had to cover that as well.

Considering that some forms of life are not living as much as others. Everyone knows that viruses aren't considered alive because they don't fulfil all the requirements in the definition of 'alive'. And considering that evolution deals with slow change and emerged new species, reason dictates that the source of life wasn't always alive and that all the processes in life emerged slowly. It's not a hard concept to comprehend.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Maslo

That is totaly untrue considering a majority of christians are evolutionists. Evolution is not an atheistic theory, it is agnostic about god, as every scientific theory should be.

Ya know, I really get tired of you people mocking Christians using asinine statistics to portray them as 6 out of ten Americans don't believe in evolution and how "shocking" that is but when anyone tries to point out the undeniablre FACT that the lions share of ANY debate about origins and species, it is atheists who defend Darwin as if he was some kind of,,

some kind of a GOD.

The entire time they will mock their religion reminding them their alleged belief in a 6000 year old planet when it would seem rather counter productive to assail what is obviously the largest segment of America as believing in evolution which makes the first argument about dumb Americans a lie.

I believe in evolution too pal

We dont know that for a fact. The conditions on primordial Earth were different than now (namely no oxygen, sterile...), so that we dont observe abiogenesis now does not make it impossible.

Oh so, louis Pasteur was wrong? Ever hear of occams Razor?

Of course you have. Ever apply it to science?

NOPE

We dont know that for a fact. The conditions on primordial Earth were different than now

Gee,, Ya think??

Yet you will say what also was not observed millions of years ago is a fact when it comes to evolution.

The same could be said about history. We have indirect evidence - morphologic and genetic similarities and fossils.

Exactly! and that is why evolution is a historical science and not a biological one. By thew way, the evidence you have is the same evidence we all have, saying something looks similar to something else is just as much evidence of a common designer as it is a common ancestor.

There may be some open questions, there are in history, too. But creationism is like saying Caesar slept with Mary, Queen of Scots, and their son was Hitler. Absolutely no evidence.

Ever see the brush strokes of famous artists detected by scientists trying to distinguish it as a Pollack painting or a counterfit? Same thing as i said before the evidence is the same as yours, and the similarities don't JUST mean what YOU think they mean.

Also, speciation (reproduction barrier) is by your definition an observed fact.

That's because it is and mendel proved it. Unless you think having sex with a pig will produce the "Genus Pigman"

Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. This old and already proven wrong Idea is the one I see the most and by the poster I am responding to. The difference between this and macro-evolution is, micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

and? what does macro evolution deal with? mutations within a what?

Within the mind of the evolutionist, that's what.

One in four, I repeat, one in four Americans believe the world is only 6000 years old.

In his own words ladies and gentleman, I give you, the illogical, logic of "Maslo" and I quote " That is totaly untrue considering a majority of christians are evolutionists




We are all a distant cousin to a "thingamabob", a closer cousin to a monkey, a closer cousin still to an ape strictly speaking. You would have us believe Plato was an African ape, a closer cousin to a chimpanzee than a chimp is to an orangutan.

Chromosomally speaking, we are closer to the potato than we are monkeys and 73% of our DNA is like mice but who cares? How does that mean anything when ALL of us are made from DNA?

Guess you could say DNA can make anything and if their were a way to genetically create a frankensteinien living fossil as a missing link to substantiate what evolutionist's believe, considering the frauds they have been busted with so far, it is a sure bet, that one is just on the horizon. Problem is, after millions of generations of bacteria cultures, mutating on pitri dishes and millions of mutations attempting to prove macroevolution using the fruit fly, the only thing they can prove is e-coli bacteria evolves into e-coli and radiation will mess up your DNA making on hell of an ugly fruit fly, but genetically speaking of course, it is STILL a fruit fly. Does "stuff like that ever sink in to you evolutionists or do you just think it still needs more time wasted?

Bernard Levin wrote an article in The London Times titled "God, me and Dr. Dawkins" it was the subtitle that smacks spot on the problem with people like Dawkins as it reads subtitle: "Scientists don't know and nor do I — but at least I know I don't know".

It really comes down to parsimony, economy of explanation. There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in UFOs. One day it may happen to you and I.

But on grounds of probability it should be kept as an explanation of last resort.

That makes sense does it not? Or is probability like that only dumb when someone like John Matrix used it to prove how utterly ridiculous it is for Jaxon Roberts to ignore it for evolutions improbable argument?

It is unparsimonious, demanding more than routinely weak evidence before we should believe it. If you hear hooves clip-clopping down the street, if you're an American "redneck" you might think it is the famed Budweiser Clydesdales with a Wagon of beer in tow.

It could be a zebra or even a unicorn, if you are an atheist trying to be cute assuming that is what Christian would have us believe.

Don't you agree, before we assume that it's anything other than a horse, we should demand a certain minimal standard of evidence?


That is all I am asking for from the mountain that is the piltdown pile of fraud and until I see an iota of it, I will not be punked into believeing it.

The only thing that matters is how many scientists believe it. Science is not a democracy.

and they believe it by hook or crook, obviously. Let me tell you something son,

a lie is a lie even if everyone one believes it, and the truth is the truth, even if NO ONE believes it and THAT,



is what matters.






[edit on 28-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Welfhard

Nylon is a synthetic material - it doesn't occur naturally. Why would a bacteria have the ability to digest this material? Why not other synthetics? Why is it found in this specific bacterium, why not in everything?

The fact remains pal, just because bacteria CAN eat it doesn't mean it was not designed to adapt to eating it.

The bacteria found itself in a nylon-rich environment and evolved to digest it - at least that's the simplest explanation for why a bacteria would digest a synthetic material.

It didn't "evolve" this ability pal, it merely adapted within the variance of what is already coded it had a lattitude to adapt to in its DNA. If you think it added more information to the genome without "assuming" it "must have" then I suggest YOU PROVE IT!

You analogy of the bigmac is inaccurate. Put Adam and Even in a synthetic-bigmac-rich environment and see how long they last without any kind of innate ability to digest and live off this food source.

Believe me pal, if you think transfat isn't synthetic, then you need to go back to school.

Kepler and Galileo didn't make god an essential assumption in the science, not did they require miracles in their science. Evolution says nothing of God so it's not atheistic like creationists like to claim, it just happens to run counter to Genesis.

Where there is no intelligence allowed their is no possibility for a God much less a religion hence where there is no religion, would there be any atheist's?

Only when someone suggests a God did it. Then lets see how 'Un atheistic" science becomes sheesh man get real.

DNA, we can see that they are related by varying proximity. To simply ignore the genetics of the system is profoundly stupid.

Which was exactly my point and evolutionists do it all the time

Everywhere that evidence of life is sampled, nothing is found that compromises the theory, instead refine it to a more specific and developed one, especially since the time of Darwin.

This is the old "No fossils ever found, disprove evolution" canard.

Dude do you realize I can say the SAME EXACT thing about it not disproving God ? I don't care about proving negatives pal, I only care about what you can prove DID happen, not what doesn't prove it didn't.

This is the main content of creationist arguments on ATS, quoting some creationist website whom don't actually do any research.y.

So what? It isn't the same standard according to you creationsim isn't a science to begin with so get off its neck

You shouldn't confuse biology and everything else.

Why? You confuse evolution for science, so why can't I confuse facts for the truth.

Yea because it's our fault that you guys can't keep up with mainstream science..

Tell mainstream science we are fine with them, it is evolution and their constant switching of the goal posts that has us unable to switch gears fast enough to keep up with the latest fake fraud and hoax

How are they not? Why wouldn't they be? Why does all of biology indicate that they are? Why is it that we keep digging up bones that look like bones of today's creatures yet a little different, or more different and once you find heaps you can see a trend of change going on?.

examples?

That's not to mention speciation events witnessed in insects, bacteria and viruses today.

Not NEW species pal, NO way No how never been seen or observed and don't waste your time using the plethora of slick semantics I have seen in this thread, they NEVER get past me.

We can't see the long term effects of plate tectonics either, but there is no reason to suggest that after awhile the small detectable movements stop.

not the same thing, talk about a bad analogy. Plate tektonics bringing about the formation of all the buildings in New York is what I don't believe and that is about as far a reach as evolutionists would suggest plate tektonics in an analogy for macro evolution would suggest.

Sorry guy you aren't getting anywhere here and I have seen all your arguments ten years ago for most and your material is old hat,.

Well firstly, no theory in science is proven. Proof only occurs in mathematics, outside of which we have the scientific theory - fits the evidence and makes testable predictions. Secondly if genetics or some other mechanism of evolution was found not to work, it would be falsified. All the predictions that we can make and test within the human lifespan have conformed to expectations.

Proof? ( I got to see this) still don't understand what a theory is do you. Still don't seem to get why historcal predictions are not predictions of the future but but assumptions of the past based on answers already given by history. Not all that hard to figure out and certainly not the same thing at all.

HA! You won't even recognise that evolution has nothing to do with and makes no assumptions about a god. It's about naturalist change in species, it's got nothing to do with theology, but you keep roping evolution-ists, darwinists and atheists together.

No pal what YOU don't recognise is that God has already been a forgone and discriminated against possibility by your so called unbiased evolution. Unless you can quote me as saying such a thing, then do not suggest it. prove it or withdraw the claim.

Pardon? I don't attack people, I attack their ideas but I like how you ignore all the similar ad homs being spouted out of the creationist camp.

Examples? Personal attacks? You know the ones only John and myself where they saw fit to actually whack us on. Mine was from gemwolf, what ya suppose the odds are he is not a creationist and has many freinds that would be on my respected foe list.

That is of course if I had one. I don't give foes credit like that the moment they say something like "my invisible friend" I pretty much know, what I am dealing with and I don't give them anymore respect than I would a six year old.

Considering that some forms of life are not living as much as others. Everyone knows that viruses aren't considered alive because they don't fulfil all the requirements in the definition of 'alive'. And considering that evolution deals with slow change and emerged new species, reason dictates that the source of life wasn't always alive and that all the processes in life emerged slowly. It's not a hard concept to comprehend.

Considering that some forms of life are not living as much as others.

Yeah I saw you try this tactic on someone else and I had to chuckle as it reveals just how slick you can get with semantics. Umm gee Prof. I guess you must be talkin about how Donald Trump is more Live than me cus he can afford to "live it up" while i can just barely pay it forward.

The rest of that paragragh is just more of the same Bluster. Like this one:

"Reason dictates that the source of life wasn't always alive"

WTF??? who you trying to kid pal? what is that "stuff" ?? Here let me be more specific so you can finally answer me without using all kinds of rhetoric.

Ready? What is that source?



[edit on 28-9-2009 by Stylez]

You think it's evolution for bacteria to eat nylon?
I think this is proof of a miracle that a man consuming pure bacteria like this.








I guess bacteria eating oil slicks and nylon isn't all that impressive.

Originally posted by tim1989
One in four, I repeat, one in four Americans believe the world is only 6000 years old.

What idiots.

I can't beleive its one in four ...surely not.

That said, this video of 'creationists poisoning young minds at a museum'
is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a while.

Link:
www.youtube.com...

Cheers.

Originally posted by Stylez

Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. This old and already proven wrong Idea is the one I see the most and by the poster I am responding to. The difference between this and macro-evolution is, micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

and? what does macro evolution deal with? mutations within a what?

Within the mind of the evolutionist, that's what.

Why are you quoting and refuting yourself and not my reply?

Macroevolution is considered proven because microevolution is proven, and macro is the same process. I repeat:
Macroevolution IS microevolution+longer time. You cannot separate the two, its against logic. Or do you know about some mechanism which stops change accumulation in a population after a certain amount of time/difference/generations? Difference from what? There is no such thing as "default" unchanging species prototypes...

Talkorigins link: www.talkorigins.org...

And extrapolating macro from micro is scientifically correct.
I will try to give you some analogies:

When an asteroid is on the collision course with a planet and there is nothing in its trajectory to stop it, we can safely assume that it will hit the planet.

When we know that the suns hydrogen is being consumed and there is no mechanism which reverses this, we can safely assume it will be consumed in the future until there is no hydrogen left for fusion.

Finally, when we know that genetic changes (positive mutations) in a population accumulate over time and there is no known process which stops this and reverses them back to "default" (of course I am talking about mutations which escaped DNA repair mechanisms), we can safely assume that population will gradually get more different as time passes.

If we add some reproduction barrier (mountain range, sea...), then there is nothing which "synchronises" changes in groups on the opposite sides of the barrier, and over time as changes accumulate, the groups will diverge, ultimately leading to two distinct species (speciation).
Easy nad logical, isnt it?

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Maslo]

Now, I wish to make two things clear. One: I agree with progressive evolution (small changes over time) Two: I think this movie should show in American theaters. I wouldn't even see it if I were paid to but that doesn't mean that everything Christians disagree with should be thrown out of the media. After all, liberals didn't kick up a fuss when the Passion of the Christ came out... oh, wait, they did.

Is this a movie on Darwin's life or is it just showing how great evolution is? More than just a little of evolution shouldn't be classified as a theory but a hypothesis... an educated guess. If we evolved from monkeys... where is the missing link? Oh wait... you found one... what's that? It was a pigs tooth, a sham, a FAKE...? Oh my...

And if I'm such an idiot for refusing to believe in evolution... why can't you produce "life out of primordial soup" in a lab? You can't? Oh, well I'll just go on believe that God created the world then, thanks.

reply to post by sisgood


sisgood, sigh. You are doing what so many do, again. Confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Why can't life just "pop up" from the primordial soup in a laboratory?

Because of the need for TIME --- lots of it, far more than most people, it seems, understand.

LIFE is just chemistry. Molecules. Science.

It is very basic, at first, until MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years have a chance to occur...and millions of generations of the various processes...some don't work out, are dead ends. But, we will never know of them.

Here, this will show how, using just organic chemistry, something that is seen in laboratories everywhere, the basic building blocks of life will form. AS LONG AS the environment they are in is conducive, not destructive, and there is energy (Sun, motion, etc...):



The evolution is also influenced, in more complex organisms, by MANY other factors. MORE than any one person could conceive of, is likely. HENCE, it must be described as 'theory', since there are always new aspects to be discovered to continually refine and learn more.

Yawn this thread is still going? I dare say ithe OP has proven that religious america cant cope with a movieon Darwin...lol



[edit on 28-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by zazzafrazz


I KNEW I had an excuse!!!

Genes.... [burp].....

Originally posted by sisgood
And if I'm such an idiot for refusing to believe in evolution... why can't you produce "life out of primordial soup" in a lab? You can't? Oh, well I'll just go on believe that God created the world then, thanks.

This thread is about Darwin, right? And what did Darwin focus on? Evolution AFTER life began, and NOT abiogenesis right?

So a friendly suggestion to all the posters in this thread would be to perhaps focus on debating the merits and flaws in Darwin's work and the work that built on Darwin's work. This would mean discussing the evolution of life after life began and not abiogenesis, would this seem to be more on topic?

I don't think science has good evidence of abiogenesis, nor was that the focus of Darwin's work. Maybe science has some ideas about abiogenesis that are being researched, but the sparse evidence for it in no way compares to the huge body of evidence supporting evolution, according to scientists at least.

So my suggestion would be for the purpose of this thread about Darwin, to start with the fact that life began (and everyone agrees it began somehow), and then focus on the evidence for or against Darwin's theories or the theories which resulted from those. At least this approach would seem to be more on topic to me in a thread about Darwin than other topics like big bang, abiogenesis, etc. Thanks for considering it.

More posts about the movie would certainly be welcome and on topic too as some of us can't see it.

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by tim1989
One in four, I repeat, one in four Americans believe the world is only 6000 years old.

What idiots.

I can't beleive its one in four ...surely not.

That said, this video of 'creationists poisoning young minds at a museum'
is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a while.


Cheers.

Oh my! Those poor children being taught about God, the Bible, moral accountability, divine purpose.....gee...they might even acquire some self esteem and a sense of accountability for their actions. Oh! And they are being home schooled.....how terrible? Not one of them looks hard done by to me. Not one of them had difficulty expressing themselves in front of the cameras....not one of them was behaving like an animal (did ya watch the news today)?

I don't see anything wrong with what they were teaching those kids. It's an alternate view, and they were presenting both sides to the kids. Obviously they are too young to understand the more advanced side of the issues, such as those so expertly presented by Stylez. The kids are getting a good foundation and they are not having their self esteem destroyed by evolutionist teachings.

Besides, evolution is going down. I'm serious. Your theory will soon be history. I am 110% confident that within a few years evolution will be looked at by the human race as an embarrassment to humanity.

What is Darwin's legacy? That's the important observation. Back in the early 1800's (in America)nearly every 12 and 13 your old boy hit the country trail for school with his rifle in hand. He placed his rifle in the back of the one room school house and took his seat and learned about the God of the bible and creation. Despite all those guns being taken to school by young kids, you never heard about kids shooting other kids back then like you do today. After all, we are just like any other animal.....survival of the fittest.....natural selection.....bang your dead.....too bad so sad.

I like my video better!



Not only is evolution a fraud, It's down right dangerous because it rapes people, and children, of their self esteem and sense of divine purpose.

More of Darwin's legacy = justification for millions of mass killings in the last 150 years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you think teaching kids about creation is horrible?

Go figure!

[edit on 28/9/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by Maslo


Mutations are one of the two "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by neo-Darwinism. It is suggested that these chance modifications to DNA caused living things to evolve. Thousands of mutation experiments have been performed to back up this claim. Some populations of living things, fruit flies in particular, have been subjected to intense mutation. Yet the fact is that far from confirming evolution these experiments have actually undermined it. In not one living thing exposed to mutation has an increase in its genetic information been observed. On the contrary, mutants (living things exposed to mutation) are always deformed, sterile and sickly and DYING

Not really your best example for the slogan "Suvival of the fittest it smart guy.

No infact I was so tuned into evolutionist rhetoric that I had even predictwed the merging of more of the sceince vernacular to language disbelievers in one hypothesis by the meaning of another they have accepted and believe. This is obfuscation at its most despicable and desperate level. If you think you can suggest to me that a frog mutates having some nice looking warts the female just dig it so much that over time the frog becomes a prince that just happens to have some attractive acne scars, you would call them vestigial wart sites from when they were still a frog! I mean do you guys not have a clue how utterly PREPOSTEROUS your theory is?? Then you have the cahonies to mock 1 in 4 Americans who happen to have enough common sense to know if you kick a dead horse it won't get up so stop kicking it. Meanwhile you want to kick it for a million years as if time will make it work some how when the FACT is and this is by the way the FACT,

The fact is this genius,,

Ready?

You would still be kicking A DEAD HORSE!


Prove me wrong Prof.

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. In fact in the last two years they know for a fact that DNA will reboot itself and go right back to the original code carried within its templated design instruction set.

They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder!

no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, do you no what happens next? Tell me can you what is it we have seen and can PROVE happens EVERY TIME this happens ? Can you share?

Ill tell you what happens

sickness!

weakness!

shortened life spans!

deformed offspring !

sterility!

Following so far? I know this is hard to accept because it is sooooo not in harmony with the sloagan "survival of the fittest"

Shall I keep going or should I just cut to the chase and give the ultimate result?

DEATH!

There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy my friend.

NOTTA! paleontologists do their best to make sense out of the fossil record and sketch in evolutionary sequences or unfossilized morphologies without realistic hope of obtaining specific verification within the foreseeable future but the most idiotic comment I have seen comes from these same paleontologists, and I quote " The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately" If I had a nickel for everytime I had my intelligence insulted by someone on ATS using "Logic" like that.

Ever read a PHD disertation on macro-evolution and why it isn't the same to cross species? Why after many many years of radiated fruit flies and mutating e-coli, you would think by NOW CHIMPS would start creating a little more technology! Then just shoving a stick in termite mound to feed on the buggers!

This is one of the reasons I absolutely laugh when someone suggests I need to learn more about the way evolution works. Oh I see how it works, and it's like telling me I need to learn a lot more about a truck load of pure concentrated industrial strength stupidity. Their isn't an argument out there where todays Atheist winners of debated arguments with creationists won't be discovered to be tommorows losers of that same debate because EVERYTHING they know is found to be totally false later if not a HOAX.

C'mon show me the money fellas this should not be that hard to do! Science does NOT work the way you think it does suggesting since we see changes in one cars body style one year we can expect they turn into rocketships in a million years! BULL!

Macro evolution is upward change; it depends on mutations having the ability to produce new, and better DNA. But no matter how far outward you go, you will never go up. in fact, the only vertical change that has been proven to happen is downward change, because mutations cause a loss of information.

Scientists should know all this stuff. why would they then tell us that we are observing small amounts of macro evolution when they know we are only observing micro evolution? Its because they are pushing an agenda; that science can explain everything without the need of supernatural intervention.

Welfard keeps telling us the universe doesn't need God. Well ya know what?

DNA doesn't need gradual changes over time ! It simply has it all NOW.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Yawn this thread is still going? I dare say ithe OP has proven that religious america cant cope with a movieon Darwin...lol

[edit on 28-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Seeing how they treat Americans, I think it is appropriate America tells them where they can stick there movie.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You do know of course a thoery in science means more than a fact right?

You do know that evolution has no CHOICE BUT to address biogenesis do you not understand why louis pasteur is so hated by you guys? It's because ole Lou, proved life does not come from non life.

So evolution is forced to either explain what life did this or,,

Prove pasteur was wrong. The last thing they are going to get away with is that cheap cop out that evolution doesn't talk to abiogenesis. i mean all the other times we hear it boast it is the "unifying theory of all science's" Pffft they are so full of themselves and been listening to their own BS for so long they are now starting to look as goofy as fundies at a kkk lynching

Originally posted by Stylez
Prove pasteur was wrong.

Assume Pasteur was right. As far as I know nobody has generated life from non-life in a lab yet, nor do I expect it to happen anytime soon.

And for the sake of a logical debate, let's assume that God placed the first single celled organisms on the Earth to get around the unproven abiogenesis claim.

Does that disprove Darwin or evolution? As stated before polls show most people believe in God and evolution so this wouldn't necessarily pose a conflict for some people, and perhaps not even Darwin who said he couldn't even pretend to know how everything got started. Darwin was describing the processes he saw AFTER life was started.