Evolution is FACT!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 





The Walking Fox and Lasheic are two members I admire for their tireless patience. They spend much time to formulate a well structured and correct response, even when it is clear, that the other debater won't take his time to read that response and follow the sources. Perhaps they hope, that some interested members will look at these threads and learn from their reasoning.

I had more the impression she loves being a little smart mouth. lol
So I'm just happy to ablige. lmao.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
This is laughable! Explaining the creator is the easiest thing in the world to do... the very fabric of consistent philosophical thought demands it. You only think it is hard to explain because you make erroneous assumptions and you have not applied the basic principles of natural philosophy.


And yet greater minds than your own - and don't take offense, I'm sure you can agree that there were theologians who are better at it than you - have never been able to explain god. This is why he's usually labeled as "unknowable." That and it soudns good when paired with "ineffable" which is silly, because if you ask me, god's got a lot to effing answer for.


Let me enlighten you then: the universe is not additive, starting from nothing to which "things"are mystically added from nowhere. That position is based on circular-reasoning, and it also assumes that the very notions of potential and causation are there without actually seeing them as real existences.


You'd have a hard time finding a physicist who believes that something came from nothing. No matter how hard you tilt at this windmill, it's not going to become an ogre. Save your energy for the fair damsels of La Mancha.


The fact is, the universe is subtractive, springing forth as finite expressions of the infinite ocean of potential. It is this infinite ocean of potential which pre-exists all things and gives rise to them. So, everything that has existed, does exist, and can exist, springs forth from this ocean of potential. This ocean contains the blueprint for all THINGS, including every thought, idea, emotion, particle, wave, molecule, object, force, motion, action, and reaction. Because intelligence exists, it MUST have its origins in this ocean of potential, for there is nothing that exists which does not come from this potential.


Are you trying to explain physics, or sell organic herbal tea at a hippy commune? And hey. Weren't we talking about Evolution? Oh well.


This infinite potential is what most people refer to as "God." It is a force, but it is not only a force. It is a mind, but it is not only a mind. It is understanding, but it is not only understanding. It is a Him, Her and It, all rolled into one. It is the infinite plurality unified into a single unity. Everything we have ever witnessed and caused, or ever will witness or cause, all come from this original source, for this source is POTENTIAL itself.


I swear to Universal Potential you sound like a Doors song... Ahem. I have just two words for you.

Prove it.

Whether your god is a foreskin-hating dude on a cloud, a smoking mirror, a half-giant trickster, popped out of her dad's cranium like a mushroom, or is "infinite wellspring of all potential with crystals and flying unicorns" the fact is... we have no evidence of such. You want to assert that your version of deity is the explanation for the universe? Well by gum, gather up your data and bring it to the table.


To understand this, just think of electricity. First you must have voltage, which is potential, and only then can you have amperes, which is the actual flow of electron current.

Because the "source" contains no boundaries or limits, it is infinite, and therefore is more properly called "all things" since the potential for all things is contained within it. Because it has no boundaries or limits it has no things, no actions, no movements, and therefore, it has no attributes of finiteness. The very nature of infinity is that it has different attributes from the finite.


You tell me to think of it as voltage, and then you say that this universal force has no boundaries or limits?


Time is a feature of the finite since it is based on motion and space. Take away motion, and you will not have time. Take away space so that all things can exist at all locations at once and you will have no motion, which also means no time.


While this is philosophically interesting, it bears no actual use in a discussion about physical reality, because there is space, and there is motion, and we can't arbitrarily strip them out just to try to prove your Time Cube, er, I mean god.


The infinite is actually a realm of complete and absolute thought, where all possible conceptual connections exist in their entirety. This infinity gives rise to the finite as the simultaneous web of conceptual connections stream into space-time, gaining the attributes of finiteness by the conscious selection of a subset of all that is possible.

All motion, and therefore all space-time comes into existence as the result of a conscious intent and decision. All the motions we observe as "primordial", which we classify as the motions of particles, planets, and stars, all had their inception as a result of the universal potential's intent. These motions continue to this day as a long set of chain reactions.

When we who are endowed with the ability to reason, will, and action, make intended choices, we exercise the ability to alter the original creation, thereby making our own creation.

For example, if you pick up a glass and move it to a new location, you have altered the universe. Also, if you look at anything, you have altered the universe, for you have added to the vast list of things which have been observed. One of the main attributes of life is the ability to alter the universe by an act of intended will, and when this happens, we cause creation to occur. Creation is the act of limiting the infinite, of bounding it in a way that is different from what it is now.

This is the fundamental truth that serves as an antecedent to things like biology, physics, psychology, or cosmology.

What I have described here is neither metaphysical nor esoteric, for it is a logical and reasonable explanation of how the physical originates... by introducing waves and flows into the infinite ocean of potential.


Okay, I stopped taking you paragraph by paragraph because, really, you're not expounding on anything, just repeating yourself. And you're also making me want to brew up some of this tazo chai tea I've had sitting around for a while.

Again, to explain to you. We are talking about physical reality. And the only way anything you have just said could possibly work, is if the second law of thermodynamics doesn't really work. If you can provide conclusive proof that this is the case, the Nobel committee will be mining up to polish your prize, if you get my meaning.

There is no such thing as infinity, because of this Law of physics. Something may be big or old enough that to human perceptions, it looks infinite, but, our perceptions are flawed, due to our terribly small scope of things on the universal scale. If you were to bring forth evidence of your cosmic, sapient potential-force, then by the simple laws of the universe, it would not be infinite. Paradoxically, any entity or force able to manipulate the entire universe would have to have more energetic potential than the universe... I.e, would have to be infinte.

This is similar to the designer paradox.

Basically everything that exists is part of the universe. Anything that is part of the universe has to obey the laws of that universe. So either this force-being would be a part of the universe, subject to its laws, and thus unable to manipulate it on the scale in which you propose, or the being would have to be extra-universal somehow, a supernatural entity - and a supernatural entity is a paradox within a paradox, as everything that exists is natural.

So your hypothesis ends up with not one... not two... but three paradoxes. The creator paradox, the infinity paradox, and the supernatural paradox.

If you weren't paying attention in high school science, if you end up with a result that gives a paradox, then you hypothesis is incorrect.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 
A lot of arguments' against God are that the universe seems so cruel and unjust. But how did you get this idea of just and unjust? A person does not call a line crooked unless he/she has some idea of a straight line. What do you compare this universe with when you call it unjust? If the whole show is bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak,
how can you, being a part of the show, have such a violent reaction against it?... Of course you could have given up the idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of your own. But if you did that, then your argument against God would collapse too--for the argument depended on you saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please your fancies.
Thus, the very act of trying to prove that God does not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality is senseless - you are forced to assume that one part of reality - namely your idea of justice - is full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning




Look, this has been explained time and time again, on every single thread on evolution ever. I know you've seen these explanations. So I know that you know, somewhere in your brain-meats, the answer to your own question. But just on the off chance that you are terribly forgetful, here it is, one more time.
See you were right in the beginning I really didn't need "all that".

I figure you just enjoy it so,. hey wtf. I said the facts of adaptation
seem to jump track to the theory of evolution. How do you figure I need theory explained in this context? Go back and take a little care what you read before you get all fired up with skyrockets and the
lot. k? I'm talking about the FACT that science should be using the word
adaptation for the facts they are using for evolution.

Is adaptation a theory also? I think not. So now what say you, if you're on the same page now? I can't wait to see the big elaborate, unesessary,
bombastic verbal parade of unGodly nonsense. The suggestions that
evolution brings with are absolute nonsense. In fact their stupid.
Shapeshifting Apes? lol Apes were Apes, Apes are Apes , Apes will be Apes. I apologise for thinking more of you than that. lol

I think you need to be more informed still, something like you wouldn't make a pimple on a nats azz in his light.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 24-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


God is a personal being (not an impersonal force). God is immaterial, omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all good), immutable (unchanging), sovereign (supreme in authority), free, perfect, and eternal (without beginning or end). As the creator and sustainer of the universe it is understandable that there are some characteristics of God that are beyond our ability to comprehend. For instance God is one divine being in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are equally and eternally the one true God.

God reveals His characteristics to us through 'general,' or 'natural' revelation, and through 'special revelation.' God's general revelation includes what He has revealed to us through His creation in nature and in our God given conscience. Special revelation on the other hand is what God has revealed to us through supernatural means including His Son Jesus Christ, His Spirit, and His Word.
Brief
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth


[edit on 24-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Thank you for your response and taking the time to try and understand what I was saying. Clearly, putting these things into words such that they are understood correctly is something that takes perhaps many attempts, as refinement in communication can occur with each iteration.

I say this because after reading your comments I came to realize that you are not really getting what I'm trying to say. Just so you know, I not only paid attention in high school science, but I was accepted to the science department of a major USA university when I was only 15 years old because of my unusually high IQ scores. I am now 48 and have enjoyed a successful career as a software engineer, and most recently a filmmaker. I have spent all these years thinking about philosophy and coming to the revelations I presently hold. The main thing that fueled my thinking about concepts and what they really are was the 15 years of work I did in Artificial Intelligence research. Thinking about the universe and how to represent its concepts in an artificial mind/soul is certainly one way to spawn some heavy-duty philosophical thought.

Please do me the service of engaging in conversation on this, but not in such an adversarial manner, since I am not here to argue or to preach, but merely to discuss some very interesting philosophical ideas I have come to.

In your response you seemed to missed that I am saying some very basic ideas that I do believe MUST be true, not because of measured numbers, but because of first order logic and reason. You seemed to think that I am forcing he infinite within the box of the finite, and that cannot be further from the truth.

What I am saying is this: regardless of what you believe about science, whether it is a big-bang or some other theory, you can't escape the requirement of explaining where the initial energy and matter came from. If you believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then you must either believe that is all came into being at once, or you must believe that it always existed and had no beginning. There are no other logical choices.

If you believe that energy always existed, you must also believe that the laws which govern it, such as E=mc2, the speed of light, the size of particles, the number of electrons in each valence, and so on, were somehow always there. In short, you must accept that a vast set of laws that govern the physical universe were somehow always in place and that they had no origin. While this is certainly something one can believe in, I find it rather unsatisfying and sort of a philosophical cop-out... much the same way religious people just say that God made everything, when they really can't explain the why's and wherefores of their assertion. To say "it has just always existed" is really no answer at all, since it doesn't provide any plausible answer as to why such a place as our universe would exist in the first place.

What I do find more satisfying is a framework for existence that not only consistently explains how things came about, but also WHY. If I can succeed in communicating these ideas correctly, and people like you take the time to correctly understand what I'm trying to say, I think you will also find a certain philosophical pleasure in what I am proposing. And, contrary to what you have said, I do not at all believe that my proposal falls prey to the paradoxes you have identified, very simply because what I am proposing is the very well-spring of the physical universe itself, and that is the infinite ocean of potential I have mentioned. Rather than saying it is the physical universe which has always existed, I am proposing that it is POTENTIAL which has always existed.

It's late now so I'm going to bed, but I will write more later when I get up. I'm not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. What I really want to do is subject my thoughts and ideas to the critique and consideration of other intelligent people. I hope that is a worthy agenda.


Based on your response to my analogy with electricity, it is clear that you missed my intended meaning. My "voltage" analogy was not meant to illustrate the scope of infinity, but only to illustrate how potential is a prerequisite for actualization. My point is this: potential is what precedes the actual. Clearly, ideas and concepts are not physical, and in our human experience, ideas and concepts must precede the actual building of something, particularly if that something has an intended purpose.

For example, light is always moving, and at a constant speed according to Einstein. So, why is it moving? What is propelling it? Also, science speaks of the strong force, the weak force, and gravity, and yet there is no explanation of what they really are. Motion is clearly how we perceive time, and motion can only exist when there is a potential... a potential for the object to leave it's present location, and a potential for it to change to a different location. Clearly, this potential is governed by rules, otherwise the potential would be the same for all objects, regardless of size or mass. This is clearly not the case, since objects with more mass have less potential to move, and must therefore be overcome by a force (movement potential) that is greater than the objects potential to remain where it is.

Potential simply means "IT CAN." Science catalogs the "cans" and the "can'ts" but does very little to explain how these are enforced, what enforces them, and why they are the way they are. Before we can begin to explain these deeper and more primal things with numbers, we need a philosophical framework for thinking about existence itself, and that is precisely what is motivating my efforts here.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   


If you know anything about DNA, you know that there is NO WAY the specific difference between the DNA of humans and the DNA of primates could have happened naturaly. It is impossible in nature, and would have had to been done in a laboratory setting. See, humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) and primates have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). When humans reproduce, each parent contributes a half of a DNA strand, or 23 chromosomes (not pairs, but single chromosomes waiting for the other parents contribution) There is an anomaly in the human genome, where the second chromosome has another entire chromosome "tacked" on to it, to carry 24 chromosomes in the space of 23. The only way that this could have happened is at one point a mother (primate) with 24 chromosomes had to have an egg removed, and the 2nd-3rd chromosomes fused, AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, the father ( ? ) had to have a NATURAL 23 chromosome half to contribute. (key word is NATURAL) In a pre-human world full of primates, who had a NATURAL 23 chromosome half to contribute? Plus, how did the 24 Chromosome half from the mother fuse into 23, while still carrying the 24th? The word "laboratory" comes to mind. There is evidence of this in every strand of human DNA on earth. If nature is god, then they are the angels. Humans are a combination of both.


I saw this from a poster on godlikeproductions, I thought it was interesting.

Now I don't know much about evolution and the science behind it, but can anyone knowledgeable in this area of study tell me if this is true?

If it is wrong, then please do explain why, because I'm fascinated by it. If what this poster says is true, then how the hell did we go from Ape to Man?

Source: I have visited Nibiru.

peace!



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
...However,it's what lurks quietly within evolution that should make you think...

Merry christmas. x



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 
A lot of arguments' against God are that the universe seems so cruel and unjust. But how did you get this idea of just and unjust? A person does not call a line crooked unless he/she has some idea of a straight line. What do you compare this universe with when you call it unjust?


I notice you're spending much more time on the notion of "unjust" than "cruel." Of course, both notions are human conceits, but from our perspective, yes, most of nature is both cruel and unjust. The religious have tried to explain this with a school of thought called theodicy, which strives to explain why a good god would allow evil and suffering into his world. The explanations are, by necessity, convoluted and unhelpful to anyone who actually wants to know. Being a religious school of thought, every answer must allow for god being awesome and infallible.

How do I get the notion of cruelty and injustice? Reasoned thought. I have hurt myself before. This caused pain. I can reasonably expect that causing the same injury to another person would cause at least the same amount of pain. I did not like the sensation, and so I can assume they would not, either. It would thus be cruel to inflict the injury upon them.

Unlike some religious people, I don't need the tenuous thread of a deity's onion to keep me from becoming a ravening mass murderer



If the whole show is bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak,
how can you, being a part of the show, have such a violent reaction against it?... Of course you could have given up the idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of your own. But if you did that, then your argument against God would collapse too--for the argument depended on you saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please your fancies.


I wasn't arguing from justice. Justice, being a human conceit, is subjective. The Iranians apparently think it's justice to hang a man for being gay. I think that is a perversion of the word "justice". Whether you agree with me, or agree with them, i'm sure you can see that the notion is indeed subjective.

Rather, I have argued that life is poorly designed. From an engineering and planning viewpoint, the majority of life is not very well-made at all. Chainbreaker liked whacking on the platypus, but one wonders, what design called for this animal to have not two but ten sex chromosomes? WHat design called for that nerve in the giraffe's neck to travel fifteen feet, when it could be much simpler to have it go five inches? And who the hell would design a biped and then give it a spinal column that performs best on four legs?

If you're telling me that your god designed everything that's alive today, then you are telling me your god is an idiot. You can gasp and clutch at your pearls if you want, but for crying out loud, this stuff is just poorly designed.

On the other hand.. it is what you would expect out of evolution, which has no planning behind it, and is just a collection of mutations that are useful or benign enough to get passed on to the next generation.


Thus, the very act of trying to prove that God does not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality is senseless - you are forced to assume that one part of reality - namely your idea of justice - is full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning


First, I'm not trying to disprove god. I know you can't wrap your head around the notion, but I simply consider god a non-factor, in the same way i consider Zeus a non-factor, or consider invisible unicorns a non-factor. If someone could provide some evidence of these three, then I would try to factor them in.

Second, reality is full of sense. it makes sense that the cheetah is fast, in order to catch its prey. That prey is the thompson's gazelle, and it makes sense that this creature would be fast and agile and usually able to escape a cheetah's sprint. This makes sense because the cheetah is trying to eat and the gazelle is trying to not get eaten. Cheetahs who are faster than the gazelle get to feed their cubs, and the speed gene is passed on. Gazelles who are faster than cheetahs get to breed, and their speed gene is passed on (more accurately it's the gazelles who are faster than other gazelles, but, you get the idea)

However, when you attribute conscious design to this situation, sense begins to break down. Does god want the gazelle to get away, or does he want the cheetah to eat? Either he's consigning one of his loved creations to the slow torment of starvation, or he's consigning another of his lived creations to several minutes of pure terror and pain as its run down and choke to death.

But even beside that, from a pure design standpoint, it makes no sense. Software designers don't use their alpha version as the release product (Well, Microprose used to, but when's the last time you heard of them?) Yet if life were designed, that's the basic situation.



See you were right in the beginning I really didn't need "all that".

I figure you just enjoy it so,. hey wtf. I said the facts of adaptation
seem to jump track to the theory of evolution. How do you figure I need theory explained in this context? Go back and take a little care what you read before you get all fired up with skyrockets and the
lot. k? I'm talking about the FACT that science should be using the word
adaptation for the facts they are using for evolution.


No, they shouldn't. Adaptations are some of the facts that the theory of evolution springs from. Evolution is the conclusion that they point towards. You're pleading here - "Fine I'll agree, just don't call it evolution!." That's silly. Your argument is like saying we should call the theory of relativity "the theory of light"

I'm therefor making the tiny hop of logic that you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you did, you would understand why it's the theory of evolution.


Is adaptation a theory also?


Nope, it's just a demostrable fact that supports evolution.


I think not. So now what say you, if you're on the same page now? I can't wait to see the big elaborate, unesessary,
bombastic verbal parade of unGodly nonsense. The suggestions that
evolution brings with are absolute nonsense. In fact their stupid.
Shapeshifting Apes? lol Apes were Apes, Apes are Apes , Apes will be Apes. I apologise for thinking more of you than that. lol

I think you need to be more informed still, something like you wouldn't make a pimple on a nats azz in his light.


And now that you realize that you have no idea what's going on, you succumb to uncivil hysterics. Seriously, I don't know why I share my gum with people who are just going to shove it into their ears. If you're hoping that behaving like a buffoon and yapping brainlessly about your god is going to drive me off so you can feel that you're "victorious" it's not going to work. I've argued history with Mormons, you're nothing compared to that.

Now since you were very obviously not paying attention, evolution does not talk about shapeshifting apes. Or shapeshifting anything. I've already explained this to you. Maybe you should go back and see.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


God is a personal being (not an impersonal force). God is immaterial, omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all good), immutable (unchanging), sovereign (supreme in authority), free, perfect, and eternal (without beginning or end). As the creator and sustainer of the universe it is understandable that there are some characteristics of God that are beyond our ability to comprehend. For instance God is one divine being in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are equally and eternally the one true God.

God reveals His characteristics to us through 'general,' or 'natural' revelation, and through 'special revelation.' God's general revelation includes what He has revealed to us through His creation in nature and in our God given conscience. Special revelation on the other hand is what God has revealed to us through supernatural means including His Son Jesus Christ, His Spirit, and His Word.
Brief
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth


[edit on 24-12-2009 by randyvs]


You really don't realize how silly all that gobbledegook sounds to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, do you? Especially since you're rambling on endlessly about how silly you think evolution is, despite all the evidence backing it up - to the point where you have to actively LIE in order for your opposition to make any sense - but here you are arguing all this stuff about something even you admit is immaterial and incomprehensible.

I think you're just completely terrified that you've wasted so much time in worship to and in fear of something that somewhere in your head, you must realize does not actually exist.

It's okay. Took me some time to get over the fear of my loving god killing and torturing me eternally if I didn't believe in him. But I amanaged. So can you.

So hey. Got any of those neat acronym things for
D
I
A
N
E
T
I
C
S
?

Does it work for any silly book? How about
T
W
I
L
I
G
H
T
?

How about movies?
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
E
R
2

[edit on 24-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker84


If you know anything about DNA, you know that there is NO WAY the specific difference between the DNA of humans and the DNA of primates could have happened naturaly. It is impossible in nature, and would have had to been done in a laboratory setting. See, humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) and primates have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). When humans reproduce, each parent contributes a half of a DNA strand, or 23 chromosomes (not pairs, but single chromosomes waiting for the other parents contribution) There is an anomaly in the human genome, where the second chromosome has another entire chromosome "tacked" on to it, to carry 24 chromosomes in the space of 23. The only way that this could have happened is at one point a mother (primate) with 24 chromosomes had to have an egg removed, and the 2nd-3rd chromosomes fused, AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, the father ( ? ) had to have a NATURAL 23 chromosome half to contribute. (key word is NATURAL) In a pre-human world full of primates, who had a NATURAL 23 chromosome half to contribute? Plus, how did the 24 Chromosome half from the mother fuse into 23, while still carrying the 24th? The word "laboratory" comes to mind. There is evidence of this in every strand of human DNA on earth. If nature is god, then they are the angels. Humans are a combination of both.


I saw this from a poster on godlikeproductions, I thought it was interesting.

Now I don't know much about evolution and the science behind it, but can anyone knowledgeable in this area of study tell me if this is true?

If it is wrong, then please do explain why, because I'm fascinated by it. If what this poster says is true, then how the hell did we go from Ape to Man?

Source: I have visited Nibiru.

peace!


I found this thread. Dont have the time to read it, so I hope it has the answer. Also, pandasthumb.org... seems to deal with the problem.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by downisreallyup
One thing you would have a hard time explaining is ATP Synthase...


The opposing view.
www.millerandlevine.com...


Thank you for that link. I did take the time to read it and found it interesting. It did seem to me however that the arguments were carefully chosen to avoid the real issue of irreducible complexity, since I do not believe they dealt with real irreducible complexity, nor did they deal with a much bigger issue, and that is the issue that not all evolutionary steps are small ones, and in fact, some are required to be quite large. Since you gave me a link and I took the time to read it and consider it, I would ask that you do the same:

Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary Theory

This e-Book does a very good job of starting off with basic information theory, then on to knowledge theory, and gets into the actual issues involved with step-by-step increase of complexity. I thought it took a very balanced look at both ID and ET.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   


Now since you were very obviously not paying attention, evolution does not talk about shapeshifting apes. Or shapeshifting anything. I've already explained this to you. Maybe you should go back and see
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ok Fox you want to cut through the crap just answer two questions.
With the most simplistic answers you can think of.

Did men evolve from Apes?

Does God Exist?




You really don't realize how silly all that gobbledegook sounds to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, do

Wrong! It's just that I don't care.I Know exactly how it sounds. It sounds about the same as one
species evolving into another.

I just choose to say it anyway, because based on what I've seen in life,
there is no more powerful name in the universe, than Jesus Christ.
You can't change the things I've seen with my own eyes.

Things you wouldn't believe if I straight up told you.
I won't offer the normal things Christians offer people like you because I don't consider myself part of the norm.
Wheather that be good or bad? I'm positive I will find out.
I would like to relate this to you.
In all your so many and extensive years of experience in life, (your tone
being rather suggestive of them not being excessive) I would give a
fortune, to be there to see the look on your face, the moment you discover
what so many have been telling you is true.

I would love to be able to compliment your amazing intelligence like
alot of the candyazzes on this site have.
Every time I thought to I could not.
Here's why.
According to your way of thinking, The absolute systematic logic that exists throughout the universe must be the result of a constent randomness. I have seen randomness and it can not ever be constent.
Logic, systems, and information encoded in DNA , can only be the result
of a supreme intelligence( being ).
Besides that, your head is already way to gigantic.

To quote Abraham Lincoln
" I can look around this world and see why so many would say, there is
no God. What I can not conceive is how anyone can look into the heavens
and make the same claim".

[edit on 4-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chainmaker
You have posted some really great examples of natural selection AKA environmental adaptation AKA micro-evolution.

But I'm sure you believe that somehow proves that amphibians developed into reptiles and dinosaurs into birds, which it certainly does not.

You have not posted any proof of macro-evolution AKA the development of any new irreducibly complex structure.

Those viruses remained viruses, and the rabbits remained rabbits.

Macro-evolution is a theory full of holes, and spontaneous biogenesis is nothing but the atheist/agnostic's completely made up doctrine that affirms his spiritual denial.

This makes me sad.

There is not a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. When you say that "micro-evolution happens by macro-evolution doesn't", all you actually said is "evolution happens but I demonstrate that I do not understand what it means."

The accumulation of the changes that you label micro-evolution is the fodder of macro-evolution. There is not a difference between the two things. Evolution is not about making new species any more than toast is about jelly. Evolution, in conjunction with assorted environmental factors, is what leads to speciation.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


- Epicurius.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


- Epicurius.



Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


God created potential for evil when He created the concepts of good and choice.
God created darkness so that light could be discerned.
God created potential for pain when he created the concepts of pleasure and excess.
God created potential murder when he created life and intelligence.
God created potential hatred when he made love a choice.
God created doubt when he showed us more than we could understand, and faith when he showed us less than we wanted.
God created potential theft when he gave us dominion of the earth.
God created the concept of sin when he gave man a single rule to follow.

Is it really that hard to see how God created all things, and that the negative is a necessary result of the positive? You cannot have one without the other... it is an impossibility.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Quite simply, if God doesn't exist and evolution is true, then we really don't have any purpose whatsoever, and really, every law is ridiculous. If we are mere animals, then there is no morality. Does a lion have morality? None whatsoever.

All you people who want to flaunt how moral you are apart from God, well I say poppycock! If there is no God, there is no morality, and it is unfair and unjust for any of you to impose your selfish values on everyone else. But then again, there really isn't anything that is fair or unfair, since in a jungle-war of survival there are no rules.

If there is no God, and no judgment or afterlife, then the only law that really counts is self-preservation, and even that is a self-centered exercise of self-important arrogance.

If there is no God, then this entire planet doesn't matter a twit... not one twit. If it were to explode tomorrow, there would be a slight adjustment in the solar system and galaxy and that's it. Nothing would really change at all. All this talk of the value of life would be just preposterous, since you are artificially adding value to a mere mistake, an accident, a freak of odds and statistics.

Sir, you who wants to tell me how good you are apart from God, I say poppycock!

Madam, you who pats yourself on the back, boasting of how good and civil and giving you are, I say poppycock!

You are not good, for if you are correct about there being no God, then your "goodness" is a figment of your imagination. There is no good and there is no evil. If you are right, then everything goes, and there is no REAL law or REAL justice. It is only mob rule and mob rule is simply "might makes right" so when a murderer kills, he is not really doing evil, he was just caught, and all the weak little humans in society think he should be locked up because they are scared of him, so they do lock him up. But not because he was wrong or evil, but merely because he was caught.

After all, what is so wrong about killing a life form that is merely an accident? Do you cry about the cows that are killed so you can enjoy your steak? Would you cry about killing a human that was born with two heads and monster-like teeth? Well, what if those teeth were an "evolutionary advancement?" No, you only cry about your own precious human beings because you, like every low-level life form, are just exercising selfish unfounded attachment to your own species, founded solely on your own emotional weakness.

If there is no greater purpose to life than its own preservation and propagation, then by the strongest virtue of logic and reason, it has no value and there is no reason to protect it.

This my friends is the very thinking of those who want to kill off 90% of the population and create for themselves a nice planetary environment, where they are the rulers/masters, and there is a small 500 million population that will work for them, and take care of their needs. This is your Godless future, and you really need to give up all hope of stopping them, because as far as humans go, they ARE the strongest, they ARE the fittest, they ARE the smartest and wisest, and by all definitions of evolution, they deserve to RULE YOU and CONTROL YOU because they have proven that they are superior.

And since you are so willing to do without God, there is nobody out there who can unseat them. They have ruled since before WWI and look how successful they have been... they even convinced you to behave yourselves by making you think you actually had freedom and control! My, my, they are "good" as far as being the FITTEST. They may very well be the next evolutionary step of mankind, and when the culling of "useless eaters" begins, they are just doing what all evolutionary organisms do... they eliminate the weaker.

For me, I refuse to think so little of God's wondrous creation. You like to revel in your evolutionary theory, presupposing yourselves to be wise and smart, when it is your pride that has blinded you to the fact that you have eliminated the very thing that made you MORE than an animal. But, since you want so much to be a mere animal, you will find yourselves being treated as such when the stuff finally hits the fan...you can count on it.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 




If there is no God, then this entire planet doesn't matter a twit...


Yes, it may not matter in the grand universe scale of things. But it does matter to US. Do you think things are important only if they matter to some supernatural entity in addition to physical beings? I dont think so..
Absence of supernatural doesnt mean that things have no value.

Just to make things clear, evolution and abiogenesis doesnt disprove god - you can just say it was the way god created.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Ok Fox you want to cut through the crap just answer two questions.
With the most simplistic answers you can think of.

Did men evolve from Apes?


Humans and apes share a common ancestor. As this ancestor was probably more like an ape than a person, in layman's terms, you could say that humans are descended from apes.


Does God Exist?

Which god?


Wrong! It's just that I don't care.I Know exactly how it sounds. It sounds about the same as one
species evolving into another.


Perhaps if you don't understand the science involved, and refuse to look at the evidence produced for it, you can say that. And you can't turn that around on me, because I do understand religion, especially yours. I probably understand it better than most christians. I just find it repugnant and nonsensical



I just choose to say it anyway, because based on what I've seen in life,
there is no more powerful name in the universe, than Jesus Christ.
You can't change the things I've seen with my own eyes.


I think Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster and Stirling Mortlock might disagree

And no, I can't change the things you've seen with your own eyes. But after my date with Ayahuasca, I can tell you your eyes aren't as reliable as you think they are.


Things you wouldn't believe if I straight up told you.
I won't offer the normal things Christians offer people like you because I don't consider myself part of the norm.
Wheather that be good or bad? I'm positive I will find out.


Good, 'cause I know what christians really mean when htey tell me htey'll pray for me.


I would like to relate this to you.
In all your so many and extensive years of experience in life, (your tone
being rather suggestive of them not being excessive) I would give a
fortune, to be there to see the look on your face, the moment you discover
what so many have been telling you is true.


Happened a few years ago when I realized I was following a false philosophy wrapped around the corpse of a late antiquity Jewish carpenter. When I realized that the goal of that religion was emotional and mental slavery and abuse, dehumanization and eternal guilt. it was quite shocking for me. I've gotten over it.


I would love to be able to compliment your amazing intelligence like
alot of the candyazzes on this site have.
Every time I thought to I could not.
Here's why.


because you're incapable of recognizing intelligence, as evidenced by how you end every post with snarling invective? And truthfully, I'm not that intelligent, I'm simply well-educated. Subtle difference.


According to your way of thinking, The absolute systematic logic that exists throughout the universe must be the result of a constent randomness. I have seen randomness and it can not ever be constent.


That's a pretty big assumption, don't you think? You're also engaging in logical fallacy.
"I see order in the universe, and I can't conceive of how this could be possible without a god; therefor there must be a god"

I'm not an astrophysicist. The subject doesn't fascinate me as much as biology does (though it IS interesting!) The universe isn't random, and I wish I had the learnin' to explain in detail, but as I say, that's not my particular school of thought.

We're here on an evolution thread, I'm here to talk about evolution. You want to talk cosmogenesis and astrophysics, feel free to start a thread.


Logic, systems, and information encoded in DNA , can only be the result
of a supreme intelligence( being ).


Clearly you don't know much about DNA, do you? The large bulk of DNA is "filler" - it does nothing, wasted space, redundant sequences. A lot of it is stuff that has accumulated from generation after generation after generation being infected with viruses. You yourself admit to the reality of mutation which is, honestly, the cornerstone of "random" in biology.

A supreme intelligence would have gotten it right the first time and wouldn't have put so much wasted data into the code. Hell a mundane intelligence could tell you that.


Besides that, your head is already way to gigantic.


Comes with the territory of knowing for a fact you're right.


To quote Abraham Lincoln
" I can look around this world and see why so many would say, there is
no God. What I can not conceive is how anyone can look into the heavens
and make the same claim".
[edit on 4-1-2010 by randyvs]


To quote Eris:
"I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free"

Meditate on this. You'll find that my profound quote is much deeper than yours.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Here, why don't you go educate yourself on this site, and take an honest look at the issues of making small incremental changes vs. large changes, and how there are indeed large changes in evidence, to which evolutionary processes cannot account.

Go ahead, take a solid look at this site... I dare you. I challenge you to put aside your smugness and take an honest look at the info at this site. I doubt you will, however, because you have already admitted how you find faith repugnant and therefore it is hard to imagine that you are capable of taking an honest look with an open heart.

Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

I have done what I am asking you to do... I have taken an honest look at evolution, fully willing to believe it if it held up to my full powers of reason and research. While it could conceivably work if all biological advancement could be explained in terms of very small cellular-knowledge increases, it is a totally unworkable theory given that many cellular-knowledge improvements do require much larger jumps, and this in turn necessitates inputted knowledge from an outside source.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   


Clearly you don't know much about DNA, do you? The large bulk of DNA is "filler" - it does nothing, wasted space
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Oh excuse me I didn't say gnome sorry. nitpicky aren't we. Been along time since I had a bioplate in front of me. I'm not trying to keep up with
you either.
Look the only thing that causes me to be conversing with your conceded
self. Is all the insults you throw for no reason at things other people believe I really couldn't care less about you or what you believe.
You can have your reality anyway you choose. You be the God.
I would appreciate it if you tone down the insults. Is that to much to ask of you. Respectivly.
I mean for someone who has this big humongess brain I would think you would be above childish insults.
I know I'm guilty to but that was retaliation.
I mean it's not like it isn't an ugly part of you.
I haven't been wasting my time talking to that much of a goner have I?


[edit on 4-1-2010 by randyvs]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join