It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "I've had it with madness" Challenge!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



1) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life. Check.
2) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the meaning of life. Check.


Repeating things we're not in dispute over doesn't change anything. I've told you dozens of times that these are irrelevant to the truth of biological evolution.




Now, evolution not answering either of these questions doesn't change its validity.


Of course it does, because the “evolution theory” can only occur/happen unless it has a foundation.


We're back where we started months ago. I've gone over this with you already. The theory does have a foundation, it's called genetics. Philosophical questions aren't a foundation for any scientific theory. Or did Newton have to ponder sexual morality before coming up with the laws of motion?



Be it “abiogenesis” or whatever theory you use to support it.


Abiogenesis doesn't support evolution, it supports abiogenesis. If a magical space-donkey threw up the first living things onto Earth evolution would still be valid. All evolution needs for its validity to hold is a set of living things that reproduce with genetic codes that don't copy perfectly.



If the foundation is weak or even non-existent then the “evolution theory” has NO validity.


Again, the foundation for evolution is genetics. Magical space-donkey through life up on Earth still allows for evolution.




Alright, I'm going to repeat this yet again, as I've already told you this many, many times. Evolution is a scientific theory relating to biodiversity. There is a separate theory in science relating to the origin of life, it is called abiogenesis, but it is a relatively new field.


Of course – the much revered philosophy of “Spontaneous Generation Theory” to the rescue.


Abiogenesis isn't 'spontaneous generation'. Spontaneous generation held that life arose from non-life regularly and in incredibly complex manners. Such as maggots coming from rotting meat. Abiogenesis only occurs in certain environments, like the early Earth and it gives rise to incredibly simple organisms, the most simple possible self-replicating, self-contained systems.



Do you subscribe to this THEORY too?

I read and studied this theory a while back – and it is indeed a pseudo-science, a fanciful philosophy based on unscientific analysis and unscientific thinking.


Indeed it is, that's why it's nothing like abiogenesis.



What about these theories – which one do you think fit the puzzle best?

>The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis


I'm not certain. I'm not an organic chemist or molecular biologist and the field is still developing. Of course, you can't simply state that science not being certain to an answer makes your answer better. That's a classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy.




But I’d like to hear your take on 'abiogeneses'– explain please how life came to be through 'abiogeneses'? Just to confirm my suspicion.


I'm not 100% certain, as I'm not a trained organic chemist or molecular biologist I'm not exactly absorbed in this sort of study. Nor do I particularly have time for it. My personal lack of scientific grounding on an issue isn't necessarily against my argument. Now, if we were debating this properly I'd research it a hell of a lot more. But since you've yet to acknowledge my invitation to the debate forum, I'll just stay away from the scientific literature for now.



So my take, if the 'unguided evolution process' is such a powerful cause/force that a 'simple organism' is able to 'evolve' into a higher life form like present day humans – then why is it NOT able to eradicate these parasites?


I already explained it and you're relying on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn't go from "higher" to "lower", it just goes. Evolution is about survival, not perfection.

As for why we can't eradicate the parasites? They're evolving too.



Unless you're saying that it is part of the plan all along – you know “arms race”- the fittest will survive? Yes/No?


...there's no 'plan'. Parasites adapt at the same time as their host organisms. Adaptation occurs much faster in organisms that have shorter lifespans, shorter reproductive cycles, and larger offspring 'litters'. Parasites tend to adapt faster due to the above. We reproduce between 1-8 times in an 50-80 year lifetime. We don't keep up as well.



And who do you think is winning this “arms race” of yours, who will be eradicated if things continue the way they are?


I can't predict the next few million years of biodiversity. I don't know who will win the arms race of evolution. However, I think humanity might prevail against parasitic organisms through scientific means.



Notice just a sampling:
(snip excerpt on cancer)


There's also been a massive rise in carcinogens, particularly in the developing world.



Here are just a few list of viruses that plague mankind.

Lassa,
Rift Valley,
Oropouche, Rocio,
Q. Guanarito, VEE, monkeypox,
Chikungunya, Mokola, Duvenhage, LeDantec,
the Kyasanur Forest brain virus, the Semliki Forest agent,
Crimean-Congo, O’nyongnyong,
Sindbis, Marburg, 
Ebola, add to the list AIDS virus.


...yes, all of the above also adapt. And they do so at a much faster rate than humans do. Of course viral and bacterial organisms also have the added advantage of horizontal gene transfer, in which they can exchange DNA with other organisms.



Really, with these ever increasing threat from an ever stronger viruses, does man stand any chance? In another words – will human “evolution” win this “arms race” of yours?


If it were left to just evolution? Possibly. We can actually trace blood typing to human evolution to combat small pox. The O blood type is found very rarely in indigenous Western populations but found highly in Europeans and Asians. Why? Small pox. There's a connection.

Of course, if it were left to just evolution without advanced human technology we'd be knocked down to a much smaller population pool. This smaller population would have to deal with far less in terms of disease and worldwide pandemics.



If yes, then how could that be since according to your statement:

Genetic code doesn't always copy perfectly, that's why things evolve in the first place.



...um...because the parts that don't copy perfectly are mutations. You and I both have somewhere around 180 genes unique from both of our parents.



And since according to the laws of genetics, if the source gene is defective then it follows that whenever or whatever is copied from it will also contain the defective gene/DNA.


"Imperfect copy" and "defective" are two entirely different things. I have had a bit of my DNA sequenced due to a personal medical issue I'd rather not discuss. I know that I have a marker that's different from both of my parents that relates to eye color. It's not a defect, it's just a difference in coloration. Sometimes imperfect copies can actually be better.



Thus since ALL HUMANS are IMPERFECT (Romans 5:12) thus all that comes out of them MUST also be IMPERFECT. Correct?


Um..I never claimed perfection. And the imperfection of biological entities doesn't have anything to do with original sin, it has to do with survival. The imperfect copying of DNA is what allows us to evolve. Without it we'd have gone the way of the dodo...actually, the dodo wouldn't have even ever have existed, we'd just have a bunch of the exact same organism.



The more imperfect the parent gene the more imperfect the daughter gene will be, more susceptible to pathogens. Correct?


What? Okay, what do 'pathogens' have to do with DNA copying? And with DNA there isn't a level of 'perfection' for a gene. And you're extrapolating all sorts of things. For one thing not all of the genetic code relates to the immune system. My eye coloring mutation has nothing to do with my ability to fend off disease (which is quite good thank you very much).

Now, I'm not saying that the genetic code decays over time. Stop using straw man arguments.

About 180 genes per human are different from parents. These are our mutations. Some of them are significant advantages (better resistance to disease, more resistance to solar radiation, the redhead gene which relates to the metabolic process with regard to certain chemicals etc). Some of them are neutral in terms of survival but may increase chances of reproduction (my eye color gene, at least according to some women I've met), some of them are harmful (various examples of human genetic abnormalities can be inserted here).



If this is the case (which it is)


Hey look, you just stated something and then claimed it as fact without any evidence and based entirely in ignorance. Some imperfections in the copying of DNA are beneficial.



mankind then IS – devolving, becoming more imperfect – getting weaker and sicker.


Nope. We're actually getting smarter, taller, and slightly stronger.



Correct? Unless you are saying that evolution is 'intelligent' able to filter out the bad genes?


Another logical fallacy, a false dilemma. There is a factor to sort out the problems, and it's not 'intelligent'. It's called natural selection. The mutations that cause disadvantages like greater susceptibility to disease, are more likely to be sorted out.

Of course, humanity is altering natural selection with modern medical technology. We allow people who would have otherwise not survived in the wild to survive. I personally wouldn't have made it in the wild because I have absolutely horrible vision.

Now, most creationists can't seem to wrap their heads around this, but humans aren't the most important species on this planet and shouldn't be used as a test case for evolution. We're the only species that uses technology (like glasses) to alter our survival chances in incredibly significant ways.



But this couldn't be, because you said in a matter of FACT way: EVOLUTION is

“an unguided process”.



It's an unguided process but it's nonrandom. And stop shouting individual words. Use bold to emphasize words rather than caps. It's both easier to read and less associated with shouting.



Any hope for the future according to evolution theory?


Of course. However, it's hard for you to understand when you have such a distorted view of both evolution and genetics.



Will man evolve to another species in the future in order to survive its ultimate demise?


Of course. Eventually our allele frequency will change to the point where humanity will no longer be considered homo sapiens sapiens. This may be due to genetic drift or possibly due to our own intervention into DNA through genetic experimentation.



Evolve into what?


I can't predict what's going to happen tomorrow with my own day, how am I supposed to predict something that will happen with human biology when I'm long dead?



As for:


Death is a more complicated issue.


No it's not – to believers of creation it's an enemy that will someday be eradicated by a loving God. (Rev 21:1-3, John 3:16).


Hey look! You're taking the word of a book that gets science incredibly wrong! It states that the Sun and Moon were created the day after plant life, that the sun goes around the Earth, and that the Earth is flat.



In fact the Creator of life already told us how and why old age, sickness and death occurred: here's the key - Rom 5: 12 (if you're interested)


You know, Bible passages don't impress me. It's a book that doesn't have a single scientifically accurate passage.



Next:

With regards to death from external causes like disease, injury, oxygen deprivation, etc the issue is that the necessary minimum amount of a certain system required for the body to function has not been met for enough time for the entire thing to finally die.


So are saying then that these “external causes” of death are “necessary” in order for the “for the entire thing to finally die” so that the fittest will survive??



No, it's just unavoidable. If I take humpty-dumpty and smash him up enough it won't matter how much work the king's horses and king's men put into it. He'll just be a pile of broken egg.

Humans are machines. If you break a machine badly enough it won't function anymore.




With regard to ageing it has to deal with how the cells in the body reproduce. They don't copy themselves perfectly after between 20 and 35 years, so the body starts to go into a small decline.


Which leads me to this simple Q: what caused the telomeres to die off/fail to reproduce once it becomes an adult?


I never mentioned telomeres, did I? I was trying to keep this as non-technical as possible since you've thrown a dozen questions at me.

Honest answer? I don't know and I don't feel like reading up on it by now. I'm guessing it's just because the process would be incredibly difficult to keep sustained in a perfect way indefinitely.



Did 'evolution' somehow forgot to consider this?


Evolution doesn't consider anything. It isn't a thing, it's a process of change in allele frequency over generations. Though there are organisms that don't senescence (you're the one that brought technical terms into this)



Or did 'evolution' intended it to be SO, in order to fulfill it's grand blind design/plan, that is, as you said:


Evolution works towards survival, not perfection



Hey look, you're starting to snip my quotes into pieces to take out of context, how cute. And you keep using straw men. I'm not saying there's a grand design or plan. It just happens. Period.



Thus a death of a person due to a virus infection is “evolution's”:


...works towards survival...
in other words “survival of the fittest ”not perfection” - is that what you mean? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Survival of the fittest is true. And there's really no such thing as 'perfection'. Both 'fitness' and 'perfection' are relative terms. Humans aren't more or less fit than sharks because we don't live in the same environment.



If so, then what you're saying imho is that the death of millions or even billions of humans (since their evolution/conception) were necessary in order for evolution to move forward. Correct?


Humans
aren't
special.

We simply die because there's nothing in our DNA to prevent senescence



And on this imho 'evolution' do not care one bit:


Because it's an unguided process. Evolution works towards survival, not perfection. If the organism survives and passes on its DNA then the DNA will continue. But there's nothing in evolution that requires the organism to become perfect.


So an inferior gene begets an inferior gene


Stop
using
straw
men.

Did I mention inferior genes? Evolution is all about finding the best genes for survival. But there's no such thing as 'perfection' because it's a relative term.



– down the road, this gene will finally deteriorate to such a degree that the resulting organ is a mutant – unless you're saying otherwise.


I'm a mutant, you're a mutant, and every single organism on this planet is a mutant. We all have DNA that didn't copy properly. You're displaying such a monumental ignorance of biological science, particularly genetics and evolution, that I find it overwhelming to try and educate you on the proper points.

Genetics don't copy perfectly, but the imperfect copies can generate benefits for an organism.



Which brings me to this point.


Which was the point of all of these stupid leading questions that demonstrated cyclopean levels of ignorance. I mean 'cyclopean' in the sense of massive, not in the sense of "one-eyed Greek mythological beast", I just wanted to switch things up.



That is, “DEATH” is part of the 'human evolution'.


It's not something specific to us. It's not an end result. We exist as a species rather than as individuals with regards to evolution. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs at the species level.



Correct?


Death isn't a part of evolution, it's just a factor of biological life.



If so, does this mean then that death is a normal part of life?


Yes. Of course it is. You'd have to be sort of silly to not guess that. Unless of course you subscribe to the silly story in the Bible that has death not existing until a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a fruit from a magic tree.

Now, here's a question for you, did that plants that Adam and Eve ate die? Or were there little gardens growing in their stomachs?



If so evolution's end game then is imperfection and finally death?


...no. Evolution is a species-wide phenomenon. Now, there's no such thing as 'perfection' in the biological world. All organisms are 'imperfect' in some way or another. Hammerhead sharks can't wear glasses or tap dance, that's an imperfection....except I abhor tap dancing so that might not be an imperfection.

Perfection is a subjective issue, not an objective one, so it's an irrelevant point. And death isn't an end game for evolution because..well...it has no end game. It has no game. It's just a process.



Correct? Or maybe an endless devolution/evolution, an ongoing cycle of life and death – just like what the Hindu's believe – reincarnation.


Please, don't bring up more religion. And don't use the word 'devolution', it's a popular fiction concept, not an actual scientific one. Nothing devolves. Any change in a species is evolution. You're just demonstrating such brobdingnagian (another word for "really big") levels of misunderstanding of evolution that it's just not funny anymore.

Evolution is simply change. It's not good change, it's not bad change, it's any change. The only relative values of 'good' and 'bad' for this change are whether or not they change the survivability of a species.



If this is true, then a pity for those who believe in it (evolution that is), (specially for those who abandoned Creation).

Creation's goal on the other hand is PERFECTION! Both in body and mind (Rom 8:20-21)! Should we not reach for that goal?


Um..how is that scientific? How is that based in observed evidence? How is that based in genetics or any other biological discipline? Why are you moving on to concepts of mind when you haven't even addressed the basic biological concepts that evolution has an explanation for (which you don't seem to understand anyway) while putting forward subjective, philosophical notions like 'perfection'?

Question: What is a perfect body? Can it lift a mountain? Is it incredibly beautiful? Does it not stink? Does a perfect body poop?



Of course, to proponents of evolution, it's an unattainable goal for

“Evolution works towards survival, not perfection”.



Well, it is an unattainable goal. You cannot have a perfect body because there's no way to define a perfect body.



BTW:

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying for a while now.
That is: EVOLUTION is

“an unguided process”.
– in other words IT'S A BLIND PROCESS! It's more like a game of CHANCE – and CHANCE is the CAUSAL force.


...now we're getting into physics and philosophy. Stop drifting off into random areas. I'm not going to get into an argument about determinism vs indeterminism because we're veering into so many different topics.

Evolution is the nonrandom selection of random mutations by means of natural selection. It's a blind process. So what?



Next I said:

Why 'evolution' if it's a fact (as some are fond of saying) is not able to remove/filter out these detrimental factors of life (I.e: disease, sickness and death) while evolving? Will it be able to in the future?


You said:


No, it won't. Of course, human intervention will be able to handle those things.


Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that “human intervention will be able to handle those things.” - meaning, man will eventually eliminate “those things” -i.e. disease, sickness and death?


Of course that's what I mean. That's how pronouns are used. Don't make me have to teach you grammar alongside science. Though I'm far more comfortable teaching English than I am science. Hell, I even get paid to teach English.

But anyway, evolutionary theory doesn't posit that solution for disease and death will miraculously evolve. Stop creating straw men. Seriously, you could conquer a small nation with the army of evolution straw men you've created in this thread.



I came to this conclusion because of what you said below:

Next – I said:

(Do you think 'evolution' will be able to eliminate these painful facts of life soon - that is, before man destroys himself from a nuclear explosion/reaction or from the forces of nature? )


your response to what I said above:


No, evolution won't. The medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory, on the other hand, will.



...so...your argument was that since a theory concerning biodiversity doesn't put forth an ending for human suffering...it's false. Even though we have a mountain of evidence in support of this which you refuse to acknowledge, let alone address, it doesn't matter because it won't cure all sickness.



So Madness, since you stated that “evolution” will NOT be able to ELIMINATE these painful facts of life soon, what convinced you that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” is able to ELIMINATE these ever growing problems soon?


Well, I can do it as a logical proof:

Science works
Medicine and biology are science
Medicine and biology will work to fix problems
QED

Also, an opportunity to speak about awesome science. Well, I mentioned horizontal gene transfer before. And it's important in immunology.

You see, you have a lot of bacteria live in our body as part of our natural system in our digestive track. We refer to them as our natural 'flora'. These bacteria are killed off whenever we use an antibiotic, except for the ones that have mutated a resistance to antibiotics. Now, this is an example of an imperfect gene copy that is beneficial.

These bacteria then begin to reproduce, passing on this mutation to successive generations. Now, eventually you'll get another bacterial infection...and that bacteria may get into your digestive tract, where it can copy some of the evolved genetic code from your natural flora and gain a natural resistance to some antibiotics.

An understanding of these evolutionary and genetic processes are helpful in saving millions of lives around the world each year.

When was the last time 'creation science' saved a life?



What makes you believe that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” (not evolution) is able to ELIMINATE DESEASES, VIRUSES,


Because it has and will continue to. Small pox is no longer the menace it once was due to medical science. Influenza is no longer the scourge it once was. Polio is a thing of the past.

Our understanding of how diseases evolves helps us combat them.

And cut the childish behavior. "evolutionary theory" = human understanding of evolution. Evolution is the process that we observe in nature, "evolutionary theory" is how humanity describes it and the scientific base of knowledge that we apply it to.



and may I add to these, WARS, FAMINES, GREED, CORRUPTION and his own bad tendencies?


Well, war, greed, and corruption aren't the problems that medicine and biology deal with. Wars are an issue of diplomacy, so I don't expect any biological theory to deal with those. Greed and corruption are issues of morality, transparency, and several other issues that are also non-biological so it's also ridiculous to ask evolution to address those.

But famine? Well, evolutionary biology and genetics are helping us understand the novel mutations that allows crops to survive in adverse conditions. GMO crops might allow us to actually prevent famine.



And most of all – what makes you believe that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” (not evolution) have SUCH power against NATURE – “able to handle” it's awesome forces?


Again, I have to tell you to cut the childish behavior. "evolutionary theory" = human understanding of evolution. Evolution is the process that we observe in nature, "evolutionary theory" is how humanity describes it and the scientific base of knowledge that we apply it to.

Moving on. Medical and biological science aren't all we have in the face of nature. We have the entire compendium of scientific knowledge, which is a lot more important to human survival than any religious text.



Fact is, in the face of such destructive forces humans are powerless. Do you agree?


Nope. Science is greater than many destructive forces. Antibiotics, nutrition, etc. We've doubled human life expectancy in a century.



So, to sum it up, imho proponents of evolution PUT THEIR TRUST on MAN – on imperfect sinful man, on man's own words and works – evolution theory, that is!


...no, proponents of evolution put our trust in the evidence, which I've provided to you before and can provide you with some more. I can provide you with evidence until I've worn my fingers down to the bone. But you won't accept it because it doesn't matter to you.



This reminds me of a wise king who once said:

“Do not put YOUR trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish.” – Ps 146: 3, 4.


I'll put my trust in the evidence.



Is it wise then to trust ones own life to someone who can't even save himself from death?


Um...I'm not trusting my life to evolutionary biology, I'm trusting my understanding of biodiversity.

Of course, that statement isn't going to stop you from your prosthelytizing and carrying on. I mean, you did quote Bible verse relating to sin in a thread where I offered a chance to debate science.



Really, which “human” entity/government do you think has the power of “intervention” and “will be able to handle those things.”?


Which things? Aside from veering off topic immensely, you've gotten subsequently more vague.



Is it the US government? Russia, China or is it the UN? The scientific community who came up with this idea/theory?


It's the human species. We've been getting better, more moral, more insightful, more educated with each generation. I have some level of trust in humanity.



Of course God is out of the question since you don't believe he exist.


Not enough evidence. But this isn't about any deity, it's about science.



But really, are we like gods possessing super natural powers able to battle nature and able go against the Creator of Life?


Yet another straw man. You've got a sizable army of them and I'm starting to get scared. Not by the army but by the detachment from reality.
1: I do not believe in a creator of life
2: I never said we had supernatural powers...though I'm sure my laptop and the internet would have been thought to be greater than any miracle performed in the first century.
3: We're doing a pretty damn good job against nature.



I must say, this is indeed MADNESS, if you believe it to be so!

But hey, prolly – evolution will get there someday – hopefully though before nature or man destroys himself of course.


I don't know why you're sticking to this straw man. I'm not saying that the process of evolution isn't going to solve all of our problems and I've never had. I don't think anyone with any understanding of the theory ever has.



Bottom line imho, the “EVOLUTION Theory” as (“an unguided process”)is based on MAN's own flawed, imperfect thinking. Thus having FAITH on it will only lead to a meaningless existence.


Evolution doesn't concern itself with existence. It's science. It's the same as the science that allows our computers to work. It's awesome and it may not be perfect but it works all the time. Of course, nothing is perfect.

And now comes more prosthelytizing!



To believers of Creation – the Loving Creator has a wonderful plan for obedient and humble mankind in the future. After all he is the Creator of Life (Gen 1:1)!


Just read all of Genesis 1, it shows that the people that wrote the Bible didn't understand the first thing about science. The sun and moon come after the plants in the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis 1. Of course, there's the second, contradictory account found in Genesis 2. It seems that the Bible is worse than Hollywood when it comes to reboots.



Lastly,
Will your sacred 'evolution theory' be able to create/evolve a perfect system out of an imperfect system?


Define a 'perfect system'. I don't think you can because there's no such thing as a biologically perfect system.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Now here's the crazy thing: None of your arguments matter.


Right back at you, all your opinions of your theories will one day be on the scrap heap of history of failed human made philosophies. I really hope it happens in your lifetime that you live to see it.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Now here's the crazy thing: None of your arguments matter.


Right back at you, all your opinions of your theories will one day be on the scrap heap of history of failed human made philosophies. I really hope it happens in your lifetime that you live to see it.


I hope you understand the difference between scientific theories and philosophy...but I have my doubts



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I can't believe you still ask questions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution. Origins of life got nothing to do with evolution. People being evil has nothing to do with evolution. If some random murderer kills someone, trying to explain the cause through evolution is beyond laughable. Sickness has indirectly something to do with evolution as bacteria/viruses evolve just like any other living being...but I'm not really sure what your point is.

In short, I have no clue why you are trying so hard to add stuff to the theory of evolution that has NOTHING to do with it. Ran out of proper evolution-related arguments?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I can't believe you still ask questions that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution. Origins of life got nothing to do with evolution. People being evil has nothing to do with evolution. If some random murderer kills someone, trying to explain the cause through evolution is beyond laughable. Sickness has indirectly something to do with evolution as bacteria/viruses evolve just like any other living being...but I'm not really sure what your point is.

In short, I have no clue why you are trying so hard to add stuff to the theory of evolution that has NOTHING to do with it. Ran out of proper evolution-related arguments?



Sorry if you were not able to pick up on the evolution questions. Madness seem to gotten them.

As for running out of evolution arg. Nah, just warming up, unfortunately I don't have that much free time like you. 

Anyway, why do you keep posting the same video over and over? Ran out of things to post/say?

As for evolution, any Idea how it determines who is fit to live? Just curious if you know.


Ciao,
edmc2



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I kinda gave up on you because I asked a few simple question a while back, and you then continued to write "answers coming for MrXYZ, and a few others" for like a week before completely ignoring the uncomfortable questions. And what video? I didn't post a video in my reply to you.

The fact remains, you're trying to link evolution to stuff that isn't part of the theory of evolution.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Now here's the crazy thing: None of your arguments matter.



Quote mine much? I mean, at least that puts me in the ranks of famous people like Darwin and Gould. I was saying that none of your arguments matter because the evidence for evolution still exists in the contemporary world.



Right back at you, all your opinions of your theories will one day be on the scrap heap of history of failed human made philosophies.


So...it's wrong because history will show me. It'll show me so hard. Even though we've been pretty damn sure for the past hundred years and all of the evidence points us entirely to evolution and naturalistic explanations, history is going to prove us wrong.

I'm sorry, but the same scientific process that goes into the claims you're talking about went into making the computer you're using.

Science isn't going to be tossed onto a scrap heap. Why? Because it works. And as Mr.XYZ pointed out, it's not a philosophy, it's science. There is a difference, so I'll explain it since you're not demonstrating any understanding of that difference.

Science relies on evidence. Philosophy doesn't.


I really hope it happens in your lifetime that you live to see it.


I thought your Jesus taught not to be spiteful or vindictive.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Didnt I challenge you to a Debate about two years ago? And you declined?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I`d like to challenge you to a Debate-Match on the Evolution/Creationism or the Atheism/Theism subject. And no, Mods are not advantaged...I lost my last two Debates.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I kinda gave up on you because I asked a few simple question a while back, and you then continued to write "answers coming for MrXYZ, and a few others" for like a week before completely ignoring the uncomfortable questions. And what video? I didn't post a video in my reply to you.

The fact remains, you're trying to link evolution to stuff that isn't part of the theory of evolution.


And yet here you are.

As for uncomfortable Qs: I don't know what your talking about, might have missed it. But then again if it's a nonsensical question that might be the reason it got ignored.

But one thing is very clear to me about proponents of 'evolution', is that everything falls or can be explained away in one form or another through the prism 'evolution'.

Basically boxed in this one point of view - 'evolution'.

For example:

a change in the body = 'evolution'
mutation = 'evolution'
death = 'evolution'
sickness = 'evolution'
disease = 'evolution'
virus = 'evolution'

I wouldn't be surprised that the following will also be considered/explained away as products or byproducts of 'evolution' in order to survive or is it just mere words like evil, badness or madness?

Such as:

Love
Kindness
Mercy
Long suffering
Justice
Happiness
Empathy/Sympathy
Humility
The sense to worship (spiritual side)


Instead of variety as in the finch beak, it's 'evolution' that is responsible for the changes. Yet can't see the wider picture that the finch is still a bird.

Instead of resemblance as in bone structures, it's 'evolution'.

Instead of adaptation it's 'evolution'.

Instead unforeseen circumstances or favorable/unfavorable circumstances as caused of death/survival, it's 'evolution'.

I can truly understand why other posters stayed away, not because of not wanting to participate or intimidated but it's truly madness.


To quote just one poster:


reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 03:34 PM by unityemissions
Debate + madness = argumentation

No thanks!



Ciao,
edmc2



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Forgot to mention they are alive........How mad?
Thanks for the comment tho just contributing to your thread.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I`d like to challenge you to a Debate-Match on the Evolution/Creationism or the Atheism/Theism subject. And no, Mods are not advantaged...I lost my last two Debates.


Find another dude to help you and I'll gladly jump on Madness' bandwagon to help him....2vs1 wouldn't be fair



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm not sure. But about two years ago was when I stopped coming to ATS pretty much entirely. It was a busy and difficult time in my life.

Anyway, I'm up for a proper debate on Creation or Evolution. Let's sort out a proper title for the debate.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm sort of tired of responding to what you're saying now. You're twisting my words so that they lack even a bit of their original meaning.

Evolution = change in allele frequency over successive generations.

It's nothing more, nothing less. You're not interested in discussing the science of it as you keep attributing every negative thing you can think of to the theory of evolution, as if that will discredit it, while attributing all positive things to creationism, as if that will prove it.

The issue here is scientific, argue science.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


One last thing, can we please have this debate next month? I'm incredibly busy as of right now so I'm not exactly in a state where I'd be able to put on a proper debate.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You got it all wrong, evolution is connected to love, morals, my dog's 3rd puppy, the wart I have on my ass, as well as every single yellow bug on the planet that is missing one leg. Why? Because I say so



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Sure. December is busy for me too. I will be back to this thread in jan. Its going to be fun and insightful.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You got it all wrong, evolution is connected to love, morals, my dog's 3rd puppy, the wart I have on my ass, as well as every single yellow bug on the planet that is missing one leg. Why? Because I say so


Love, kindness, mercy....

It's kinda sad that you find these wonderful human qualities funny after all these are the qualities that makes us who we are specially in times like these. It what makes us truly separate from "the beast". MrXYZ I hope that you don't lose your humanity because of a theory - an evolution theory that is.
Sure it's good to have knowledge but it becomes worthless without these human qualities that you find funny.

(I hope it' was just a slip of a keyboard on your part)

John 3:16

Ciao,
edmc2



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Love, kindness, mercy....

It's kinda sad that you find these wonderful human qualities funny after all these are the qualities that makes us who we are specially in times like these. It what makes us truly separate from "the beast".


Have you ever studied any "beasts" at all? Love, kindness and mercy are all exhibited in other lifeforms, they are not distinctly human traits. Do some research on the evolution of altruism or at the very least watch wildlife documentaries on Animal Planet or NatGeo and you'll see animals engage in incredibly selfless behaviors at times. It is clear that traits like love and empathy are evolved as they exist in many animals, particularly social animals (human beings are social animals).



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Animals show mercy. Animals display love. Animals show kindness.

Hell, animals show a sense of moral behavior. Even animals with fairly primitive brains show moral behavior, like piranhas, who don't seem to devour each other in the midst of their feeding frenzies.

Humans aren't separated from the rest of the animal kingdom by these traits, we've simply refined them more than other animals due to our much greater brain.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join