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.

 

Another Proof of Evolution and Problem for Creationism: Ring Species

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thanks for the cool information, love to learn something.





posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Evolution vs Creationism? I simply see it as a d*** measuring contest. You can pull whatever logic you want from your hat of tricks but there will always be someone who will believe otherwise. In my opinion though, I'd say evolution could go hand in hand with intelligent design. Certainly an interesting post though OP!

edit on 5-6-2011 by EpochIX because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2011 by EpochIX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Now maybe after a few hundred thousand years you'll get an entirely different animal gradually that doesn't fit in the stables anymore, but the farmer will be long dead by the time that happens, and the farmers that come after him will never really notice. It'll just be this gradual thing as farming adapts over time as well and they find new uses for different animals.


Well, that's the point the Ring Species video is trying to make, that things change over time, however the implication is that "Two similar birds don't mate! ZOMG there is no creator!"

What's not highlighted or explained is if the birds actually can't mate or if they're just not attracted to the similar variation of bird due to feather color changes or song pattern differences. Does this mean they do not breed or that they can not breed? Are we talking about DNA filters that would prevent the fertilization of eggs or just a lack of interest?

I was curious about this so I did a little looking around. The two different variations of warblers that don't mate are the West Siberian (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian (P. t. plumbeitarsus). As it turns out they can mate and produce offspring but they just don't like each other's accent and the plumage variation. There are no physical issues with them mating, they're just not attracted to each other. This is basically the same thing as saying that the Irish and Africans are different species because they don't like to mate and have different styles of music. So basically the warblers are racist.


The two birds in question, the East Siberian and Western Siberian warblers.



I don't know how you get from this that the two birds are in fact totally different species. I think this was one of the main issues brought up in Darwin's time. Evolution it would seem wants you throw away the gradient scale and instead put things into neat little boxes. This was actually brought up in The Origin of the Species.



"In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.

- Origins of the Species, 1859, pg 485


So okay, fine these birds are different "species" if you want to draw the line because they don't like to mate with each other. To follow this rabbit trail as a proof of evolution is vain since the term "species" itself is speculative and just a convenience for the evolutionist who draw lines at whim in the rainbow of life on Earth to suit their needs.



www.zoology.ubc.ca...
edit on 5-6-2011 by dbates because: Misspelled convenience (Darn spell checker)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Hello ....I am not a creationist or a bible follower ........

The Australian Aboriginal and the Eskimo....separated for many 10's of 1,000's of years....both living in totally different environments....you probably couldn't get a greater differance in living conditions......
Yet these two different types of people can mate and have healthy happy babies together no problems....
What's your opinion on the above?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


It seems that almost every argument on ATS revolves around different definitions. There are different definitions of 'species', including a mate-recongnition definition. There are different definitions of seemingly everything, and this seems to bring no small amount of trouble to every thread I've seen.

And I don't really see how the idea of different genetic codes, which I believe is what Venter was discussing, is any kind of supporting evidence for creationism, just like I don't see how the abundant amount of evidence for evolution can be taken as evidence for spontaneous life formation. Does the fact that Mycoplasm do not use UGA as a stop codon somehow prove the existence of god? No. Does evolution prove spontaneous life formation? Someone can always say that a creator created the first bit of life and then let it evolve from there. The whole creationist thing is so far from testable that I don't see how anything can be evidence for or against it.
How do these interesting threads always turn into arguments over issues that can't be tested? Perhaps the non-testable ideas that people believe in are the ones they want to prove the most, so they start seeing proofs for them everywhere?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaBetaGammaX
How do these interesting threads always turn into arguments over issues that can't be tested? Perhaps the non-testable ideas that people believe in are the ones they want to prove the most, so they start seeing proofs for them everywhere?


Yes, simplistically it's an argument for and against a creator. A different species of religion vs. atheism if you wish or a sub-species or variation depending on your view of species.


Why didn't God leave footnote on a mountain or the moon, or why doesn't the fossil record have more than 1% - 2% of all the animals that scientist believe have lived on the Earth? It's a set-up see? A sham. We're given just enough information to argue about and neither side has the solid proof it wants. Now that there is a conspiracy if you ask me.

At any rate it's all good. Nothing wrong with lowering your shark suit into the water to see if it stands up to attacks. But then that's what ATS is all about. If you don't have a preset notion that you'll create a gathering of followers with your great wit and logic you can really enjoy this place.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tri-lobe-1
 


Well, for one thing, these species discussed as 'ring species' have a much, much shorter lifespan, gestation period, and younger age of sexual maturity than humanity. You could say that they evolve at a 'higher rate' merely because they reproduce faster.

I couldn't find a specific number on the greenish warbler, but other warblers seem to have an age of sexual maturity at around one year....while humans have an age of sexual maturity at around...12....and social convention bumps that age up as we get more civilized.

Then there's the issue of timespan as well. I cannot find a timeframe on the migration patterns of the warblers or any other species considered a 'ring' species, but humans, in their anatomically modern form, have been around for 100,000-250,000 years. Migratory patterns then have to be taken into consideration as well...so there are a lot of factors in play. Of course, with these species there is less consideration about that because...well..it's a ring. With humans, tracking our migratory patterns is a lot more difficult and figuring out when each population diverged even more so.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
First let me say that I do not have an opinion regarding Evolution or Creationism or Intelligent Design since all are theories and I am waiting for scientific evidence before I sign up with a camp.

However, Life being alive is simply a fact. Life is alive because that is what Life is. Life is living. Or it would be dead.
We are living dust. More so, even dust is alive relative to nothing at all.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Philosophies aren't what we're talking about here.

Macro-evolution is plainly unproven (which is the obvious conclusion forced upon us by it's own definition when considering our inability to observe such gradual changes properly and combined with all of the contrary evidence which would make evolution even more miraculous to believe than that there are living things "above" our current spectrum of scientific observations) and, thusly, is only a form of knowledge to ponder, study, and uncover as truth or fiction. If Evolution is the way we have risen up from before there was any realm, then so be it. However, it, like Creationism/ID, is only a theory of ideas. Ideas are spiritual/philosophical.

Don't think like an ignorant child and take spiritual things to simply mean something that strikes wonder into the hearts of us animals. Spiritual things exist besides our observations.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...oh, and abiogenesis (which doesn't require a creator) can explain how the 'inanimate' became living.

No, I'm sorry, it is overtly ignorant to justify yourself by facts and then ignore them (or lack thereof). Despite blind scientists pleading with the restrictive laws of physics to insert semi-plausible/workable theories into academia, there is no proof whatsoever of spontaneous life let alone spontaneous hierarchically and relationally dependent encoded and boundary-observable programs such as DNA/Laws of physics (despite the whole idea of any encoded data or even "harmonious laws" existing by chance being borderline psychotic).

Within a cut-off limb there is DNA, which is doubly like other physical substances (principles of the periodic table ordered and squared, to put it in a more relatable way, even if only allegorical), but life is more similar to fire and, like the lost limb, can be smothered while the fuel to the fire remains (the limb itself remains intact and with genetic instructions). Fire is a law which we can certainly play with, but we cannot insert new laws. DNA is a code we can play with, but we cannot write our own program in our own created language. At this point in human understanding we are less than beginner hackers when it comes to working with genetic code. Once we understand the language instead of using brute force attacks (which easily will take hundreds of years or more), we might then be able to rationalize and materialize a basic programming language to create living creatures, but I am fairly sure we will "wisen-up" by then.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...no such thing as an 'evolutionist' unless there is also such a thing as a 'circuitist' and a 'gravitist'.

Actually, this is blatantly wrong and distracting from proper semantics and proven facts.
Evolution is not a fact or law of physics, although it does contain facts and is governed by physics (this exposes how you lift up Evolution to a height that is not justified). This is the primary concession you should also be making towards all religions in that they deal with spiritual truths, but are not necessarily true. Charity is Truth. It is not a fact, but is shown through many facts in general. Order is Truth. It is not a fact, but is shown through many facts in general. You do call yourself reason-able, don't you? If Order was not Truth, there would be no such thing as logic or basic theories like Evolution. This idea also breaks down into the concepts of Justice which is also an aspect of spirituality that even secular governments hold in high regard, just as Reason is generally loved by scientists.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Straw man straw man straw man...I'm sorry, but it's just so blatant I had to repeat it thrice. Who is saying that life isn't alive? And it's relativism that is saying that truth isn't necessarily true...not 'spiritual humanists'.

You were not following what I am saying. It would be helpful to you to read some materials on different religions/philosophies because you are stumbling over yourself when you reach the borders of scientific philosophy and philosophy of the unseen. For example, you treat Life as though it is "dumb." You are not understanding fully what it means for a larger scale life-form to be living. Dust is a "dumb" life. Trees are less dumb life. Humans are more alive than even the animals because we are spiritual dust. And yet; Life is more alive than human dust.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Last time I checked, blind zealotry doesn't involve a system of testing your ideas as thoroughly as possible in the off chance that you're wrong...so...no.

Yes, it does. Truth is not testing as much as you are able, but truth is what is true. Limiting truth to such a lowly capacity, and misunderstanding what it means for a greater system to be living while also putting trust into an unprovable (by our current abilities to observe) theory is exactly why I warn you of blind zealotry.


Please take the time to read what I wrote carefully and think it through. I do not care to take more time being misunderstood unless you are truly striving to understand, even if you do not care to agree afterward.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 



Originally posted by dbates
Well, that's the point the Ring Species video is trying to make, that things change over time, however the implication is that "Two similar birds don't mate! ZOMG there is no creator!"


...no, the implication is that, if there is a creator, it didn't set things up as 'kinds' and allowed for genetic variation so far that accumulated changes would lead to great diversity. Come on, you're better than that sort of straw man.



What's not highlighted or explained is if the birds actually can't mate or if they're just not attracted to the similar variation of bird due to feather color changes or song pattern differences.


Well, considering one of the papers cited was: "Phylogeographic breaks without geographic barriers to gene flow"
Darren E. Irwin, Evolution, 2002


...well...that doesn't sound like an issue of raw reproductive incompatibility rather than sexual selection.




I was curious about this so I did a little looking around. The two different variations of warblers that don't mate are the West Siberian (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian (P. t. plumbeitarsus). As it turns out they can mate and produce offspring but they just don't like each other's accent and the plumage variation.


I'm sorry...but where is the evidence that they mate and produce fertile offspring? You're claiming it, I'd like to see the citation.

I mean, we know that a lion and a tiger can mate...and that they do only under incredibly controlled and influenced circumstances. Of course, we also know that they rarely produce fertile offspring and that they never produce fertile males. And when they do, and when those fertile offspring are mated with another species, they don't always produce viable offspring themselves...

The thing is that you're arguing that speciation hasn't occurred because there is a level of gene flow...that's where the genus comes in.

...and nobody is claiming that there are distinct, concrete ways to separate life. In fact, the video even claims that it's a gradient. We have a slow and gradual change by which, after many, many generations, the population will be genetically incompatible with the ancestral group.

Speciation is well documented. I made a whole thread on it.

And the last thing....these are subspecies. Nobody is claiming that they are species, you can tell by the classification.
edit on 5/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


You don't have an evidence for your claims, there are mountains of evidence in opposition to your claims. There is no need to invoke massive solar radiation to explain evolution when the mechanisms inherent in genetics are more than enough to add information to the genome.

Thank your genes that they didn't copy exactly, they made you who you are today. Those 100-200 variation that weren't present in your parents are enough for genetic change to accumulate over generations.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by shutdownormeltdown
 


Um...no offense, but that's a silly argument.

Creationism relies on faith. Faith is silly. Why? Go to an insane asylum, to riff on Nietzsche, and you'll see that faith does nothing for your claims.

I'd prefer my beliefs to conform with evidence. We have no need to invoke a creator to add evolution as a feature of life, as evolution is merely inherent in the imperfection of genetics. We have no need to invoke a creator to start life off, as we have more and more evidence every month that life can arise naturally.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


They didn't re-create anything, you're quote mining in a very deceptive manner. What they did was re-create the conditions that evidence shows were present on the Earth in its early days, around 4 billion years ago, and RNA arose.

Basically they created a simulation of natural conditions. This doesn't mean they actively created something, they demonstrated that it could happen naturally. Just like tossing a groundhog into a room that has a dirt floor and observing it attempting to dig a burrow doesn't make the claim that the scientists taught the groundhog to burrow.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Thank-you for the quick reply......
I appreciate your answer....
cheers...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'd like to point out that you are misunderstanding what faith it. Faith is improperly construed, in our times, to be belief. Faith is not belief, rather, it is spiritual understanding. For instance, understanding theft to be prideful and chaotic and worthy of rejection is simple faith. Simply believing in Christ (claiming to be "on the lords team") is not faith. Understanding and Expressing the Provision of God is belief through/by faith (understanding). There is a distinct difference and please understand that many people who claim to be religious often don't have a basic understanding of spiritual things. Their beliefs are more magic than faith. As is science more words than understanding. Defining observable things is certainly a deep rooted passion for mankind, but it does not make us any more wise. Wisdom is what allows us to observe and name more things.
edit on 6/5/2011 by Dasher because: I wanted to note that I capitalize philosophical ideas/principles and am not necessarily thereby deifying. However, I also capitalize Life above.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Lol, now that's something there. A racist warbler lol. Who would have thought? Hopefully one day they work out their differences and won't hate on each other anymore lol.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Hold on.

I didn't argue for or against evolution being factual. In fact I as much as stated that I do believe the factuality of evolution. And that I learned it in a church.

In case you're still not getting it, I'll put what I've already said in simpler terms for you:

A) There is no reason to believe that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive concepts.

and B) The debate over which concept is "right" is pointless, frivolous, and irritatingly redundant, like when a child tells you the same joke over and over and over again.

Also, threads like this--where a "science geek" posts in a confrontational way, on a forum populated by people of mixed beliefs (where the subject is sure to be debated), their newest "evidence" that proves science is correct and creationists are morons--is simply low-hanging fruit for an evolutionist who needs a quick ego pick-me-up, in my opinion. It's a set-piece battle which you know you will win to your own satisfaction before you even enter it.

Please don't respond to my posts again unless you actually take the time to read what I say and come up with a RELEVANT response. I don't like being shotgunned with the same argument you're using to gloriously mow down all the others. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Well, that's the point the Ring Species video is trying to make, that things change over time, however the implication is that "Two similar birds don't mate! ZOMG there is no creator!"


Actually the implication is that "this collection of similar birds does away with the creationist notion of "kinds." really, biology, including evolutionary theory, doesn't bother talking about a creator; if there were evidence for such a being, then I'm sure it would feature. Rather, arguments such as this simply correct faulty claims about biology.


What's not highlighted or explained is if the birds actually can't mate or if they're just not attracted to the similar variation of bird due to feather color changes or song pattern differences. Does this mean they do not breed or that they can not breed? Are we talking about DNA filters that would prevent the fertilization of eggs or just a lack of interest?


"Do not breed" and "cannot breed" are functionally the same. if you took a birdie sperm and jammed it into a birdie ovum, maybe you'd get a hybrid; but it never happens in nature. Their territories overlap but the populations do not breed with one another. it doesn't really matter if this is due to behavioral differences, territorial differences, or chemical differences; if they don't or can't breed when given the opportunity, they are functionally different species.

It's worth noting that "species" is really more of a convenience for taxonomists than some set-in-stone biological property. That notion can be a little hard to wrap your head around, I'll grant. It saves us from having to have first-name relations with every organism we encounter.


I was curious about this so I did a little looking around. The two different variations of warblers that don't mate are the West Siberian (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian (P. t. plumbeitarsus). As it turns out they can mate and produce offspring but they just don't like each other's accent and the plumage variation. There are no physical issues with them mating, they're just not attracted to each other. This is basically the same thing as saying that the Irish and Africans are different species because they don't like to mate and have different styles of music. So basically the warblers are racist.


Except that there are plenty of Irish and Africans who find each other to be attractive mates; Stanley Anne Dunham and Barack Obama Sr, for example. I'm Irish-Choctaw, and I'm dating a girl who's Chinese / African American with French ancestry. Our kids will be Irish-Indian-Gallic-Sino-Nigerians, or "Mexican" for short.

Given the opportunity, humans will mate with any other human. Cultural taboos to this sort of thing have always been very weak, even in cultures where the penalty for intermarriage included death.

If there were a group of humans where smiling indicated aggression, laughter was a prelude to attack, and flushed skin indicated fear, THAT would probably be comparable; our group and theirs would have very incomparable mating cues, and crossbreeding would be very difficult, if it were even possible. These behavioral differences would probably warrant placing us and these other humans into different taxonomic species.


The two birds in question, the East Siberian and Western Siberian warblers.



I don't know how you get from this that the two birds are in fact totally different species. I think this was one of the main issues brought up in Darwin's time. Evolution it would seem wants you throw away the gradient scale and instead put things into neat little boxes. This was actually brought up in The Origin of the Species.



"In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.

- Origins of the Species, 1859, pg 485


So okay, fine these birds are different "species" if you want to draw the line because they don't like to mate with each other. To follow this rabbit trail as a proof of evolution is vain since the term "species" itself is speculative and just a convenience for the evolutionist who draw lines at whim in the rainbow of life on Earth to suit their needs.


Okay, maybe it's not a hard notion
But as I said, it's a convenience for classification. It's just vastly easier to have "Eastern cottontail rabbit" than it is to have "Earl the bunny in Podunk county Virginia, son of Lucy and Dan bunny, of the same..."

It's sort of like saying "1.5 trillion" rather than typing out "1,500,000,000,000"
edit on 5/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


And here's the reply to the overly verbose and lengthy reply...please, forgive me if I cut out swathes of your post. I'm not saying they're worthless, I'm merely addressing core arguments.


Originally posted by Dasher
First let me say that I do not have an opinion regarding Evolution or Creationism or Intelligent Design since all are theories and I am waiting for scientific evidence before I sign up with a camp.


Your ignorance is showing. Evolution is a theory, creationism is a hypothesis. Why? Because a theory is an accepted explanation of a fact. Evolution also happens to be a fact. Yes, things can be both theory and fact, like gravity. Or circuits. Or cells. Or germs.




However, Life being alive is simply a fact. Life is alive because that is what Life is. Life is living. Or it would be dead.


So? Nobody is claiming that life isn't alive. Why the hell are you bringing that up?




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Philosophies aren't what we're talking about here.

Macro-evolution is plainly unproven


Ah, I get to trot out an old favorite of mine...actually, a few of them.
Firstly:


Secondly:A reference to 29+ evidences in favor of macroevolution.



(which is the obvious conclusion forced upon us by it's own definition when considering our inability to observe such gradual changes properly


I guess I might as well go rob your house while nobody is around. I mean, you wouldn't have been able to observe it properly, so your obvious conclusion must be that it is plainly unprovable that I robbed it.



and combined with all of the contrary evidence which would make evolution even more miraculous to believe than that there are living things "above" our current spectrum of scientific observations)


Name a single piece of evidence contrary to evolution occurring...and no, I'm not going to distinguish them because that distinction is something no longer found in any new scientific paper for the reason that it doesn't exist.



and, thusly, is only a form of knowledge to ponder, study, and uncover as truth or fiction. If Evolution is the way we have risen up from before there was any realm, then so be it.


...evolution only has to do with one thing: the diversity of life.



However, it, like Creationism/ID, is only a theory of ideas. Ideas are spiritual/philosophical.


Science is the bastard child of philosophy, that child that decided it wanted to go beyond ideas.



Don't think like an ignorant child and take spiritual things to simply mean something that strikes wonder into the hearts of us animals. Spiritual things exist besides our observations.


...citation, evidence, and general proof required.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...oh, and abiogenesis (which doesn't require a creator) can explain how the 'inanimate' became living.

No, I'm sorry, it is overtly ignorant to justify yourself by facts and then ignore them (or lack thereof).


This statement makes no sense in reply to what I said. Abiogenesis is the field of study relating to the origin of life. What is ignorant for me to make that simple statement of fact? Evolution is the field of study relating to the diversification of life.



Despite blind scientists pleading with the restrictive laws of physics to insert semi-plausible/workable theories into academia, there is no proof whatsoever of spontaneous life


Another opportunity for a video:


This is both a straw man and just ignorant, so the video is doubly poignant. Nobody is claiming that there is spontaneous life, what is being claimed is that life is a necessary result of chemistry, which is a view supported by a whole series of experiments since Miller-Urrey (the spelling of which I butchered, but this is already a time-consuming post so I'm not going to bother with the spelling of their names).



let alone spontaneous hierarchically and relationally dependent encoded and boundary-observable programs such as DNA/Laws of physics


Again, a straw man. Nobody is saying it's spontaneous, it's gradual. It happens over generations. And DNA isn't something encoded into life...DNA is life. Well, a form of it. It can be argued that self-replicating strands of RNA count as life as well.



(despite the whole idea of any encoded data or even "harmonious laws" existing by chance being borderline psychotic).


Yet another straw man! Nobody is saying it happened by chance, it's more like...it happened.



Within a cut-off limb there is DNA, which is doubly like other physical substances (principles of the periodic table ordered and squared, to put it in a more relatable way, even if only allegorical), but life is more similar to fire and, like the lost limb, can be smothered while the fuel to the fire remains (the limb itself remains intact and with genetic instructions). Fire is a law which we can certainly play with, but we cannot insert new laws.


This is a horrible analogy and based on a pure ignorance of simple things like anatomy and high school genetics.



DNA is a code we can play with, but we cannot write our own program in our own created language.


We've created synthetic DNA. Booya.



At this point in human understanding we are less than beginner hackers when it comes to working with genetic code.


Except that we made a purely synthetic code.



Once we understand the language instead of using brute force attacks (which easily will take hundreds of years or more),


Yeah, poo to that. Our entire modern understanding of biology arose in 150 years. The amount of time it takes to sequence a genome went from years to weeks (if not days now).



we might then be able to rationalize and materialize a basic programming language to create living creatures, but I am fairly sure we will "wisen-up" by then.


Hopefully people will be 'wise' enough to not make arguments founded in profound ignorance.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...no such thing as an 'evolutionist' unless there is also such a thing as a 'circuitist' and a 'gravitist'.

Actually, this is blatantly wrong and distracting from proper semantics and proven facts.


Wow, I love how you can just declare my statements wrong like that. Is that a superpower?



Evolution is not a fact


Your ignorance is showing.





Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Straw man straw man straw man...I'm sorry, but it's just so blatant I had to repeat it thrice. Who is saying that life isn't alive? And it's relativism that is saying that truth isn't necessarily true...not 'spiritual humanists'.

You were not following what I am saying. It would be helpful to you to read some materials on different religions/philosophies because you are stumbling over yourself when you reach the borders of scientific philosophy and philosophy of the unseen.


...I'm studying philosophy at a university level. I've read multiple religious books as well as apologetics and theology from multiple religions and traditions within those religions.

To lob this sort of unwarranted attack when you have nothing to say and when I've clearly pointed out so many damn flaws in your statements is beyond ludicrous.



For example, you treat Life as though it is "dumb."


...no, this is another straw man. Thank you for addressing that point, but it is not a point that I hold myself.



You are not understanding fully what it means for a larger scale life-form to be living.


...and what does that mean?



Dust is a "dumb" life.


No, dust is one of many particulate substances that are definitively not alive.



Trees are less dumb life.


No, trees are just alive.



Humans are more alive than even the animals because we are spiritual dust. And yet; Life is more alive than human dust.


Humans are animals. And no, we are no more alive than birds or reptiles, or trees, or elephants.





Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Last time I checked, blind zealotry doesn't involve a system of testing your ideas as thoroughly as possible in the off chance that you're wrong...so...no.

Yes, it does.


Wow, apparently the idea of being blind and unquestioning now contains the idea of questioning everything!

I have yet to see the sheer idiocy displayed in those three little words on this forum in a long, long time.



Truth is not testing as much as you are able, but truth is what is true.


Wow, you've learned a tautology. Would you like a cookie? Truth is what can be known based upon the available evidence.



Limiting truth to such a lowly capacity, and misunderstanding what it means for a greater system to be living while also putting trust into an unprovable (by our current abilities to observe) theory is exactly why I warn you of blind zealotry.


And I'm just going to warn you of blind ignorance, sophistry, solipsism, and all sorts of other crimes of a lack of reason. You need to actually bother to justify points that you make instead of just plainly stating them. You've preached at me, which is far greater a position to blind zealotry than my pointing out that you are wrong and explaining why.



Please take the time to read what I wrote carefully and think it through. I do not care to take more time being misunderstood unless you are truly striving to understand, even if you do not care to agree afterward.


I've read the sort of stuff you've written before. It's what you find in someone who just read the Bhagavad Gita without really understanding it. It's what you find a lot in the new agers and all of the other spiritualists who hark to more Eastern traditions...and it's all crap now as it was before.

I've understood your claims, which is why I reject them.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'm sorry, I stopped reading early on and was satisfied that I did so when I realized that further down you were throwing a form of a tantrum in which you think that repeating something can induce efficacy. I have things to tend to and do not wish to continue.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 





All very fascinating but do not see how this disproves creationism.


It's not obvious ? If it has the word species in it. It disproves creation. Madness has compiled so much evidence against creation. I'm surprised people don't just forget about Darwin all together. Yet 92% of Americans still
believe in a creator God.

Above Top Secret
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join