For Adults who refuse to grow up, Evolution is the Adult version for real magic

Originally posted by borntowatch

I was not describing JUST biological evolution. I thought that was obvious

Biological evolution is just 1 type of evolution as I understand it
The Different Types Of Evolution I know of


The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.




Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives

How you understand it, is completely and utterly incorrectly...

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pro-life-tip, stop watching kent hovind videos and then regurgitating it as-though you've discovered something.

Convicted felon hovind is well known in these parts, his pseudoscience wont hold any water and he's probably the least credible source of information anyone could ever cite.

You should take your own advice and go read up on this.........and not from a creationist website........

Originally posted by Prezbo369

How you understand it, is completely and utterly incorrectly...

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pro-life-tip, stop watching kent hovind videos and then regurgitating it as-though you've discovered something.

Convicted felon hovind is well known in these parts, his pseudoscience wont hold any water and he's probably the least credible source of information anyone could ever cite.

You should take your own advice and go read up on this.........and not from a creationist website........

edit on 23-8-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

Well NO
I am not just describing B I O L O G I C A L evolution, that word biological should indicate something rather unique in the explanation.
The theory of Galactic evolution (might want to look that up)
chemical evolution (might want to look that up)

Should I go on or is it naff enough yet?

Good to talk like a grown up but shouldnt you know what you are talking about first?

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican

Originally posted by borntowatch
All those words and not a drop of hard science.
That is faith

This is what Wikipedia describes scientific theory is
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

So based on that can you show me the
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment facts relating to evolution
please
Didnt think so
Back to school for you dear boy

Would it be acceptable for me to call all evolutionists and or atheists retards?

edit on 23-8-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

Can you also do the same?

Thought so ha.

Wow you have me on toast, I am reeling and running, my faith is now diminished, oh wait thats right mine is a faith, I dont have evidence so I accept it on faith
Yet you on the other hand have diddle squat and call it scientific faith *oops I meant theory*. Yours is a faith as well, its a religion of belief

Simply no I cant show you evidence as you cant show me either, but I am not pretending its anything else like you

We call that pwnd where I come from, Chortle chortle.

reply to post by borntowatch


How am I pwned you produced really actually nothing.

You flipped it around to make it seem lime you were cool.

So no you have no more say than I do. And im an agnostic.

I asked for evidence from your part. All you gave was a not well thought up post.

So don't waste my time again. Yhvh is frowning upon his illegitimate son.

I am not just describing B I O L O G I C A L evolution, that word biological should indicate something rather unique in the explanation.

No you're using the word evolution to include natural phenomenon that you just don't understand.

The theory of Galactic evolution (might want to look that up)
chemical evolution (might want to look that up)

Neither of these scientific theories exist, outside of a Hovind video or a creation website.

Should I go on or is it naff enough yet?

Please do, this level of ignorance needs to be flayed in public for the benefit of anyone unfortunate to come across this thread.

Good to talk like a grown up but shouldnt you know what you are talking about first?

Tell me more about what you think the big bang model describes...

And tell me about the book you think gives a better explanation for the origins of the universe in its current state and a better explanation for the diversity of life on earth (including unicorns), without using magic (for kids or adults).

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by borntowatch

 

How am I pwned you produced really actually nothing.

You flipped it around to make it seem lime you were cool.

So no you have no more say than I do. And im an agnostic.

I asked for evidence from your part. All you gave was a not well thought up post.

So don't waste my time again. Yhvh is frowning upon his illegitimate son.

Lets see
You dont have evidence and you deny your belief is a faith

I dont have evidence and call mine a faith

Denial, just denial or hypocrisy. You can choose

Well NO
I am not just describing B I O L O G I C A L evolution, that word biological should indicate something rather unique in the explanation.
The theory of Galactic evolution (might want to look that up)

en.wikipedia.org...

chemical evolution (might want to look that up)

en.wikipedia.org...

Stellar evolution

en.wikipedia.org...

Should I go on or is it naff enough yet?

You say no and wikipedia and all the links say yes. Am I to suppose that the galaxy stars and chemicals, all, just, were, you know, there all along
This is ludicrous, blatantly childish.
science is actually trying to explain what you are ignoring, denying it. Pretending?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by windword

 

These threads are just a valid, interesting and important as all your threads, preaching against other's beliefs, condemning Catholicism, Islam etc

There's only one God sugarpuss, and his name isn't Dagon, Saturn, Sol Invictus or Allah.

It's Sugarpuss?

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican

Originally posted by borntowatch
All those words and not a drop of hard science.
That is faith

This is what Wikipedia describes scientific theory is
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

So based on that can you show me the
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment facts relating to evolution
please
Didnt think so
Back to school for you dear boy

Would it be acceptable for me to call all evolutionists and or atheists retards?

edit on 23-8-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

Can you also do the same?

Thought so ha.

Wow you have me on toast, I am reeling and running, my faith is now diminished, oh wait thats right mine is a faith, I dont have evidence so I accept it on faith
Yet you on the other hand have diddle squat and call it scientific faith *oops I meant theory*. Yours is a faith as well, its a religion of belief

Simply no I cant show you evidence as you cant show me either, but I am not pretending its anything else like you

We call that pwnd where I come from, Chortle chortle.

edit on 24-8-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

Funny if the faithful are so faithful whey would they care to argue with the non-faithful about how much more right they are?

So is that like self-pwnage where you come from?

reply to post by borntowatch


I don't need any evidence for my beliefs. I don't criticize you for what you believe do I?

If your so certain why do you have to be self conscience and try to gain approval from other people?

Because your not gaining it from me. So nothing you can say will make me any different in this topic.

You get your beliefs I get mine. I don't need other people to tell me im right or wrong like you do.
So please take your religious business elsewhere. Because frankly I don't care dude.

Originally posted by borntowatch

The theory of Galactic evolution (might want to look that up)

As I told you earlier, there is no such thing as 'The Theory of Galactic evolution'. The link you supplied is for Galaxy formation and evolution, the name given to the study of said phenomenon.

chemical evolution (might want to look that up)

Again, this is not a scientific theory, however what you are attempting to describe is Nucleosynthesis. Why supply links to sources you've obviously not read for yourself? It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about...

Stellar evolution

Once more this is not a scientific theory.

From the article:

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime.

Here we get to the real meat of your ignorance. Evolution is change over time, whether it be in regards to living organisms, mountain ranges, mobile phones, dance, whatever.

When you say "For Adults who refuse to grow up, Evolution is the Adult version for real magic", unless your claiming that things in general don't change over time......you're talking about biological evolution, the evolution that you and your fellow creationists actually have a problem with.

You have no idea what the words you're using actually mean, you've merely heard/read them from a creationist source and are repeating them here as-though you're an authority on the subject, enough so that your veiled attempt at mockery simply collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.

Should I go on or is it naff enough yet?

Have at it

You say no and wikipedia and all the links say yes.

As we've discovered, you have no idea what the links you supplied actually describe....

Originally posted by Lysergic


Funny if the faithful are so faithful whey would they care to argue with the non-faithful about how much more right they are?

So is that like self-pwnage where you come from?

Cos its fun, what the fun police here now as well?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by borntowatch

The theory of Galactic evolution (might want to look that up)

As I told you earlier, there is no such thing as 'The Theory of Galactic evolution'. The link you supplied is for Galaxy formation and evolution, the name given to the study of said phenomenon.

chemical evolution (might want to look that up)

Again, this is not a scientific theory, however what you are attempting to describe is Nucleosynthesis. Why supply links to sources you've obviously not read for yourself? It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about...

Stellar evolution

Once more this is not a scientific theory.

From the article:

Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime.

Here we get to the real meat of your ignorance. Evolution is change over time, whether it be in regards to living organisms, mountain ranges, mobile phones, dance, whatever.

When you say "For Adults who refuse to grow up, Evolution is the Adult version for real magic", unless your claiming that things in general don't change over time......you're talking about biological evolution, the evolution that you and your fellow creationists actually have a problem with.

You have no idea what the words you're using actually mean, you've merely heard/read them from a creationist source and are repeating them here as-though you're an authority on the subject, enough so that your veiled attempt at mockery simply collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.

Should I go on or is it naff enough yet?

Have at it

You say no and wikipedia and all the links say yes.

As we've discovered, you have no idea what the links you supplied actually describe....

Well NO
I am not just describing B I O L O G I C A L evolution, that word biological should indicate something rather unique in the explanation.
The theory of Galactic evolution (might want to look that up)

en.wikipedia.org...

chemical evolution (might want to look that up)

en.wikipedia.org...

Stellar evolution

en.wikipedia.org...

Should I go on or is it naff enough yet?

You say no and wikipedia and all the links say yes. Am I to suppose that the galaxy stars and chemicals, all, just, were, you know, there all along
This is ludicrous, blatantly childish.
science is actually trying to explain what you are ignoring, denying it. Pretending?


So you deny they all involve evolution

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by borntowatch

 

I don't need any evidence for my beliefs. I don't criticize you for what you believe do I?

If your so certain why do you have to be self conscience and try to gain approval from other people?

Because your not gaining it from me. So nothing you can say will make me any different in this topic.

You get your beliefs I get mine. I don't need other people to tell me im right or wrong like you do.
So please take your religious business elsewhere. Because frankly I don't care dude.

Ants in your pants or what?
I said when I wrote the first post this was a little fun, you overreact dear boy. Back in your box

You can take your religious business elsewhere as well. Because quite frankly I don't care either dude.

www.stellar-database.com...

Great link on the theory of stellar evolution, please have a read and enjoy
Just explain how and why these stellar clouds condense and what causes them to spin?

Originally posted by borntowatch

So you deny they all involve evolution

Sigh........do you even read the posts you're replying to?

Why don't you explain what you think the word 'evolution' stands for...

Great link on the theory of stellar evolution, please have a read and enjoy
Just explain how and why these stellar clouds condense and what causes them to spin?

...there is no such think as 'the theory of stellar evolution', and is this what you've resulted to? throwing out random questions about astrophysics?

It's the last resort of someone who's realised their position has been shown to be entirely based on ignorance.

www.thunderbolts.info...

ads.harvard.edu...

www.astronomy.com...

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

www.astronomynow.com...

creation.com...


Basic stellar evolution
Independently of the chemical composition, stars can be loosely classied into three
categories according to their initial mass, evolutionary history, and nal fate: low-mass
stars, intermediate-mass stars, and massive stars. Various physical causes concur to
dene the three groups and related mass limits:
1. The existence of a natural sequence of nuclear burnings from hydrogen to silicon.
2. The amount of energy liberated per gram by gravitational contraction which is in-
creasing with stellar mass.
3. The tendency of the gas in the central regions to become electron degenerate at
increasing density.
4. The existence of threshold values of temperature and density in the center for each
nuclear step.
5. The relation between these threshold values and the minimum stellar or, more pre-
cisely, core mass at which each nuclear burning can start, and the fact that the minimum
core mass for a given nuclear burning is not the same for electron degenerate and non-
degenerate gas.
6. Finally, the explosive nature of a nuclear burning in a degenerate gas.
dipastro.pd.astro.it...

Well if I am wrong I am in good company

I love cut and paste

There is evolution and then disruption of evolution-----there were vast times before the tiny Creation of Adam in Sumeria.

www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.burlingtonnews.net...


www.freerepublic.com...


www.burlingtonnews.net...

All these fossil records tell there was much more to history than the tiny Biblical record that keeps people ignorant of the distant past.

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Lysergic


Funny if the faithful are so faithful whey would they care to argue with the non-faithful about how much more right they are?

So is that like self-pwnage where you come from?

Cos its fun, what the fun police here now as well?

Rut Roh, some one is feeling a bit catty.

So, if one reads deeply of these various URL's above, on the origins of religion and humanity, one tends to find a lot of Blonde/Red hair and Blue-Eyed people running around leading things in antiquity around the globe.

One finds the first Egyptians were Blonde/Red hair, with Nordic features. One finds their records speak to them having blue eyes. And the "Eye of Horus" is required to be made of Blue Lapis Lazuli, and even this color mineral turns up in the City of Ur with golden statues found in their Death Pit digs. And if we dig a little deeper we find Egypt is named for the god "Pitah", who always shown wearing blue head cap, and "Pitah" appears to stem from Sumerian god Enki theme. As long as Egypt was run by these Nordic Europeans they did well, but fell as that changed to other genetics.

One can even find the blue theme assigned to Nimrod's tower for being closer to the gods.

One also finds this issue for the Nordic Long face, the blonde hair, ruddy complexions, and blue eyes in the theme for Hitler's Master Race of Nordic Ayrans. So, in this time they also associated a higher intelligence and larger brain issue for these folks they thought came from Atlantis. Though we can't find Atlantis these days, it appears the advanced peoples there may have stemmed from the genetics of these Sumerian god folks.

The Sumerian god folks were one in the same with the genetics for Abraham and what would become the Jewish genetic line that everyone talks about, and this same blue eyed and blonde hair genetics shows up in King David and Jesus himself. It does appear that Hitler, rather than being against the Jewish, was more thinking along the lines of getting back to the purest genetics for the times of Abraham and these Nordic appearing peoples with the blonde hair and blue eyes linked with the gods of Anu genetic theme.

Most of religion appears to originate from one genetic line being akin to the higher intelligence they called god in ancient times. Many cultures around the planet Earth cultivated this same intelligent genetic leadership, which included Egypt. In the more recent times, it also appears the goal for the Hitler Ayran "Master Race" theme. It appears Hitler was more inclined to get back to the pure genetics of the early periods of the gods of Abraham and the City of Ur, and Hitler's game was about support of what was the pure Jewish genetics from the times of Adam, to Enoch, to Noah, to Nimrod, and on down the line to David and Jesus. If anything, Hitler's religion had a nice cross and sought to find the real "god's chosen people" from the times of City of Ur and Abraham, and this was his Master Race theme.

Such was the evolution of the history of Earth when the evolution of man in ancient times was altered via outside genetic influence, but some of that evolution was downward in the times since as the enhanced genetics has been blended down to lesser intelligence, or at least the loss of the higher sciences learning, rather than the higher that was done with genetic breeding issues from the gods of these early times.

Today, it appears the descent from these higher genetic traits is behind the lower level of knowledge and the issues for seeding huge wars based upon embellishments of ignorance into the issues of religion. It appears the roots for religion were genetic elements that made for high intelligence, but that high intelligent genetics appears to be missing in today's world and from its religions.