Now Is the Time to Be Aware

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

irrefutable

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

How would you know what I think it means?

reply to post by charles1952


Charles1952,

You made an error in your post.

There were no personal observations, first hand accounts, proof of, relics, etc., of anything whatsoever that a man named Jesus did. The stories about him were written somewhere between 40-70 yrs. AFTER his suppossed death. It is a story. A story gets passed down and gains momentum. More and more is added to it or taken away as needed by the person that is retelling the story.

Easiest way to understand this is to read the story about this jesus guy and the devil out in the desert for 40 days and nights...All I need as far a info to believe this story are 3 simple things...

Please tell me...
1. Who was there?
2. Who saw this?
3. Who wrote it down?

Think about it before responding.....

Bringing "christianity" into any conversation always seems to screw it up because it is a screwed up thought.

Tell me how the brain (computer) should react to something as illogical as this....

Deuteronomy 5:17....Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 13:5....And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from.....bla,bla,blah.....

Quite the deceiver this god they all talk about....hmmm

Not bashing you or anything but the 75 list is pretty good at clearing a man's thinking process without all the other garbage stuck in there.

My mind expanded exponentially when I read all 13 different versions of the bible and used the 3 directives (listed above) as my basis for what might have really happened in our past..

Seems as if we might not know quite as much as we thought we did...

I do enjoy your posts btw...

oxi

reply to post by Lazarus Short

How would you know what I think it means?

1. It's a line from a 1987 film called "The Princess Bride", in which a man keeps using the word "inconceivable" to describe events which he is constantly presented with first hand knowledge of.

2. One of the standard variations of the definition for "irrefutable" is "that cannot be refuted or disproved". You used this adjective to describe the 75 theses you're attempting to nail to the door of science. Or, as you put it:

I see that you still steady your opinions on their pedestals in the face of 75 irrefutable propositions.

2a. Not all of your propositions are "irrefutable", as evidenced by the refutations of them by myself and others in this thread.

Ergo, you're either using a non-standard definition of the word "irrefutable" or that word doesn't mean what you think it means. The supposedly "irrefutable" propositions you posit, which are in fact refutable, are the result of either poorly drawn logical conclusions of tenets that are generally accepted regardless of whether one is a creationist or a proponent of evolution or strawman arguments against modern evolutionary synthesis.

reply to post by iterationzero


Thanks for the clarification. I'm a big fan of The Princess Bride. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what "refuted" and "refutation" mean also. I really don't think the two sides [Evolution & Creation] really can or ever will come to grips, but I noted when I attended a Evolution vs Creation debate many years ago, and as a confident atheist at that, that the Creation debater kept up with the Evolutionist - I was expecting him to be trounced. There is more going on here than simple evidence.

We will JHTATD [Just Have To Agree To Disagree].

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Unfortunately, modern debates aren't really about making a logical case for one's own position; they're about who can be the most charming to the crowd.

reply to post by Oxidadoblancoquepasa

Dear Oxidadoblancoquepasa,

Thank you very much, I like hearing that I've made a mistake. That means I can get rid of a false idea and replace it with a true one. Woo, as people say, hoo.

I think my main mistake was following down the Chritianity trail, when nothing in the OP had anything to do with it. The existence of Jesus can be discussed at length, and I'm afraid that, however enjoyable discussing it would be, perhaps we should leave it out of this thread.

But if you'd like to U2U, or start a thread, I'd be willing to explore it with you.

With respect,
Charles1952

Didn't mean it to sound like that.

No threads from me about religions. Been down that circular road too many times...

Faliz Navidad,

respectively,

oxi

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.

Science excludes supernatural explanations, because by definition, they can't be proven to exist. If they were, they would no longer be considered supernatural. Scientists have been working to figure out the origin of life for a long time and it continues today.

11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, and it HAS had a few successful experiments.

16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

Lies. Life could have been created to evolve. Evolution is life changing, not originating. Equivocation = logical fallacy. Sorry. Logical fail.

18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.

Reference please. Last I checked, abiogenesis is a hypothesis and taught as such.

19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.

If only you could prove that with anything besides a list full of meaningless speculation, like the next items.

26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.

And this has been duplicated in a lab, where single cells became multicellular organisms with multi cellular offspring.

www.newscientist.com...

So your next bunch of speculation is indeed speculation.

35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.

Actually there's tons of explanations.

36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.

Funny how it takes you 4 numbers to make 1 point. Alas you are speculating again.

The evolution of nervous systems dates back to the first development of nervous systems in animals (or metazoans). Neurons developed as specialized electrical signaling cells in multicellular animals, adapting the mechanism of action potentials present in motile single-celled and colonial eukaryotes. Simple nerve nets seen in animals like cnidaria evolved first, followed by nerve cords in bilateral animals - ventral nerve cords in invertebrates and dorsal nerve cords surrounded by a notochord in chordates. Bilateralization led to the evolution of brains, a process called cephalization.

40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.

www.britannica.com...

So sorry. You are incorrect once again!

43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.

Evolution haters can't quite comprehend what the theory actually says. The mutations (which aren't always random) are only a small part of it. The environment takes a much bigger role.

51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.

Well duh. We are conscious people, intentionally manipulating things for our own good. The environment and notably big changes in environment are what drive evolution, and those things take time.

56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.

Instead of focusing on things that do not prove others, you should focus on things that do, like genome mapping and skeleton analysis in labs.

58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.

en.wikipedia.org...

at meager and highly speculative. These have ALL been found and analyzed in labs. You should become a scientist if you do not agree with the findings. Study it yourself.

61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.

See the fossils above. It's not speculation. The evidence very clearly shows slow change over time.

64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.

Your list of criteria for proving common ancestry is absurd. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it suggest anything like that. Strawman after strawman.

68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.

No its not. It's based on radiometric dating of when the rock layers were formed based on the decay of isotopes.

72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.

No that's false. Dark matter is based on observed gravitational effects and Dark Energy is based on the matter in the universe not just moving away from the point of orign, but accelerating. Dark, because they aren't sure what it is. They know its out there because both effects are measurable.

Originally posted by LightWarrior11
Why does the bible need to come up every single time someone wants to point out inconsistencies with evolution?The OP didnt even mention anything about religion and responses are already shoving this thread in the direction of that sort of debate. Id rather see this thread discuss ways of reproducing the characteristics of evolution...like the mutations and adaptations, or even find what has been tested and the results of that. But alas it's not my thread, but I feel like I can see where this thread is going already...and can we stop that? Plz.

there's an ongoing experiment in Russia. For like 50 years they've been practicing what id call forced natural selection. Total contradiction I know. They keep breeding nice foxes with other nicer foxes. Over time they've ended up with a very docile people friendly version if the arctic fox. It's hair growth has changed and they are starting to see physical changes in them. Granted its still a fox but its only been 50 years. The point wad to take a wild animal and breed it into a domestic animal. While not a new species an almost certainly different breed. From just one breed to start with.

reply to post by Barcs


Thanks for your input, but (once again) I am not going to debate with you - that is not really my purpose here. I only wanted to bring this material to people's attention. Be aware.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by Barcs

 

Thanks for your input, but (once again) I am not going to debate with you - that is not really my purpose here. I only wanted to bring this material to people's attention. Be aware.

Fair enough. My purpose was to show others that the material you brought to other people's attention is complete BS and lacks any type of scientific knowledge or provable facts. It's mostly speculative and demonstrably wrong in many cases. If you don't want to debate, that's fine, just know your list is wrong on any acceptable level of science or logic and if you study the actual theory of modern synthesis you would already know this. You are bringing lies to people's attention, so yeah, they need to be aware of that. Deny Ignorance.