The Grandest Conspiracy Ever Known. The New Age Religion of the Unproven Speculation (theory) of Evo

Originally posted by LexiconV
reply to post by begoodbees

 

Your argument...

Originally posted by begoodbees

Unless it changes into a different species it is variation not evolution.

Good grief ! You wanted an example of a different species evolving. In that example provided it explains how these new species of mice have evolved and are unable to reproduce with the original species that was first introduced to the island 600 years ago.

Originally posted by begoodbees

I do not dispute variations (gradual changes) such as plants becoming pesticide resistant. I dispute one species changing into another more advanced species.

.... you wanna be Batman?

Or... you want to know if there are species of primates with more advanced abilities than you?

I suggest you google the term 'Chimps that outperforms humans'
You'll find several scholarly articles and videos that highlight the human like abilities of chimps as well as their superiority/advanced abilities in some tasks.

Maybe I missed it but where are the supposedly evolved mice. Ok I found it. My question is, how did they know how many genomes the original mice had 600 years ago? Or even that they were put there 600 years ago? am I to believe that someone started an experiment 600 years ago before nyone knew what a genome was?

Originally posted by begoodbees


The thing is as a truth seeker I have already poored over the evidence and found it lacking. This whole business is just another diversion from truth. I mean just look at the responses I am getting. It is as if I am attacking someones religion.

You are putting an opinion onto a public forum loaded with fallacies and untruths then after people respond, wilfully and fallaciously drawing an unrelated conclusion.

As an analogy:

You put a fresh apple pie on a table with a sign saying "Please take one", then after the pie is eaten claiming "Look! I am being persecuted!"

You sir, are a troll.

Originally posted by LexiconV
I'm wondering if people understand the concept of evolution.... seems some are expecting evolution to do a Superman to Batman morph.

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

Oh look ... more new species.

This seems to be getting into the muddy water of defining species. I have noticed over the past decade that some have been trying to tweak the meaning of the word theory in order to give evolution more credence. I suppose it would be just as easy to tweak the meaning of the word species. Not to say that is what is happening, just a critical thought. Perhaps tonight I will read your link in detail and give a response.

Originally posted by MyOath

Originally posted by begoodbees


The thing is as a truth seeker I have already poored over the evidence and found it lacking. This whole business is just another diversion from truth. I mean just look at the responses I am getting. It is as if I am attacking someones religion.

You are putting an opinion onto a public forum loaded with fallacies and untruths then after people respond, wilfully and fallaciously drawing an unrelated conclusion.

As an analogy:

You put a fresh apple pie on a table with a sign saying "Please take one", then after the pie is eaten claiming "Look! I am being persecuted!"

You sir, are a troll.

edit on 13-12-2012 by MyOath because: Phrasing

You just popped onto my thread, added nothing of use and hurled an insult, by definition you are the troll.

Originally posted by begoodbees
I sincerely thought that someone would have some sort of valid argument to at least make me question my beliefs on this matter. How disappointing.

I have read most if not all of your posts and it seems to me that your blind faith is the hurdle. A couple of points. I have a feeling that your real premise is that "life" has been created by some almighty pretending friend way back in the past. Not a process of evolution. Well, the creation bit I must say has merit. BUT not back eons in the past but rather a few years ago when raig Ventur and his team to a few chemicals off the shelf (to simplify things for this thread) and "created" life. At first he chose to make an already existing organism but this now opens the door for more complex, completely new life forms to be "made"

Added to this a bit of thought about those eons ago when the "universe" was "created" by your pretending friend. science has shown that initially, everything, all atoms, all subatomic particles, everything, was in one very very tiny spot (a space smaller than a proton) then whammo! away went well ...................... everything.
Now what has this got to do with the price of fish in the sahara desert?

According to quantum physic (of which I am in no way talented but others much smarter than me and may I hazzard a guess you too) particles CAN actually pop into existence. Given this it covers the spontaneous popping into existence of this primordial particle (read hawking's works if you want a much better, much more detailed explaination) .

Now comes the fun part. This particle was soooooo dense that it was in effect, the original black hole. Not even light would be able to escape huge gravitational forces.

Oh, black holes.

Now as one gets closer and closer to the centre of a black hole, time slows down. At the centre of a black hole, time stops. i.e. there is NO TIME. Now, since there is NO TIME, it means that there was NO TIME in which any pretending friend creator could "create" the universe. Hence, no NEED for a creator for the whole kit and Kaboodle to get going.

Oh well, there's my rant for the day

reply to post by begoodbees

That was not my intent. I am referring to new age in the literal sense of the meaning. You are however acknowledging that your faith is in god and evolution neither of which you can prove.

What have I stated that requires proof?

Literal sense? According to what definition?

I am acknowledging that I have an opinion. I am aware that my opinion is not concrete fact, and I am willing to admit that. If you want proof, then you can look my profile over. View all of my posts, get to know my ideas in depth.

In answer to your question: everything.

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by LexiconV
I'm wondering if people understand the concept of evolution.... seems some are expecting evolution to do a Superman to Batman morph.

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

Oh look ... more new species.

This seems to be getting into the muddy water of defining species. I have noticed over the past decade that some have been trying to tweak the meaning of the word theory in order to give evolution more credence. I suppose it would be just as easy to tweak the meaning of the word species. Not to say that is what is happening, just a critical thought. Perhaps tonight I will read your link in detail and give a response.

....and here's another one for you. Speciation in real time

Originally posted by steve1709

Originally posted by begoodbees
I sincerely thought that someone would have some sort of valid argument to at least make me question my beliefs on this matter. How disappointing.

I have read most if not all of your posts and it seems to me that your blind faith is the hurdle. A couple of points. I have a feeling that your real premise is that "life" has been created by some almighty pretending friend way back in the past. Not a process of evolution. Well, the creation bit I must say has merit. BUT not back eons in the past but rather a few years ago when raig Ventur and his team to a few chemicals off the shelf (to simplify things for this thread) and "created" life. At first he chose to make an already existing organism but this now opens the door for more complex, completely new life forms to be "made"

Added to this a bit of thought about those eons ago when the "universe" was "created" by your pretending friend. science has shown that initially, everything, all atoms, all subatomic particles, everything, was in one very very tiny spot (a space smaller than a proton) then whammo! away went well ...................... everything.
Now what has this got to do with the price of fish in the sahara desert?

According to quantum physic (of which I am in no way talented but others much smarter than me and may I hazzard a guess you too) particles CAN actually pop into existence. Given this it covers the spontaneous popping into existence of this primordial particle (read hawking's works if you want a much better, much more detailed explaination) .

Now comes the fun part. This particle was soooooo dense that it was in effect, the original black hole. Not even light would be able to escape huge gravitational forces.

Oh, black holes.

Now as one gets closer and closer to the centre of a black hole, time slows down. At the centre of a black hole, time stops. i.e. there is NO TIME. Now, since there is NO TIME, it means that there was NO TIME in which any pretending friend creator could "create" the universe. Hence, no NEED for a creator for the whole kit and Kaboodle to get going.

Oh well, there's my rant for the day

I am loving how everyone pretends to assume that I am somehow religious. As far as the original black whole that is also a scientific theory not a fact. Interesting none the less.

Faith by definition is always blind, that is the whole point I am making. Evolutionists who believe it is fact wholeheartedly are demonstrating faith.

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by MyOath

Originally posted by begoodbees


The thing is as a truth seeker I have already poored over the evidence and found it lacking. This whole business is just another diversion from truth. I mean just look at the responses I am getting. It is as if I am attacking someones religion.

You are putting an opinion onto a public forum loaded with fallacies and untruths then after people respond, wilfully and fallaciously drawing an unrelated conclusion.

As an analogy:

You put a fresh apple pie on a table with a sign saying "Please take one", then after the pie is eaten claiming "Look! I am being persecuted!"

You sir, are a troll.

edit on 13-12-2012 by MyOath because: Phrasing

You just popped onto my thread, added nothing of use and hurled an insult, by definition you are the troll.

Go back to the previous page you will see my rebuttal of your claims.

Your posting pattern goes thus:
Make claim loaded with a series of loaded fallacies
Wait for response
Change subject with out addressing the rebuttal
Rinse, repeat.

The whole aim of your original post was to incite a response so you could then claim 'Persecution" - which is a strawman - then draw the conclusion that those opposing your premise are adherents of a religion because they are 'persecuting' you which is a false cause fallacy

I will only entertain coherent replies.

Originally posted by LexiconV

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by LexiconV
I'm wondering if people understand the concept of evolution.... seems some are expecting evolution to do a Superman to Batman morph.

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

Oh look ... more new species.

This seems to be getting into the muddy water of defining species. I have noticed over the past decade that some have been trying to tweak the meaning of the word theory in order to give evolution more credence. I suppose it would be just as easy to tweak the meaning of the word species. Not to say that is what is happening, just a critical thought. Perhaps tonight I will read your link in detail and give a response.

....and here's another one for you. Speciation in real time

Here is the part of the article that you missed.
"The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection"
Hypothesize being the key word there.

Originally posted by begoodbees
I will only entertain coherent replies.

Please cite the section you were unable to understand and I will gladly attempt to rephrase it.

reply to post by begoodbees


Then I guess I am not one of them. I will take evidence at face value. EVIDENCE being the operative word. Unfortunately, therein lies the difference between religions (any of them, they are ALL DOGMA) and science. As stated way back, science (to personify it) hypothesises, gathers EVIDENCE and forms theories, facts on said evidence. HOWEVER if evidence comes forward to prove something different to what is being used, (notice I did not use the word believe) then such ideas are embraced, NOT thrown away as does religion with new findings.

A good example that has nothing to do with evolution but DOEs (cant make a capital s) show how "science" is able to adapt is continental drift. Before about the 50's (I think) this was a way out there idea, bagged by many scientists. But, as more EVIDENCE came forward, the scientific community embraced this concept. THAT is what science does. Hence, it CANNOT be a belief system, it CANNOT be a dogma.

reply to post by strafgod


Thank you for in true evolutionist style presenting your opinion as fact.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17

I cannot prove this of course but it is what common sense dictates to an open mind.

Here's the issue I have with how debates like this often go. People stoop to implying that the opposing side doesn't have common sense, education, or an open mind.

You're taking a much more questionable leap by saying these sediments are all the result of one great flood...many would say that the common sense interpretation is that these fossil layers occur over millions and millions of years. There are legitimate ways of verifying this. One great flood may result in a single layer.

And the differences in fossils show entirely different ecosystems from layer to layer...

look up how fossils are formed and you will see that the millions of years theory doesnt wash.

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by begoodbees

 

Then I guess I am not one of them. I will take evidence at face value. EVIDENCE being the operative word. Unfortunately, therein lies the difference between religions (any of them, they are ALL DOGMA) and science. As stated way back, science (to personify it) hypothesises, gathers EVIDENCE and forms theories, facts on said evidence. HOWEVER if evidence comes forward to prove something different to what is being used, (notice I did not use the word believe) then such ideas are embraced, NOT thrown away as does religion with new findings.

A good example that has nothing to do with evolution but DOEs (cant make a capital s) show how "science" is able to adapt is continental drift. Before about the 50's (I think) this was a way out there idea, bagged by many scientists. But, as more EVIDENCE came forward, the scientific community embraced this concept. THAT is what science does. Hence, it CANNOT be a belief system, it CANNOT be a dogma.

If you believe that evolution is a theory and may or may not be true that is a rational position to take. If you believe it is irrefutable fact than you are religious.

Originally posted by begoodbees
I will only entertain coherent replies.

Have you identified the section you had problems understanding yet?

Originally posted by steve1709

Originally posted by begoodbees
I sincerely thought that someone would have some sort of valid argument to at least make me question my beliefs on this matter. How disappointing.

I have read most if not all of your posts and it seems to me that your blind faith is the hurdle. A couple of points. I have a feeling that your real premise is that "life" has been created by some almighty pretending friend way back in the past. Not a process of evolution. Well, the creation bit I must say has merit. BUT not back eons in the past but rather a few years ago when raig Ventur and his team to a few chemicals off the shelf (to simplify things for this thread) and "created" life. At first he chose to make an already existing organism but this now opens the door for more complex, completely new life forms to be "made"

Added to this a bit of thought about those eons ago when the "universe" was "created" by your pretending friend. science has shown that initially, everything, all atoms, all subatomic particles, everything, was in one very very tiny spot (a space smaller than a proton) then whammo! away went well ...................... everything.
Now what has this got to do with the price of fish in the sahara desert?

According to quantum physic (of which I am in no way talented but others much smarter than me and may I hazzard a guess you too) particles CAN actually pop into existence. Given this it covers the spontaneous popping into existence of this primordial particle (read hawking's works if you want a much better, much more detailed explaination) .

Now comes the fun part. This particle was soooooo dense that it was in effect, the original black hole. Not even light would be able to escape huge gravitational forces.

Oh, black holes.

Now as one gets closer and closer to the centre of a black hole, time slows down. At the centre of a black hole, time stops. i.e. there is NO TIME. Now, since there is NO TIME, it means that there was NO TIME in which any pretending friend creator could "create" the universe. Hence, no NEED for a creator for the whole kit and Kaboodle to get going.

Oh well, there's my rant for the day

"Science has shown that initially, everything was one tiny particle" this is nonsense. This has never been "shown" in any way. It is based on the fallacious "redshift equals distance" THEORY. First, there was nothing. Then, nothing exploded and became something. It's retarded.

"according to quantum physics, particles can pop into existence". You actually believe this nonsense? Even more retarded.

"Black holes" OMG even more retarded nonsense, never even close to being proven. Never been seen. CAN'T be seen. By this logic, invisible fairies have been proven real, too.

The astronomer Fred Hoyle once wrote of the herd mentality in his profession:

“The trouble with conformity is that the process has strong positive feedback. The baaing starts up at a volume low enough to permit stronger-minded animals to think for themselves without too much trouble. Progressively, however, we break down one-by-one, losing all power of sensible judgement, to the point where we can do nothing but add our own baaing to the uproar, which eventually rises to such monumental proportions that nothing remains for the flock except the butcher’s shop.”
Scientists are people and not immune to the madness of crowds. Ideas that appear folly initially may with time and a growing clamour of consensus delude people into believing it is a new “truth.” Such is the story of black holes. Two years ago I criticised the theory of black holes and from the correspondence I receive, some scientists and engineers are “recovering their senses slowly, one by one.”
Black holes highlight a situation, common today in astrophysics, where the object under investigation cannot be seen directly. This situation is pure heaven for the crowd of mathematical theorists who have hijacked physics from the natural philosophers and experimentalists. The sainted Einstein seems to have initiated the hijacking with that oxymoron, the “thought experiment.” But problems arise when thoughts are governed by a limited set of beliefs or dogmas and unchecked by direct observation or experiment. The result can be – and generally is – science fiction. University libraries and popular science magazines are full of it at the start of this new millennium.

The Madness of Black Holes

Originally posted by begoodbees

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by begoodbees

 

Then I guess I am not one of them. I will take evidence at face value. EVIDENCE being the operative word. Unfortunately, therein lies the difference between religions (any of them, they are ALL DOGMA) and science. As stated way back, science (to personify it) hypothesises, gathers EVIDENCE and forms theories, facts on said evidence. HOWEVER if evidence comes forward to prove something different to what is being used, (notice I did not use the word believe) then such ideas are embraced, NOT thrown away as does religion with new findings.

A good example that has nothing to do with evolution but DOEs (cant make a capital s) show how "science" is able to adapt is continental drift. Before about the 50's (I think) this was a way out there idea, bagged by many scientists. But, as more EVIDENCE came forward, the scientific community embraced this concept. THAT is what science does. Hence, it CANNOT be a belief system, it CANNOT be a dogma.

If you believe that evolution is a theory and may or may not be true that is a rational position to take. If you believe it is irrefutable fact than you are religious.

sorry b I won't continue this.

You are baiting for the sake of baiting. And I don't like the taste of your bait.

Enjoy your thread.

END
ps if you reply to this, you will be doing it to show off to others as I am deleting this thread from my subscriptions so won't be reading your reply

Have a good weekend

Originally posted by homeslice
Extending to plants wich are living things, I was reading yesterday about how some weeds in New zealand have started to genetically mutate from over using weed killers such as round up. Now these weeds are becoming resistant to these chemicals. Would that not be evolution working? The plant has genetically altered overtime to survive.

Evolution would be the plant evolving legs to run away from the pesticides.