What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: borntowatch

What you're doing here is the equivalent of saying you've completed 95% of an elephant jigsaw, but because you cannot place those last few pieces you wont say its an elephant.....??

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Basically your entire problem with science can be summed up like this: Science doesn't have all the answers (yet), therefore it is invalid. Well I guess I can never fix that flawed thinking. Have fun living in ignorance.

Thanks
You too

Or I could say No, to your strawman (love that)
I dont deny all science, thats a petty statement you have made to try to make yourself seem superior

Really it makes you look inferior

Except that it applies since your op is discounting large swaths of science that ranges from chemistry to biology to astronomy to genetics. Pretty much all of science is represented in your OP and you believe none of that. Is there other theories and sciences out there? Yes. But you have shown me a distrust of science despite mountains of evidence showing that you are wrong, so I see no reason why you should trust any other science. It is hypocritical.

Try this

"Basically your entire problem with science can be summed up like this: Science doesn't have all the answers to evolution (yet), therefore evolution is invalid.
Well I guess I can never fix that flawed thinking. Have fun waiting on science to prove it or fail."

Truth hurts buddy. Evolution, big bang, star formation, galaxy formation, development of earth, are all pretty much proven. We may not have 100% of the picture but we have a pretty damn good idea of how it works. I can guarantee that whatever the truth really happens to be, it will most likely incorporate the theories that you don't believe in in some way. Maybe not word for word, but you can be damn sure that they are on the right track. Yet you refuse to accept mountains of evidence. My words are true, you can't accept what is right in front of you because it contradicts a moldy old book written by goat herders.

See thats not arrogant or elitist, I dont think you should own a gun

I shouldn't own a gun? What the hell does that have to do with this discussion?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I see. So your default position is to ignore all the evidence that science has provided and instead you place your faith in a book of myths that has been manipulated by various churches over the years. Can I ask how old you think the Earth is?

You just worked that out, after all these pages and my opening post.

A car was stolen, it had my prints on the door steering wheel and an empty beer can that was on the seat.
The police were very sure I was guilty because of the evidence

The evidence was in fact legit, I didnt steal the car

and you may think that all the churches have changed the written words over the years and you can argue that with me, no doubt come up with your own evidence, but what makes your evidence legit other than your opinion.

I am a YEC

but I am not arguing this

But you are arguing this, because you've publically stated that you don't believe in the science that refutes your YEC standpoint!

If the truth hurt, would I post on a website with so many people around who hate creationists.

I pity you because you are so smug, so lost in your beliefs

This is a personal war to you, I dont get that.
Must be an American thing. "He who disagrees with me must be destroyed", is that how you think?

Evolution is not proven, not even partly proven, hell with all the money government is investing in evolution it proves it not even a little bit proven.

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

You can be damn sure of that, truth hurts doesnt it buddy.
I dont mean that, just using your words to sound tough and all authoritative like

Its a strawman, just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt mean I dont accept other sciences, your strawman is just silly, but you cant admit that

This is fun isnt it.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

No he didn't.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

But you are arguing this, because you've publically stated that you don't believe in the science that refutes your YEC standpoint!

I accept others believe in evolution and dont see the point of arguing,
I am happy people believe in evolution, the faith that it is.

It seems far more important to you than me

I am still not arguing it, asked a few questions, got no relevant answers, just a lot of patronising comments and demands I accept your views

originally posted by: borntowatch
If the truth hurt, would I post on a website with so many people around who hate creationists.

I pity you because you are so smug, so lost in your beliefs

This is a personal war to you, I dont get that.
Must be an American thing. "He who disagrees with me must be destroyed", is that how you think?

Evolution is not proven, not even partly proven, hell with all the money government is investing in evolution it proves it not even a little bit proven.

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

You can be damn sure of that, truth hurts doesnt it buddy.
I dont mean that, just using your words to sound tough and all authoritative like

Its a strawman, just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt mean I dont accept other sciences, your strawman is just silly, but you cant admit that

This is fun isnt it.

Aha, I see that you have been watching 'Expelled'. You need to ask for your money back for that by the way, it's a terrible film that relies on deliberate distortions. To elucidate: Dawkins was talking about the theory of Panspermia and the possibilities behind it. The bit in 'Expelled' with him talking about that was twisted. By the way, Panspermia does not necessarily entail life being seeded by aliens. It's possible that life came to Earth via meteorites.
And I'm sorry, but evolution is, once again, a scientifically plausible, scientifically testable, theory. You keep denying that fact, which is interesting. Do you have doubts?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

But you are arguing this, because you've publically stated that you don't believe in the science that refutes your YEC standpoint!

I accept others believe in evolution and dont see the point of arguing,
I am happy people believe in evolution, the faith that it is.

It seems far more important to you than me

I am still not arguing it, asked a few questions, got no relevant answers, just a lot of patronising comments and demands I accept your views

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: borntowatch

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

No he didn't.

Good call, he said "may have", my mistake

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

originally posted by: borntowatch


Good call, he said "may have", my mistake

No, he said it was an interesting possibility and we might find their "signature" if they did. But he also stipulated that they would have been the product of evolution themselves. In answer to an attempted leading question from a religious fanatic. A very different thing to what you infer.

originally posted by: borntowatch
If the truth hurt, would I post on a website with so many people around who hate creationists.

I pity you because you are so smug, so lost in your beliefs

This is a personal war to you, I dont get that.
Must be an American thing. "He who disagrees with me must be destroyed", is that how you think?

You made the thread. I came in and said you were wrong. I provided proof when you asked for it. You ignored it. Personal war it is not, but if you make a thread spewing ignorance it is my right to come in and correct you, so I did.

Evolution is not proven, not even partly proven, hell with all the money government is investing in evolution it proves it not even a little bit proven.

This makes no sense. It is certainly partly proven. You even admitted you believe in microevolution. So make sure you get your terminology correct there buddy. Oh and what money? How is government investing money into evolution? Are you sure you aren't thinking about man-made climate change? I certainly don't see very many political hack pieces on evolution or trying to politicize evolution. So I'm not sure where you are going with this point.

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

Source for this claim? Though aliens seeding the earth doesn't disprove evolution. I've already told you many different times on many different threads that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

You can be damn sure of that, truth hurts doesnt it buddy.
I dont mean that, just using your words to sound tough and all authoritative like

Hey. I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong. I've made unfair generalizations about Christians in the past and admitted as such. You are the one who has a problem admitting when he is wrong. I know the truth hurts, it takes a lot to overcome my pride and admit my mistake, but I do it anyways. Perhaps you should try it sometime?

Its a strawman, just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt mean I dont accept other sciences, your strawman is just silly, but you cant admit that

This is fun isnt it.

There is nothing strawman about it. YOU started a thread calling into question many different aspects of science. These are your words:

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.

1) Big Bang - Astronomy, physics
2) Development of the Table of Elements - Chemistry
3) Development of complex structures in the universe - Astronomy and physics (astrophysics)
4) Abiogenesis/Biogenesis - Chemistry, Biology, paleontology
5 and 6) Same thing, Evolution - paleontology, genetics, biology

This thread wasn't JUST about evolution. It was about many different scientific concepts and YOU saying that you don't believe them. Above I just about listed every scientific discipline. If you discount all those things, you are discounting mountains of evidence. It's just simple fact. You might as well not believe in any science. What makes any other theory or law more credible than these ones? Why do you think you can pick and choose which ones are real and which aren't? You haven't even picked apart ANY evidence in this thread to support your position. Though you keep claiming this isn't an argument. So I accept this account of things and say you are swimming in ignorance. It's the truth, and if that hurts oh well.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

If you had read my link I provided, or rather even read the bit that I copy and pasted in this very thread, you would know that the big bang isn't about nothing becoming something. The singularity isn't nothing. It is EVERYTHING in the universe compressed down into a tiny thing. The reason we can't go past this point in our universe's timeline is because the laws of physics breakdown the closer we get. We don't even really think that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe anymore. Just a point where the universe changed states.

See this just proves you aren't willing to admit you are wrong. I post information in this thread (when you demanded evidence) you not only ignored it but continue to spout off incorrect information about how the theory works. This is called intellectual dishonesty, is a symptom of close mindedness, and reinforces my position of your willingness to sit in ignorance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

If you had read my link I provided, or rather even read the bit that I copy and pasted in this very thread, you would know that the big bang isn't about nothing becoming something. The singularity isn't nothing. It is EVERYTHING in the universe compressed down into a tiny thing. The reason we can't go past this point in our universe's timeline is because the laws of physics breakdown the closer we get. We don't even really think that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe anymore. Just a point where the universe changed states.

See this just proves you aren't willing to admit you are wrong. I post information in this thread (when you demanded evidence) you not only ignored it but continue to spout off incorrect information about how the theory works. This is called intellectual dishonesty, is a symptom of close mindedness, and reinforces my position of your willingness to sit in ignorance.

How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.
A tiny thing?
How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen
Where did this tiny singularity come from
was the tiny thing made of one element or many
If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is, why and how did it change states from its original state, why did all matter go to one place, the tiny thing, why did energy compress rather than expand. Why did matter compress rather than expand

More questions than answers

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

If you had read my link I provided, or rather even read the bit that I copy and pasted in this very thread, you would know that the big bang isn't about nothing becoming something. The singularity isn't nothing. It is EVERYTHING in the universe compressed down into a tiny thing. The reason we can't go past this point in our universe's timeline is because the laws of physics breakdown the closer we get. We don't even really think that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe anymore. Just a point where the universe changed states.

See this just proves you aren't willing to admit you are wrong. I post information in this thread (when you demanded evidence) you not only ignored it but continue to spout off incorrect information about how the theory works. This is called intellectual dishonesty, is a symptom of close mindedness, and reinforces my position of your willingness to sit in ignorance.

How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.
A tiny thing?
How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen
Where did this tiny singularity come from
was the tiny thing made of one element or many
If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is, why and how did it change states from its original state, why did all matter go to one place, the tiny thing, why did energy compress rather than expand. Why did matter compress rather than expand

More questions than answers

Those are great questions that scientists are working very hard to answer at this moment. But you see, just because answering one question, creates many new questions, isn't reason to discount the whole thing. That is SUPPOSED to be how it works. You gleam little bits of information until you can answer a question about existence, but upon answering that question, many new questions appear. That is why science is a never ending process. It continually adds to our knowledge of things while discarding things that are shown to be untrue. But just because we don't know an answer doesn't mean you can say that all the science up to that point (in this case the big bang) is wrong and untrue. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove the evidence put forth that corroborates the theory. Not just ask a bunch of questions that science either hasn't gotten around to answering yet, or doesn't have the capability to answer yet.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
If the truth hurt, would I post on a website with so many people around who hate creationists.

I pity you because you are so smug, so lost in your beliefs

This is a personal war to you, I dont get that.
Must be an American thing. "He who disagrees with me must be destroyed", is that how you think?

You made the thread. I came in and said you were wrong. I provided proof when you asked for it. You ignored it. Personal war it is not, but if you make a thread spewing ignorance it is my right to come in and correct you, so I did.

Evolution is not proven, not even partly proven, hell with all the money government is investing in evolution it proves it not even a little bit proven.

This makes no sense. It is certainly partly proven. You even admitted you believe in microevolution. So make sure you get your terminology correct there buddy. Oh and what money? How is government investing money into evolution? Are you sure you aren't thinking about man-made climate change? I certainly don't see very many political hack pieces on evolution or trying to politicize evolution. So I'm not sure where you are going with this point.

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

Source for this claim? Though aliens seeding the earth doesn't disprove evolution. I've already told you many different times on many different threads that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

You can be damn sure of that, truth hurts doesnt it buddy.
I dont mean that, just using your words to sound tough and all authoritative like

Hey. I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong. I've made unfair generalizations about Christians in the past and admitted as such. You are the one who has a problem admitting when he is wrong. I know the truth hurts, it takes a lot to overcome my pride and admit my mistake, but I do it anyways. Perhaps you should try it sometime?

Its a strawman, just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt mean I dont accept other sciences, your strawman is just silly, but you cant admit that

This is fun isnt it.

There is nothing strawman about it. YOU started a thread calling into question many different aspects of science. These are your words:

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.

1) Big Bang - Astronomy, physics
2) Development of the Table of Elements - Chemistry
3) Development of complex structures in the universe - Astronomy and physics (astrophysics)
4) Abiogenesis/Biogenesis - Chemistry, Biology, paleontology
5 and 6) Same thing, Evolution - paleontology, genetics, biology

This thread wasn't JUST about evolution. It was about many different scientific concepts and YOU saying that you don't believe them. Above I just about listed every scientific discipline. If you discount all those things, you are discounting mountains of evidence. It's just simple fact. You might as well not believe in any science. What makes any other theory or law more credible than these ones? Why do you think you can pick and choose which ones are real and which aren't? You haven't even picked apart ANY evidence in this thread to support your position. Though you keep claiming this isn't an argument. So I accept this account of things and say you are swimming in ignorance. It's the truth, and if that hurts oh well.

STRAWMAN

I defined that I didnt believe in the evolution aspect of those sciences, strawman.
I did Not say all aspects of those sciences, thats a strawman argument.
You dont strike me as honest, if you are honest then you have another issue.

I accept science, serve a God who created the word, word lead to sciences growth.

To say I dont accept science is ludicrous and you should be ashamed as a learned person to turn to that kind of argument, to belittle some one, to make yourself feel good.
Are you scared, are you questioning something.

There are questions, try and answer them, try be honest

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no relevant answers'. A great deal of information has been provided for you. Are you saying that all of that wasn't relevant?

The op has statements you can explain if you like, 1 at a time is fine.

What caused the BB, how did nothing become something, Cosmic evolution. Thats a start

If you had read my link I provided, or rather even read the bit that I copy and pasted in this very thread, you would know that the big bang isn't about nothing becoming something. The singularity isn't nothing. It is EVERYTHING in the universe compressed down into a tiny thing. The reason we can't go past this point in our universe's timeline is because the laws of physics breakdown the closer we get. We don't even really think that the Big Bang is the origin of our universe anymore. Just a point where the universe changed states.

See this just proves you aren't willing to admit you are wrong. I post information in this thread (when you demanded evidence) you not only ignored it but continue to spout off incorrect information about how the theory works. This is called intellectual dishonesty, is a symptom of close mindedness, and reinforces my position of your willingness to sit in ignorance.

How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.
A tiny thing?
How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen
Where did this tiny singularity come from
was the tiny thing made of one element or many
If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is, why and how did it change states from its original state, why did all matter go to one place, the tiny thing, why did energy compress rather than expand. Why did matter compress rather than expand

More questions than answers

Those are great questions that scientists are working very hard to answer at this moment. But you see, just because answering one question, creates many new questions, isn't reason to discount the whole thing. That is SUPPOSED to be how it works. You gleam little bits of information until you can answer a question about existence, but upon answering that question, many new questions appear. That is why science is a never ending process. It continually adds to our knowledge of things while discarding things that are shown to be untrue. But just because we don't know an answer doesn't mean you can say that all the science up to that point (in this case the big bang) is wrong and untrue. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove the evidence put forth that corroborates the theory. Not just ask a bunch of questions that science either hasn't gotten around to answering yet, or doesn't have the capability to answer yet.

Plus we can prove that the Big Bang happened because of the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation. The proof is there.

originally posted by: borntowatch


How could there be an explosion of energy, where did the energy come from, what caused it.

god.

How did this tiny thing store energy and all matter. If there were no plants was their oxygen

god.

Where did this tiny singularity come from

god.

was the tiny thing made of one element or many

god.

If the laws of physics break down how can I believe it

god.

If the BB isnt the origin of the universe then what is,

god.

why and how did it change states from its original state,

god.

why did all matter go to one place,

god.

why did energy compress rather than expand.

god.

Why did matter compress rather than expand

god.

More questions than answers

All the answers you'll ever need...god.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Those are great questions that scientists are working very hard to answer at this moment. But you see, just because answering one question, creates many new questions, isn't reason to discount the whole thing. That is SUPPOSED to be how it works. You gleam little bits of information until you can answer a question about existence, but upon answering that question, many new questions appear. That is why science is a never ending process. It continually adds to our knowledge of things while discarding things that are shown to be untrue. But just because we don't know an answer doesn't mean you can say that all the science up to that point (in this case the big bang) is wrong and untrue. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove the evidence put forth that corroborates the theory. Not just ask a bunch of questions that science either hasn't gotten around to answering yet, or doesn't have the capability to answer yet.

Belief with OUT evidence
You know what we churchys call that......FAITH

Now you want me to disprove an answer that you cant even prove, disprove evidence that science cant prove

Thats insane

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
If the truth hurt, would I post on a website with so many people around who hate creationists.

I pity you because you are so smug, so lost in your beliefs

This is a personal war to you, I dont get that.
Must be an American thing. "He who disagrees with me must be destroyed", is that how you think?

You made the thread. I came in and said you were wrong. I provided proof when you asked for it. You ignored it. Personal war it is not, but if you make a thread spewing ignorance it is my right to come in and correct you, so I did.

Evolution is not proven, not even partly proven, hell with all the money government is investing in evolution it proves it not even a little bit proven.

This makes no sense. It is certainly partly proven. You even admitted you believe in microevolution. So make sure you get your terminology correct there buddy. Oh and what money? How is government investing money into evolution? Are you sure you aren't thinking about man-made climate change? I certainly don't see very many political hack pieces on evolution or trying to politicize evolution. So I'm not sure where you are going with this point.

Dawkins said he believed aliens seeded the earth, what do you recon

Source for this claim? Though aliens seeding the earth doesn't disprove evolution. I've already told you many different times on many different threads that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

You can be damn sure of that, truth hurts doesnt it buddy.
I dont mean that, just using your words to sound tough and all authoritative like

Hey. I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong. I've made unfair generalizations about Christians in the past and admitted as such. You are the one who has a problem admitting when he is wrong. I know the truth hurts, it takes a lot to overcome my pride and admit my mistake, but I do it anyways. Perhaps you should try it sometime?

Its a strawman, just because I dont believe in evolution doesnt mean I dont accept other sciences, your strawman is just silly, but you cant admit that

This is fun isnt it.

There is nothing strawman about it. YOU started a thread calling into question many different aspects of science. These are your words:

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.

1) Big Bang - Astronomy, physics
2) Development of the Table of Elements - Chemistry
3) Development of complex structures in the universe - Astronomy and physics (astrophysics)
4) Abiogenesis/Biogenesis - Chemistry, Biology, paleontology
5 and 6) Same thing, Evolution - paleontology, genetics, biology

This thread wasn't JUST about evolution. It was about many different scientific concepts and YOU saying that you don't believe them. Above I just about listed every scientific discipline. If you discount all those things, you are discounting mountains of evidence. It's just simple fact. You might as well not believe in any science. What makes any other theory or law more credible than these ones? Why do you think you can pick and choose which ones are real and which aren't? You haven't even picked apart ANY evidence in this thread to support your position. Though you keep claiming this isn't an argument. So I accept this account of things and say you are swimming in ignorance. It's the truth, and if that hurts oh well.

STRAWMAN

I defined that I didnt believe in the evolution aspect of those sciences, strawman.
I did Not say all aspects of those sciences, thats a strawman argument.
You dont strike me as honest, if you are honest then you have another issue.

I accept science, serve a God who created the word, word lead to sciences growth.

To say I dont accept science is ludicrous and you should be ashamed as a learned person to turn to that kind of argument, to belittle some one, to make yourself feel good.
Are you scared, are you questioning something.

There are questions, try and answer them, try be honest

But by denying the proof behind science, you are denying the science itself. You aren't accepting science. You can't pick and choose which bits of science you can accept. Scientifically proven facts are still facts.