Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

No, you keep bringing it up because you don't understand biology. Or evolution.

I offer physical proof to back up what I am saying, and you offer what? "You don't know what your talking about."

You would have been at the public witch burning events screaming your head off to "burn the witch" because that's what good citizens do.

My version of the Evolution crowd today:

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
This post goes to everyone in general, I can't seem to get my post through in any other way. The easiest way to debunk this theory is to ask any one of these modern scientist to explain the evolution of the eye. Darwin and Haeckel wasn't around when the first "eye" had "seen". Can these pseudo provide proof of the first eyes? They can't, their "facts" are based entirely on historical "evidence" which doesn't exactly point to the truth, my friends, the truth is this, in order to have a machine, you need a machinist. Nature and the universe itself operates like a "machine", carrying out operations. It is clear my friends, that Darwin is incapable of creating his own eyes, if it takes "intelligence" for scientists to create an atom bomb, how much more intelligence is needed to create an atom? Of this scientists are completely clueless. There are thousands of ways to prove them wrong, not one single scientist can give "life" to a cell, they can create a cell, yes, but who can give life to it? Darwin and his henchmen are as completely clueless about how creation started as they are ignorant about the number of hairs on their heads.

Wrong. I'd call any cell that was photosensitive credible evidence of how the eye evolved from simple to complex.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

No, you keep bringing it up because you don't understand biology. Or evolution.

I offer physical proof to back up what I am saying, and you offer what? "You don't know what your talking about."

You would have been at the public witch burning events screaming your head off to "burn the witch" because that's what good citizens do.

Umm....where is this proof btw? You conveniently ignored the paper i posted about the marsupial common ancestor i see. Care to respond?

And just to get you up to speed, there was already plenty of life on earth for evolution to work on before the Cambrian explosion. And if you know anything about adaptive radiation you would understand why "millions" (whatever dude) of species appeared during the Cambrian explosion.

You should read Wonderful Life by Gould. It's all about the Cambrian explosion and it's fascinating, but not in a fictional way, know what I mean?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
My version of the Evolution crowd today:

So we're resorting to ad hominem now, are we? I'm relieved to see you are being so mature about this discussion. It's not every day someone meets a fellow so willing to agree to disagree...usually, they just snarl at you and call you a buffoon and accuse you of being a blind sheep. Some people seem to believe that insults are categorized similarly to rational logical discourse. I've no idea where they got such an impression, but I feel sorry for them.

Oh well! We don't have to worry about that with you now, do we? You're a very mature person who would never think to insult or belittle another person just because they think differently!

Nobody is in any position to explain the evolution of the eye, eyes are subject to degeneration and one can't give life to any eye. If eyes fuction, who exactly put the function in process? What rational human being would think something with no eyes created an eye? Or that the eyes were produced by chance? Darwin had eyes, and he tried to understand the evolution of eyes based on the "cells" it contained. But did he understand the "life force" within the eye? If he didn't create the "life force" within the eye, how can he understand the eyes' evolution? What Darwin knows is both superficial and limited in it's content. Only the "life force" (of intelligence) understands it's own evolution, and to understand such a life force, one has to become (through merging) with one the life force (eternal in it's composition) itself. When the body dies, it's obvious the "life force" leaves. We should become the life force through transmutation (for matter becomes energy) And that energy is obviously life force.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Oh dear god, where do I even start...
Ok. The eye is the standard creationist 'But, but, goddidit!!!' fall back position, and it always gets trotted out at some point. Very well. There no such thing as half an eye. There is just a light sensing collection of cells that gets better and better at doing what it does.
Next thing you're going to say is 'If Darwin was so great why didn't he win a Nobel prize for evolution'? Whereupon lips will curl.

edit on 26-8-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: (no reason given)

By your logic the eye should evolve and yet Trilobite has extremely advanced eyes and there is NOTHING in the fossil record showing this slowly progressing evolving eye! In fact, millions of species just showed up during the Cambrian explosion, and Darwin knew this was his Achilles heel in his theory.

Maybe we crazy creationists bring up the eye problem because it does cause evolution to fall flat on it's face!

The world of denial you live in is fascinating to me. I found it a rather nice touch that you utilize a trilobite, with compound eyes, as your answer to why evolution can't be real. because human eyes are exactly the same as those of an arthropod with compound eyes. Curiosity implores me to ask this then... how do you explain how trilobites had 3 different types of eyes. why wouldn't your all knowing friends in the sky just make one type? throwing poor Darwin under the bus doesn't add to your cause in any fashion. Darwin was step 1 in understanding the course of history. 154 years later science is a little beyond what he was capable of understanding and as we increase our understanding we adjust our notions of the world. Yes, Darwin had issues with the origins of the eye but that was a century and a half ago, those notions are dispelled. well except by you and your plethora of religions blogs to back up your naïve assertions.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Nobody is in any position to explain the evolution of the eye, eyes are subject to degeneration and one can't give life to any eye. If eyes fuction, who exactly put the function in process? What rational human being would think something with no eyes created an eye? Or that the eyes were produced by chance? Darwin had eyes, and he tried to understand the evolution of eyes based on the "cells" it contained. But did he understand the "life force" within the eye? If he didn't create the "life force" within the eye, how can he understand the eyes' evolution? What Darwin knows is both superficial and limited in it's content. Only the "life force" (of intelligence) understands it's own evolution, and to understand such a life force, one has to become (through merging) with one the life force (eternal in it's composition) itself. When the body dies, it's obvious the "life force" leaves. We should become the life force through transmutation (for matter becomes energy) And that energy is obviously life force.

Obviously.

reply to post by BlackSunApocalypse


could you provide some evidence of a "life force" within the eye? Last I checked it was neurons and photo receptors with specific functions but if they've got a life force I'd like to take them out for a drink.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

No, you keep bringing it up because you don't understand biology. Or evolution.

I offer physical proof to back up what I am saying, and you offer what? "You don't know what your talking about."

You would have been at the public witch burning events screaming your head off to "burn the witch" because that's what good citizens do.

You don't have any physical proof. And I've had this argument with so many creationists that I'm starting to lose the will to live.

Last time you checked? Really? The life force is fundamental to any function, doesn't common sense dictate this? Doesn't "a life force" allow a neuron or photo receptor to function? My god you are smart!, show me one neuron that doesn't require a life force to fuction, will you? And by the way, a life force is something that gives a cell life to function.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Last time you checked? Really? The life force is fundamental to any function, doesn't common sense dictate this? Doesn't "a life force" allow a neuron or photo receptor to function? My god you are smart!, show me one neuron that doesn't require a life force to fuction, will you? And by the way, a life force is something that gives a cell life to function.

Can i assume that it surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together?

There is no need to assume, there is a need to dig a little deeper than your current superficial pov, no offense. And yes. It's obvious the life force is omnipresent.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You of all people should not cast stones. I and others defending intelligent design and creation have put up with your crowds jibes, ridicule, and attacks for all these pages. So, buck up skippy. It's called a joke.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
There is no need to assume, there is a need to dig a little deeper than your current superficial pov, no offense. And yes. It's obvious the life force is omnipresent.

edit on 26-8-2013 by BlackSunApocalypse because: Error

The need to dig a little deeper beyond a superficial POV is apparent. The direction of your aim is what is misplaced. If the omnipresent life force is so apparent can you show me your evidence as asked previously.
Per your previous criticism what allows a neuron to work is a combination of electrical and chemical signals. If you want to call that a life force fine. What allows photoreceptors to work is input data. I.e. light. In a round about way I guess that could be a life force since we derive out atoms etc from the sun. But that's a pretty big stretch in context.

"What allows photo receptors to work is input data. I.e. light. In a round about way I guess that could be a life force since we derive out atoms etc from the sun. But that's a pretty big stretch in context". You said we derive our atoms from the sun, well again, even atoms need the life force to function, and that life force is found within it's nucleus. No scientist has understood or can explain the intelligence of that nucleus. The entire "intelligence" is found within it. What I'm getting at is this, the life force is a superior intelligence which creates, and creates all the time. If you understand that nobody can give a nucleus it's intelligence, you will also understand that a superior intelligence must be in play. An intelligence you aren't fully acquainted with.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
"What allows photo receptors to work is input data. I.e. light. In a round about way I guess that could be a life force since we derive out atoms etc from the sun. But that's a pretty big stretch in context". You said we derive our atoms from the sun, well again, even atoms need the life force to function, and that life force is found within it's nucleus. No scientist has understood or can explain the intelligence of that nucleus. The entire "intelligence" is found within it. What I'm getting at is this, the life force is a superior intelligence which creates, and creates all the time. If you understand that nobody can give a nucleus it's intelligence, you will also understand that a superior intelligence must be in play. An intelligence you aren't fully acquainted with.

Can you please cite some evidence for this.... remarkable claim?

"Can you please cite some evidence for this.... remarkable claim?" Which remarkable claim? Please be specific in your questions. There is no need for evidence, it requires simple logic to understand that a force is required in order for even the most minute cell to function.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
"Can you please cite some evidence for this.... remarkable claim?" Which remarkable claim? Please be specific in your questions. There is no need for evidence, it requires simple logic to understand that a force is required in order for even the most minute cell to function.

Your entire theory about life force. Which has caused me to raise both eyebrows in extreme surprise.

My friend. Life force is by no means a theory. It's a fact. Life force is that intelligence which gives "life" to everything in the universe. Life obviously defines the ability to fuction. So when something has the ability to function, it obviously needs a life force to govern that function. What I think is this, I think you find yourself in a horrible trap. You have by no means understood the intelligence of that which gives movement to every mechanism and function. There is a need to be less complex in your descriptions and more simplistic. What is life? And what is life without a life force propelling it? You have no way of extricating yourself from the position I currently have you in, any argument you throw forth will seem null and void. When this discussion between you and I have been completed. You will be convinced that there is a creator God.