Hey Everybody!

@zan,

hello, and welcome.

0 Replies

@zan,

Hello and Good Bye. I now remember why I ceased posting on this site....IT SUCKS. I have not posted in nearly a month....yet I notice that in all that time less than 400 new posts have been drafted in total, and I am sure in that total the majority have been drafted by the exact same OPINIONATED ad hominem pompous philosophers that are so vain they actually believe their OPINIONS to be factual....the reason they continue to propagate their message HERE, as the same old circular jargon keeps getting puked up giving new meaning to the term........"Ad Nauseam".

Perhaps you might sharpen your skills here.....as this is the site for the ONE TRICK PONIES, that keep re-circulating the same nonsense. But I would suggest you watch a Nascar event......at least you will witness a crash and burn on occasion as they continually keep making LEFT TURNS while going in circles....here, you merely become dizzy with all the circular reasoning being propagated. But enjoy....you might have found a home...like the few others who camp here because of the monopoly.

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;65098 wrote:

Hello and Good Bye. I now remember why I ceased posting on this site....IT SUCKS. I have not posted in nearly a month....yet I notice that in all that time less than 400 new posts have been drafted in total, and I am sure in that total the majority have been drafted by the exact same OPINIONATED ad hominem pompous philosophers that are so vain they actually believe their OPINIONS to be factual....the reason they continue to propagate their message HERE, as the same old circular jargon keeps getting puked up giving new meaning to the term........"Ad Nauseam".

Perhaps you might sharpen your skills here.....as this is the site for the ONE TRICK PONIES, that keep re-circulating the same nonsense. But I would suggest you watch a Nascar event......at least you will witness a crash and burn on occasion as they continually keep making LEFT TURNS while going in circles....here, you merely become dizzy with all the circular reasoning being propagated. But enjoy....you might have found a home...like the few others who camp here because of the monopoly.

Someone is bitter. Very Happy

0 Replies

@zan,

"Hello and Good Bye. I now remember why I ceased posting on this site....IT SUCKS. I have not posted in nearly a month....yet I notice that in all that time less than 400 new posts have been drafted in total, and I am sure in that total the majority have been drafted by the exact same OPINIONATED ad hominem pompous philosophers that are so vain they actually believe their OPINIONS to be factual....the reason they continue to propagate their message HERE, as the same old circular jargon keeps getting puked up giving new meaning to the term........"Ad Nauseam".

Perhaps you might sharpen your skills here.....as this is the site for the ONE TRICK PONIES, that keep re-circulating the same nonsense. But I would suggest you watch a Nascar event......at least you will witness a crash and burn on occasion as they continually keep making LEFT TURNS while going in circles....here, you merely become dizzy with all the circular reasoning being propagated. But enjoy....you might have found a home...like the few others who camp here because of the monopoly."

Aren't you the guy who thinks evolution is wrong because humans can't fly, and because cutting off a rat's tail won't cause it to give birth to tailless rats?

2 Replies

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;65100 wrote:

Aren't you the guy who thinks evolution is wrong because humans can't fly, and because cutting off a rat's tail won't cause it to give birth to tailless rats?

Yup, he certainly is.

The Science guys here give him a hammering time after time.

2 Replies

@Numpty,

Numpty;65101 wrote:

Yup, he certainly is.

The Science guys here give him a hammering time after time.

Definitely. Even the fundamentalists here try to avoid the evolution topic because they get a proverbial ass-kicking every time.

0 Replies

@Numpty,

Numpty;65101 wrote:

Yup, he certainly is.

The Science guys here give him a hammering time after time.

Science guys? :rollinglaugh: Since when is the dogma of theoretical philosophy known as science? Real science is OBSERVED, REPRODUCIBLE, experimentation...and as of yet, no one can demonstrate the foundation of GENERAL EVOLUTION to have ever been OBSERVABLE....just one time, in nature or the lab, "spontaneous generation"...the philosophy attempted to be passed off as PHYSICAL SCIENCE, which propagates the unprovable dogma that LIFE can be generated from dead, non-living matter. Talk about fairy tales...and the faith therein. Of course what do you expect form people that accept an ideology as truth that anything can come into existence before it is CAUSED by SOMETHING...LIKE THE UNIVERSE. Which is proven to have had a beginning, a beginning according to the absolute PHYSICAL LAW of CAUSALITY that demands a superior (SUPERNATURAL) externally existing CAUSE to the natural universe which is proven to be contingent upon said CAUSE because the natural Laws of Physical SCIENCE cannot explain their own conception (a Physical Universe to observe)...in the scientific method of reproducible and observed EXPERIMENTATION.

Thus we have the pseudo field of theoretical philosophy attempting to pass itself off as PHYSICAL SCIENCE despite the fact that the only place it exists is between the ears of those that propagate it. It exists only in unprovable theory.....and illogical theory at that.

The truth is YOUR SCIENCE GUYS....provide no challenge, to REAL SCIENCE, which was created by GOD.

1 Reply

@zan,

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

The Short Proof of Evolution

checkmate

1 Reply

@NotHereForLong,

NotHereForLong;65100 wrote:

Aren't you the guy who thinks evolution is wrong because humans can't fly, and because cutting off a rat's tail won't cause it to give birth to tailless rats?

And believes that because a star is formed on average once every thirty seconds in the universe, that the universe is too young for the BB and biological evolution since we have not directly observed a star forming given this timefame.

However his own numbers overshot his argument by two orders of magnitude. A creationist using numbers is a sure sign of bullsh!t.

0 Replies

@Grouch,

Grouch;65115 wrote:

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

The Short Proof of Evolution

checkmate

Right...just what everyone needs, opinionated spam dressed as PROOF, when the only proof requested was JUST ONE example of LIFE evolving from dead matter, the foundation to the dogma of general evolution. Internet parroting demonstrates the fact that INDOCTRINATION is at work. There is no proof of evolution....nothing has ever been proven to have evolved from dead matter, thus everything presented until this dogma can be demonstrated is moot and pure speculation as TRUE SCIENCE is a product of OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE, EXPERIMENTATION....if such cannot be demonstrated neither can the truth be observed. As I said......provide the link where life has been OBSERVED being reproduced from DEAD MATTER in nature....or REPRODUCED in any laboratory through experimentation, then and only then can you demonstrate proof to confirm the theory of General Vertical EVOLUTION such is as being propagated as truth simply to do away with CREATION....without the support of Empirical Evidence as derived through the scientific method. If you state that Evolution does not claim to be a product of Spontaneous Generation, then you must agree with Creation, as there are only 2 possibilities, life is a product of Superior Intelligence or a Product of Nature through the process of spontaneous generation.

Theorize all you want....but prove general evolution as is defined by Naturalism you cannot, its merely DOGMA, simply due to the fact that all true SCIENCE is a product of OBSERVATION and CONFORMATION though repeatable experimentation....What the Darwinian Cultists propagate is nothing but Philosophical Theory passed off as SCIENCE. It's claiming to be in the possession of the knowledge of the truth (Science Defined) but not having the empirical evidence to support it through observation, thus...its PSEUDO SCIENCE when Philosophy is attempted to be passed as SCIENCE. If general evolution was a fact of science...then life could easily be proven to have Spontaneously Generated from NON LIVING matter.

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;65124 wrote:

Right...just what everyone needs, opinionated spam dressed as PROOF, when the only proof requested was JUST ONE example of LIFE evolving from dead matter, the foundation to the dogma of general evolution. Internet parroting demonstrates the fact that INDOCTRINATION is at work. There is no proof of evolution....nothing has ever been proven to have evolved from dead matter, thus everything presented until this dogma can be demonstrated is moot and pure speculation as TRUE SCIENCE is a product of OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE, EXPERIMENTATION....if such cannot be demonstrated neither can the truth be observed. As I said......provide the link where life has been OBSERVED being reproduced from DEAD MATTER in nature....or REPRODUCED in any laboratory through experimentation, then and only then can you demonstrate proof to confirm the theory of General Vertical EVOLUTION such is as being propagated as truth simply to do away with CREATION....without the support of Empirical Evidence as derived through the scientific method. If you state that Evolution does not claim to be a product of Spontaneous Generation, then you must agree with Creation, as there are only 2 possibilities, life is a product of Superior Intelligence or a Product of Nature through the process of spontaneous generation.

Theorize all you want....but prove general evolution as is defined by Naturalism you cannot, its merely DOGMA, simply due to the fact that all true SCIENCE is a product of OBSERVATION and CONFORMATION though repeatable experimentation....What the Darwinian Cultists propagate is nothing but Philosophical Theory passed off as SCIENCE. It's claiming to be in the knowledge of the truth (Science Defined) but not having the empirical evidence to support it through observation, thus...its PSEUDO SCIENCE when Philosophy is attempted to be passed as SCIENCE. If general evolution was a fact of science...then life could easily be proven to have Spontaneously Generated from NON LIVING matter.

First you confuse abiogenesis with Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis IS NOT the foundation of evolution, that is a creationist lie. And this is a mistake that a huge portion of creationists fall for. How the first organic molecules came to be is still a subject of much study and debate and if far removed from the development of organisms and species from preexisting ones.

Now to say that because we don't know exactly how abiogensis (cant fully reproduce it, though there have been experiments involving it) happened that it must be God is a false dilemma, a logical fallcy and intellectually dishonest.

I find it ironic to say the least that you say evolutionary claims are philosophical pseudo science, that is considering intelligent design has absolutely nothing scientific about it. Its purely based on nothing observable, its a gaps theory that fails at every level of criticism. Its dishonest to claim it as anything else and you should be ashamed of yourself trying to pass it off as anything but.

If you wish to debate me on the forum i would love the opportunity. Provide you evidence and we will dance.

1 Reply

@zan,

You're either claiming that evolution is dependant on abiogenesis being true or that the two are one and the same. Both these claims are wrong. First; they're not the same. Evolution is a theory to explain the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is a theory to explain the origin of life. Second; evolution is not dependant on abiogenesis being true. In other words, even if God or some other supernatural force created the first life form on earth, it still could have evolved into the variety of life we see today. In fact, there are many theists who hold this position (believe in evolution but not in abiogenesis). If you want to discuss evolution, then you need to stick to the topic of evolution, which abiogenesis is not part of.

Another basic error you make is you keep talking about spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is a type of abiogenesis which was disproved hundreds of years ago. Spontaneous generation doesn't need to be true for abiogenesis to be true. If you attack it in order to dismiss modern theories of abiogenesis, then you're making a straw man fallacy. If you want to talk about whether or not abiogenesis is true, then you need to address the modern theories of abiogenesis (not a version of abiogenesis which was disproved hundreds of years ago).

You also make the argument that the universe had a beginning and needs a cause. That argument has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, it's not even science. It's the philosophical argument called the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. It's ironic because you've accused us of trying to use philosophical arguments in place of science, and you're the only one here who's actually doing that.

You do what creationists usually do which is throw a bunch of different topics all together and bounce back and forth between them. This prevents you from looking at any of them thoroughly. Seperate topics should be kept seperate.

0 Replies

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;65114 wrote:

Science guys? :rollinglaugh: Since when is the dogma of theoretical philosophy known as science? Real science is OBSERVED, REPRODUCIBLE, experimentation

I guess we're Gonna have to throw out plate tectonics. :dunno:

Quote:

...and as of yet, no one can demonstrate the foundation of GENERAL EVOLUTION to have ever been OBSERVABLE....

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Quote:

just one time, in nature or the lab, "spontaneous generation"...the philosophy attempted to be passed off as PHYSICAL SCIENCE, which propagates the unprovable dogma that LIFE can be generated from dead, non-living matter.

*sigh*

People that are the most against evolution are also the ones who know the least about it.

First of all evolutionary theory is about the Origin of species, NOT the origin of life. So it doesn't really matter where the first life came from it wouldn't affect the validity of evolution the least.

Secondly the origin of life is ABIOGENESIS not evolution, and it is not spontaneous generation.

Quote:

Talk about fairy tales...and the faith therein. Of course what do you expect form people that accept an ideology as truth that anything can come into existence before it is CAUSED by SOMETHING...LIKE THE UNIVERSE.

Red herring.

What does the origin of the universe have to do with evolution. You are all over the place.

Quote:

Which is proven to have had a beginning, a beginning according to the absolute PHYSICAL LAW of CAUSALITY that demands a superior (SUPERNATURAL) externally existing CAUSE to the natural universe which is proven to be contingent upon said CAUSE because the natural Laws of Physical SCIENCE cannot explain their own conception (a Physical Universe to observe)...

argumentum ad ignorantiam

Quote:

in the scientific method of reproducible and observed EXPERIMENTATION.

Thus we have the pseudo field of theoretical philosophy attempting to pass itself off as PHYSICAL SCIENCE despite the fact that the only place it exists is between the ears of those that propagate it. It exists only in unprovable theory.....and illogical theory at that.

The truth is YOUR SCIENCE GUYS....provide no challenge, to REAL SCIENCE, which was created by GOD.

You don't know the first thing about science. But I do find this amusing.

1 Reply

@Grouch,

Grouch;65125 wrote:

First you confuse abiogenesis with Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis IS NOT the foundation of evolution, that is a creationist lie. And this is a mistake that a huge portion of creationists fall for. How the first organic molecules came to be is still a subject of much study and debate and if far removed from the development of organisms and species from preexisting ones.

Now to say that because we don't know exactly how abiogensis (cant fully reproduce it, though there have been experiments involving it) happened that it must be God is a false dilemma, a logical fallcy and intellectually dishonest.

I find it ironic to say the least that you say evolutionary claims are philosophical pseudo science, that is considering intelligent design has absolutely nothing scientific about it. Its purely based on nothing observable, its a gaps theory that fails at every level of criticism. Its dishonest to claim it as anything else and you should be ashamed of yourself trying to pass it off as anything but.

If you wish to debate me on the forum i would love the opportunity. Provide you evidence and we will dance.

So you are in total agreement with the Scientific Evidence......LIFE, is not a product of NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE as having been brought about by random chance as to have EVOLVED from inert (non living) matter? If so...please explain in DETAIL just how life had its CONCEPTION....without conception through EVOLUTION by natural happenstance, just what is YOUR POSITION? For you see....by using the Scientific Method, General Evolution is CONTINGENT upon being able to explain its ORIGINS...thus your position is contingent upon this ORIGIN of LIFE. Anything that you opine about in speculative theory is....MOOT, if you are unable to explain EVOLUTION via producing the evidence in support of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION....at best, all you can offer is UNOBSERVED, prima facie PRESUMPTION to base your DOGMA upon....and this is as far removed from science as night is from day....its nothing short of PHILOSOPHY, based upon assumption and presumption not observed but SPECULATED upon by observing LIFE as we find it today, fully developed. But true Science proves that LIVE always comes from prior existing life...it has never been OBSERVED as being a product which is produced from anything other than other life.....within the same species. Its observed in nature on a daily basis. And its called biogenesis. This mirco evolution can happen because the DNA is pre-existing in that species of life that allows it to adapt. To speculate that mutation ADDS something to a pre-existing strain of DNA is in direct contradiction to SCIENCE which proves that MUTATION, brings about IMPERFECTION (takes aways) to an already existing DNA..it has never been proven to make that existing life....BETTER, only DEFORMED. Like the fish with deformed eyes...touted as some missing link, its simply a deformed example of a pre-existing form of life.

Life has only been proven to have HORIZONTALLY EVOLVED..aka micro evolution in order to adapt to its natural surroundings.....this natural evolution has never been in dispute. What is disputed and unprovable is GENERAL EVOLUTION or VERTICAL evolution where SPECIES breech has never been OBSERVED in nature or the actual fossil record. A fish, is always a fish....a horse is always a horse....a man is always a man..etc. No matter what size, color of skin, feathers, scales or hair may change to adapt to its surroundings. Hell with out this natural Horizontal evolution LIFE would have ceased the first time a common cold virus was encountered.

If you have the proof.....OBSERVED, REPRODUCED, and EXPERIMENTATION that demonstrates LIFE having been a product of non-living matter....simply present your evidence, show JUST ONE experiment, or ONE instance that has been OBSERVED in nature where life has evolved from one COMMON source of DEAD MATTER, to produce ONE COMMON source of EVERYTHING LIVING. proceed. :dunno:

As you can see...I am not good at dancing with ASSUMED facts that are not evidenced, I walk in the TRUTH, not the gray matter that rests between my ears. I go where the evidence points, I do not attempt to place square pegs into round holes.

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;65130 wrote:

So you are in total agreement with the Scientific Evidence......LIFE, is not a product of NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE as having been brought about by random chance as to have EVOLVED from inert (non living) matter? If so...please explain in DETAIL just how life had its CONCEPTION....without conception through EVOLUTION by natural happenstance, just what is YOUR POSITION? For you see....by using the Scientific Method, General Evolution is CONTINGENT upon being able to explain its ORIGINS...thus your position is contingent upon this ORIGIN of LIFE. Anything that you opine about in speculative theory is....MOOT, if you are unable to explain EVOLUTION via producing the evidence of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

Not the sharpest knife in the draw eh?

This has been explained time and time and time again, YOU just aint listening my little blinkered creationist.

Evolution does not need abiogenisis for it to be scientifically correct/ proven/ fact. Do you understand this?

When you do we can move on.

1 Reply

@zan,

Red Devil... you just parrot the same tired and ignorant argument without actually countering anything or providing supportive evidence for your side.

You like to use caps...I'll use caps too. EVOLUTION IS NOT SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. EVOLUTION IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE LIFE. EVOLUTION IS CHANGE IN LIFE OVER TIME.

Please I beg you read for once, because right now you post nothing to argue about. Just ignorance to pity.

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;65131 wrote:

Not the sharpest knife in the draw eh?

This has been explained time and time and time again, YOU just aint listening my little blinkered creationist.

Evolution does not need abiogenisis for it to be scientifically correct/ proven/ fact. Do you understand this?

When you do we can move on.

Then simply demonstrate in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of OBSERVATION, and REPRODUCE life FROM DEAD MATTER IN THE LAB. Show me the money. To say that life is not a product of dead matter is to cut the legs from the theory of Darwinism.

2 Replies

@Grouch,

Grouch;65132 wrote:

Red Devil... you just parrot the same tired and ignorant argument without actually countering anything or providing supportive evidence for your side.

You like to use caps...I'll use caps too. EVOLUTION IS NOT SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. EVOLUTION IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE LIFE. EVOLUTION IS CHANGE IN LIFE OVER TIME.

Please I beg you read for once, because right now you post nothing to argue about. Just ignorance to pity.

Show me ONE EXAMPLE...of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER. JUST ONE. Or present a valid theory that does not contradict all laws of Probability and LOGIC. Is such PITY...not always the case demonstrated...WHEN IT'S "YOU" that cannot present the EVIDENCE that you claim to be in possession of? Go Figure. Thus, the ad hominem attacks against CHARACTER....very scientific indeed.

1 Reply

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;65133 wrote:

Then simply demonstrate in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of OBSERVATION, and REPRODUCE life FROM DEAD MATTER IN THE LAB. Show me the money. To say that life is not a product of dead matter is to cut the legs from the theory of Darwinism.

FAIL!!

0 Replies

Hey Everybody!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know