Evolution? How?

I belive that counts as spam CI :wink:

0 Replies

I'm duly shamed...

0 Replies

ci's got a high speed, ci's got a high speed. I learned that you can post 10 messages if you hit the return button like you did with the ole dial up, except everytime you hit return, BAM, youve xeroxed yourself very quickly.

I learned not to hiy the return more than once.

0 Replies

Yeah, my impatience gets me into trouble all the time.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Anon's quote, "Only human arrogance, and arrogant people claim to know all the answers to everything." You seem to be one of them. Nobody on this forum has ever claimed such. It's all in your imagination. Your charges of arrogance doesn't respond to why evolution is a false concept. You seem to know more than most of the scientists. That is arrogance!

We can go back and watch the discussion as it progressed. I stated my opinions on the subject, and you started to make me the subject, gradually. I am not religious. I am an agnostic. As such I do not claim to know, and I am suspicious of all dogmas and ideologies and theories that claim to have answers to everything. That is how deception occurs. It appears that the one thing I have noticed though is that between the evolutionists and the Bible-thumpers, the evolutionists are the ones more insecure with their dogma, quicker to resort to personal attacks. Before we speak of the falsity of evolution, we must realize that it is not even a truism yet to speak of its falsity. Its lack of evidence, is translated as evidence itself. If you think that I know more than scientists that is your prerogative, and that would explain why you are so insecure about what I've stated. On the other hand, the problem is that scientists act as if they are the final arbiters of truth. We must not forget that science is not exempt from ideology, as it is a social institution. And scientists, before becoming scientists, are social beings, immersed in society and ideology, thereby influenced by it. To deny that evolution carries ideology and dogma, is to not know the depth of ones own fanaticism.

0 Replies

Anon, I'm the only one with "personal attacks" so quit blaming the evolutionists for all your misinformation.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Because all relevent science points to a theory doesn't mean the theory is an "absolute truth." The theory of evolution remains a theory and is the best explanation based on all the observed "rocks and forests." If you have evidence to disprove the theory, then present it so that the science can be moved forward.

Disprove the theory? I was under the impression it was not a scientific law, and nothing more than a conjecture. As such nothing has been proven for me to disprove. It's akin to a court case, in which the prosecution who has the burden of proof, asks the defense to prove that their client is innocent.

0 Replies

Anonymouse wrote:

Disprove the theory? I was under the impression it was not a scientific law, and nothing more than a conjecture.

Your impression is incorrect. The general concept of biological evolution is recognized by science with the same level of confidence shared by every other scientific theory.

But I think you're just being stubborn and intentionally obtuse when you pretend to argue the semantics of what is and isn't a "fact". I think that in your heart and gut, you know that evolution is indeed how nature produced the biosphere around us. So just out of curiosity, could you tell me honestly; if your life depended on it... if you would be killed instantly if your answer were wrong, would you say that biological evolution has, or has not occurred on this planet?

0 Replies

He's not ready to answer that question based on self incrimination. Wink

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

He's not ready to answer that question based on self incrimination.

I guess we'll see.

I wonder how many people in these evolution threads would put their life on the line to back up their view.

0 Replies

Good question.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
Disprove the theory? I was under the impression it was not a scientific law, and nothing more than a conjecture.

Your impression is incorrect. The general concept of biological evolution is recognized by science with the same level of confidence shared by every other scientific theory.

But I think you're just being stubborn and intentionally obtuse when you pretend to argue the semantics of what is and isn't a "fact". I think that in your heart and gut, you know that evolution is indeed how nature produced the biosphere around us. So just out of curiosity, could you tell me honestly; if your life depended on it... if you would be killed instantly if your answer were wrong, would you say that biological evolution has, or has not occurred on this planet?

The appeal to common practice and authority is a fallacy. That most scientists recognize the "general concept" does not indicate anything other than most scientists recognizing the general concept. People recognize many things that aren't proven. You believe evolution occured, you do not know that. A million people can believe in UFOs. It doesn't prove anything. Evolution has never been proven. It has been asserted, but never been reproducible or verifiable. Scientists have to constantly alter it to hold fast to an immutable theory i.e. from Darwin's gradualism to Gould's punctuated equilibria. With that said, evolution is a theory, ergo a belief. This has been verified constantly in this thread and by evolutionists themselves who state they believe in evolution. I have no problem of what you choose or do not choose to believe. I have a problem when it it wears the mask of fact when it isn't.

Not only do you arrogantly claim that evolution is "fact", but you then go on to claim to actually know what I am thinking. I always knew behind every evolutionist there lay an immense imagination and psychic gifts. Unfortunately, in the latter case, it is wasted, like water poured on sands. If I state I do not believe in biological evolution, then that means I do not believe in biological evolution, and as far as I am concerned, no such thing has ever occured, been observed, or verified. But to witness how evolutionsts resort to frustrated name calling when they get a crack in their edifice of thought shows the fragility of the prisons we choose to live in. Indeed, if even a famous scientist such as Richard Dawkins must resort to the oft repeated quote, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane", then we can safely say that evolutionists are just as bad as creationists when they resort to name calling over a belief system.

0 Replies

I don't think Richard Dawkins was name calling, I think he was simply suggesting that such people are ignorant, stupid or insane.

0 Replies

An absolute skirt around your q. LOL

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You know, if I didn't know better, I could swear you weren't a Christian. The way you're acting just doesn't seem to be the way I envision Jesus to act.

Yes well there are stigmas as to how/what a Christian is supposed to act. And that's why "secularists/naturalists" step all over Christians, and have only done so since the 20th C for their scientific views (previous to that they were just killed for preaching Jesus Christ ressurrection from the dead). Read history and you'll find that it is true. 19th C and previous did not have such insults and sarcasm. And I don't think what I'm doing is un-Jesus-like (are you "a Christian telling me off?") - how did Jesus react to the Pharisees and Saducees, THE Teachers of the Law? And how did he react to the selling of goods for profits in the temple courts? I'm not saying I have righteous anger like Jesus did, but I am saying that being a Christian is more than just Apologetics; It Is Categoria.

Sarcasm is the best way that ppl think nowadays. Just read this thread from page 1 to the end. gg? i think so.

If you read the conversation between Newton and Lebniez (Clarke), you'll see some apt examples of them giving their scientific mechanics, debating it with each other, to the point where you'd say they were being "sarcastic" or even "insulting", but that's the nature of pointing out the faults of another's worldview. They DON"T do one thing however, that is, to get personal, which definitely happens on this thread (needless to say).

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Anon, I'm the only one with "personal attacks" so quit blaming the evolutionists for all your misinformation.

You are representitive of your kind. Just like - I'm sure you'd say - all Christians are representitive of their "kind" etc.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

If you don't believe in evolution, that's fine, but natural selection does exist and can be proven to exist. You cannot say there is no such thing as natural selection, because it is happening all the time.

Species die out. Agreed. But: Brand-Spanking-New-Never-Seen-Before-Species don't exist, and never will.

c.f. bicycle -> motorbike analogy.

I've come to a point where I don't care what you mean by Natural Selection or the everchanging definition of Evolution. What I mean is what I said above. A black and white answer that even the average plowboy can understand in its fullest meaning.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Evolution - DNA is made up of genes, we have evidence of genes changing over time

that is not incompatible with "Creationism" or "Creation Doctrine".

parados wrote:

My bet is that you can't provide a single provable piece of science to back up creation. (Answeringenisis.com is not proved science since it is not a peer review journal.) The overwhelming scientific evidence negates creationism and supports evolution.

wow. that is such a profound argument, my bet is that you can't provide a succinct 2000 word essay on your paragraph above, that:
1. the "overwhelming scientific evidence" is only for evolution and debunks creationism
2. that AiG is not a "real journal" (translated).

dogma for dogma.

0 Replies

Biliskner, why do you not find out what the theory of evolution is? Study it properly?

It is possible to be both a christian and accept the theory of evolution (up to a point). The pope seemed to manage (although I have a theory he's probably an athiest too Wink

)

It would just be so much easier if you understood it properly, because then you could discuss it sensibly and the rest of us might even learn something from you.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Evolution - DNA is made up of genes, we have evidence of genes changing over time

oh yeah, they change alright, just not as magical as some might think evolution to be.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know