We all know what PE is, it describes long periods of relatively little change punctuated by short bursts of rapid evolution, usually due to changes within the environment. What I challenge, however, is how valid that theory is from a genetic probability point of view.
We all know what PE is, it describes long periods of relatively little change punctuated by short bursts of rapid evolution, usually due to changes within the environment. What I challenge, however, is how valid that theory is from a genetic probability point of view.
Apparently you need to consult your local dictionary for a definition of both stupidty and ignorance. Ignorance != stupidity and exactly what ignorance means will be explained by it's definition.
I don't need a dictionary. You used ignorant without any indication of what Americans are ignorant of. One might assume that since we're talking about creation v. evolution that you were talking about evolution, but then you brought up setting a VCR and some generic reference to molecular biology, so it sounds to me like you're just talking about Americans being ignorant in general, not just being ignorant about the ins and outs of evolution.
Don't shoot the messenger; I'm not the only one who didn't miss your obscured meaning.
Moonbeam, you are a credit to your name.
what you wrote really isnt a argument but rather a collection of rhetorical statements and questions.
Once again if you are making the positive affirmation it is your burden to provide the evidence of his/her's exsistence.
My wine is fine.
Prove it, Moonbeam, prove your wine is fine.
Now now now, not so fast there. He who tastes knows.
Have a banana, or a cup of the fruit of the vine, my friend. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. If you want to see the moon, stop looking at the finger. Yes, the fact that it's that finger can be quite distracting.
Prove it, Moonbeam, prove your wine is fine.
Now now now, not so fast there. He who tastes knows.
Have a banana, or a cup of the fruit of the vine, my friend. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. If you want to see the moon, stop looking at the finger. Yes, the fact that it's that finger can be quite distracting.
this is where your completely missing the point of evolution and are displaying your ignorance. evoluation doesnt say why matter, it just states the results given the existance of matter. so saying "*all* of life come from a series of chance mutations leading back to a single, common ancestor -- which, in turn, arose from nonliving matter, which, in turn, arose from nothing." is false. *We* all arouse from one huge catacosmic (sp?) reaction - but as to why the particles that form this reaction exist - its still very much a mistery.
the theory of evolution and science in general doesnt set out to explain everything, but just presents the facts and logical assumptions as fit. creationism on the other hand tries to account for everything by saying that "god" is responsible for everything, which actually solves nothing - where does god come from? why?
the difference between evolution/science and creationism is that creationism states the existance of god as fact and has no facts/logic to support it thereafter. on the other hand, science states the existance of matter (which is a fact) and has numerous facts/logical assumptions to back it up. and that is why creationists only argument is to bash evolutionists - because their argument is illogical in nature and thus cant be argued.
I hope they didn't pay him much for cutting and pasting from "talk talk" points which have been refuted in previous discussions here at ATOT 
Dave
PS Because while it would be unethical for me to profit from such obvious lies, it is no less tempting, considering the ease with which they are gobbled up as tasty morsels...
Dave
PS Because while it would be unethical for me to profit from such obvious lies, it is no less tempting, considering the ease with which they are gobbled up as tasty morsels...
has there ever been a creation vs evolution thread in ATOT's history that didn't break 100 posts?
it just seems to get lots of peoples responses.
it just seems to get lots of peoples responses.
Bahahahahahaha. Me thinks you should spell certain words a little more carefully when used with other words that can change the ENTIRE meaning of what you are saying into something completely different but equally as true.
Lol, you are such a nutjob it's hillarious.
Thanks for bring a smile to my face.What are they not ignorant of? 80% of American's couldn't even give you the simplest correct definition of what evolutionary theory says. That point is conveyed rather obviously by the comments of posters on here. Hell half the posts in this thread are exactly comments (some nearly word for word) discussed in the SCIAM article. I bet more than half the people posting didn't even bother to read it. And here is the definition of ignorant because you still seem to think it means stupid.
You take exception with my interpretation of your words, but then when you ask this, you're confirming what I originally thought you meant. I don't get you.
And yes, if you're ignorant of everything, then I'd say you're stupid. That's the implication you're presenting.
I seriously doubt that. Simplest definition? Most people with a high school diploma could give you a basic definition of evolution.
You've been reading ATOT long enough to know that half the posters won't read anything more than 10 lines long. I fail to see how their ignorance of evolution and their lack of attention span demonstrates that most Americans are ignorant about everything, or, in other words, stupid.
Not being educated or aware of topics doesn't make you stupid. I feel sorrow for you if you really truely believe it does. Ignorance of anything related to science is endemic in this country. That doesn't mean people are stupid it just means they don't know enough about the subject to be aware of it's implications and the majority if americans don't want to know more about it because they find it boring. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't change the fact that they are ignorant.
Oh I have no doubt everyone in america could give a definition of evolution but I said a simple CORRECT definition of evolution and I meant to include the word theory after that. So give a nice simple CORRECT definition of evolutionary theory. I doubt you could find many people that work in the field that could provide a simple correct defintion of the theory. It's not a simple theory and it doesn't lend itself to simple definitions. I know, mental gymanstics, implied meanings all that jazz, I'm not in the mood to type clearer sentences that much today.
You keep vacillating from one for of ignorance to another. First it's ignorance of evolution, then it's ignorance of everything, now it's ignorance of science in general.
There are people ignorant of all three. Your original statement suggested to me that you felt that most people in America don't know anything about anything, be it how to set the clock on the VCR on up.
If you're just sticking with ignorance of science or ignorance of evolution, then I retract my complaint, although I still think you're being overly pessimistic in an intellectually elitist way.
I would imagine that "CORRECT" is implied. If I ask you a question, I'm not just looking for ANY answer--I'm obviously looking for the RIGHT answer.
Granted, but it can be simplified enough that a Joe Sixpack knows what it is, even if he can't give you any more than the basics, although not enough to attempt to argue either for or against it with respect to creationism.
As for "someone in the field," it's hard for someone in any field to give a simple definition of what they do. That's not really a basis for comparison.
Yeh...we're just arguing semantecs, anyway. Even if we come to an agreement, it doens't further the thread itself, so we should probably spare ourselves the bother of arguing it further.
"Whoever posted that first quote is right you know. The record of transitional fossils is pretty much nonexistant. If there were millions of years of evolution then there should be millions of years of transitional fossils. But, if you go look for them you will find nothing of the sort. If you go by the way to fossil record tells things to be HUGE jumps occured in the timetable of the evolution of the species. What it should look like is lots of little microevolutions pushing one species to the nest.
This is just one of the examples of evoultionists explaining a lack of evidence to "we don't know""
So let me get this straight, because a theory doesn't have all the answers, it doesn't have any answers? That is a fallacy and is called argueing from ignorance. Lets look at what it does show, what it does explain, and the evidence that does support it. Up until the 1920's, we didn't know the nuts and bolts of heredity, one of the underpinnings of evolution. But it didn't make the empirical data of 80 years of heredity experiments less valid.
And here is the thing with transitional fossils.
First of all, you do not expect to find a lot of fossils. How much stuff that dies now gets fossililzed? Not much.
Second, "transitional fossil" as a term doesn't mean anything. So I find an fossil of a species "linking" two related species. Guess what, now people are going to point to two holes that supposedly lack transitional fossils.
Third, there are a good number of transitional fossils relative to what you expect. Go to a musuem of natural history.
Fourth, speciation often occurs in small, isolated populations. Again, you don't expect to find a lot of transitional fossils.
I'd also like to point out that evolutionary theory describes a PROCESS, not an ORIGIN. This and the Big Bang or Abiogensis or whatever are not the same thing. Again, this is about a process. Additionally, negative arguementation (aka: evolution has xxx problems) does not affirm Creationism. Only positive evidence for Creationism proves creationism, not tearing down evolutionary theory.
Thomas
This is just one of the examples of evoultionists explaining a lack of evidence to "we don't know""
So let me get this straight, because a theory doesn't have all the answers, it doesn't have any answers? That is a fallacy and is called argueing from ignorance. Lets look at what it does show, what it does explain, and the evidence that does support it. Up until the 1920's, we didn't know the nuts and bolts of heredity, one of the underpinnings of evolution. But it didn't make the empirical data of 80 years of heredity experiments less valid.
And here is the thing with transitional fossils.
First of all, you do not expect to find a lot of fossils. How much stuff that dies now gets fossililzed? Not much.
Second, "transitional fossil" as a term doesn't mean anything. So I find an fossil of a species "linking" two related species. Guess what, now people are going to point to two holes that supposedly lack transitional fossils.
Third, there are a good number of transitional fossils relative to what you expect. Go to a musuem of natural history.
Fourth, speciation often occurs in small, isolated populations. Again, you don't expect to find a lot of transitional fossils.
I'd also like to point out that evolutionary theory describes a PROCESS, not an ORIGIN. This and the Big Bang or Abiogensis or whatever are not the same thing. Again, this is about a process. Additionally, negative arguementation (aka: evolution has xxx problems) does not affirm Creationism. Only positive evidence for Creationism proves creationism, not tearing down evolutionary theory.
Thomas
the thing is, you really dont have any wine, you only imagined you do and you have only imagined tasting it.
Ok, so creationists have a problem with life arising from non-living matter (even though both living and nonliving matter is composed from the same atoms), but they have no problem explaining everything using a superhuman being that has never been proven to exist. Not only that, but the idea of this magical being's existance is perpetiuated by organizations that don't inpire much trust.
I don't know about other athiests/agnostics, but I am perfectly content with not knowing how life came to be. It would be nice to know, but is not necessary.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
I wonder how much the human genome project set back the evolutionists that hoped to find smoking guns. The conclusion that genetic divergence in the human race is dependent on less than 2% of the DNA was really a surprise to everyone. It makes me wonder if dogs too have a 2% divergence in their gene pool.
Anyone remember a research paper done on the mitochondria and cell membranes of eggs and how there is very little difference from one female's egg to anothers? If I remember their statistics correctly then sometime around 200,000 years ago it was theorized that all mankind originated from the same egg donor.
If these statements are true then mankind is a piss poor litmus test for evolutional theory.
Anyone remember a research paper done on the mitochondria and cell membranes of eggs and how there is very little difference from one female's egg to anothers? If I remember their statistics correctly then sometime around 200,000 years ago it was theorized that all mankind originated from the same egg donor.
If these statements are true then mankind is a piss poor litmus test for evolutional theory.
That's like saying that cars can come from sheet metal without any kind of process but "natural selection." Hey, they're both made of the same metal. Where does your intelligence come from -- does it come from random, unguided processes of evolution, or does it come from an intelligent being? If it indeed comes from an intelligent being, I say it has value. If it comes from "one huge catacosmic (sp?) reaction" on a random, unplanned pregnancy of the universe -- then I say your intelligence isn't worth a dime more than the intelligence of a sea monkey.
You say you don't care how life came to be. So are you perfectly comfortable with the idea that life did *not* come to be by evolutionary processes? Or do you still not care?
As far as the "superhuman being" that has never been proven to exist... do you mean proven scientifically? And can you tell my why science is *inherently* a better system than any other criterion, assuming your brain is composed of "catacosmic reactions" leading to the unguided rise of this phenomenon we call "intelligence." Why, for example, does intelligence have more value to you than belief? Or emotion? All of these components exist within every human -- why sell out to your brain? What makes it any more special than the rest of you?
Five hundred years ago, atoms hadn't been proven to exist. Would you have been wrong for believing in them... even if you didn't have the proper tools you needed to observe them?
Why state it as if its a fact? The truth of the matter is, we (anyone alive today) will not know how life came to be, its a big unknown and we are only left to speculate. Some people try to fill it in by adapting their dieties to it, other people by making up their own theories, and still others simply say "I dunno" and leave the matter alone.
Given the fact that hte best "proof" of a god is "I feel him" and given the number of wackos out there claiming to be god or some kind of relation to god, I'd have to say yes.
Ameesh, don't worry, hic, hic, hiccup, about my non-existant, hic, wine, hic. Turn your own glass, hic hic, hiccup, upside, hic, down. Bottoms up, hic hic. The vintner presses his, hic, hic, grapes. Hic, he doesn't, hic, put them in a bowl to admire their beauty.
The wine I speak of is not in any glass. It's in your heart. To say it isn't so is like a fish saying there's no water. I have swum the oceans of the world said the fish. There is no such thing as water. At the parliment of the fishes the lungfish said I beg to differ, but he was shouted down.
The wine I speak of is not in any glass. It's in your heart. To say it isn't so is like a fish saying there's no water. I have swum the oceans of the world said the fish. There is no such thing as water. At the parliment of the fishes the lungfish said I beg to differ, but he was shouted down.
Marty, I share your pain. I hate it when the only proof someone can come up with for the existence of God is "I feel him." What they feel could just as easily be the pepperoni pizza rotting in their stomachs.
"Why state it as if its a fact?"
Fiiiiiiiiiiiiinally. Thank you. We weren't there. We don't know.
Moonbeam, what are you on?
"Why state it as if its a fact?"
Fiiiiiiiiiiiiinally. Thank you. We weren't there. We don't know.
Moonbeam, what are you on?
xirtam: "What are you on Moonbeam?"
The one thing I can say for sure is pereroni pizza. Had it for lunch, as it happens.
Am I supposed to concern myelf that: "I (you) hate it when the only proof someone can come up with for the existence of God is "I feel him.""
How can I help you with what you hate and don't hate? I charge a high price for knowledge; the same one I had to pay. You need an empty tea cup. And what's really cool is that when it's empty, you won't need me.
The one thing I can say for sure is pereroni pizza. Had it for lunch, as it happens.
Am I supposed to concern myelf that: "I (you) hate it when the only proof someone can come up with for the existence of God is "I feel him.""
How can I help you with what you hate and don't hate? I charge a high price for knowledge; the same one I had to pay. You need an empty tea cup. And what's really cool is that when it's empty, you won't need me.
I want some of that pereroni pizza. It seems to have a way of dulling the intuitive need to create quasi-intelligible replies.
You charge a high price for knowledge? Shoot... knowledge is free, and empty tea cups can be had just about anywhere for $.99 after MIR, pricematch, and coupon.
You charge a high price for knowledge? Shoot... knowledge is free, and empty tea cups can be had just about anywhere for $.99 after MIR, pricematch, and coupon.
no matter what ANYONE says, we can't PROVE or DISPROVE either side. The REAL question is: What makes YOUR LIFE more worthwhile? What makes you feel better about the 50, 60, 70...years you spend on this earth? Does cutting down Creationism or Christians REALLY (deep down inside) make you sleep better at night? We just won't know until our life is finished here and we take in our last breath of air and see what comes after...TOTAL DARKNESS or TOTAL LIGHT?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter