Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[scootsy]

@pearl

 

[LogGrad98]

You can't ask people to prove a negative especially when your claim is supernatural.

Can you prove that there is not invisible munchkins living in my beard, feeding on my soul, and producing magic elixirs to protect me from evil spirits that if given the chance would rearrange my chacras putting my genital chi on my third eye ultimately making me a bigger dickhead than I already am?

Nope can't prove that wrong. But there is some debate over whether the last part there is even possible.

 

[carolinajazz]

new human kind evolving in USA?

...good one AK!....and although is not "evolution" in action....it is "de-evolution" in a dress code!

 

[carolinajazz]

Religion, beliefs, bah. Live and let live......Do what you think is best for you.

...but doesn't "decency" trump "live and let live?" "Live and let live" leads to anarchy....which is what we have on a worldwide scale right now! Antonyms for decency are:badness, evil, evildoing, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, wickedness!

 

[One Brow]

...but doesn't "decency" trump "live and let live?" "Live and let live" leads to anarchy....which is what we have on a worldwide scale right now! Antonyms for decency are:badness, evil, evildoing, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, wickedness!

Religion does not go hand-in-hand with decency, and often goes against it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Religion does not go hand-in-hand with decency, and often goes against it.

Depends on your definition of decency. In Nazy Germany no decent person would house a Jew knowingly from the state.



Oh yeah, Godwin's Law!!!

Woot!!!


Although I think this thread already went there, so it might not be the first time. :/

 

[Gameface]

...but doesn't "decency" trump "live and let live?" "Live and let live" leads to anarchy....which is what we have on a worldwide scale right now! Antonyms for decency are:badness, evil, evildoing, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, wickedness!

I like how some folks want to act like the world is falling apart. The world is as good now as it has ever been.

In fact, ever since the U.S. came into existence as a secular state the world has been progressing at a break-neck pace.

Long live secularism and the peace and harmony it fosters.

 

[PearlWatson]

"so many different" =/= "all"
Like your heroes, you quote-mine to smear. I said that in response to a comment about the fictitious notion of de-evolution. It is more precise to say that any change in the population as generations proceed is evolution.
Nonsense. The other three fundamental forces also cause the movement of mass, with neither design nor influence.
Similarly, when we see a change in a population over generations, we don't have to insist that it was a random occurrence for our observation to be considered scientific. We recognize the invisible mechanic called "selection" as a scientifically relevant explanation for certain changes.
Which modification came first, second, third, etc.? Did any appear at the same time? You can order a set of n items in n! ways (so, for 7 items, there are 5040 ways to order them). Even if you rule out 90% of the orders, that's still 50 to choose from, and we don't know which particular order is correct.

I applied relevant quotes like my heroes. If Darwinian cultists define "any change" future or past as "evolution" "evolution" necessarily has to be true...at least in their Darwiniac world.

Kicking a ball, shooting a basket, or throwing a pass is movement by design.

Logically "selection" only comes into play after change has occurred, and it doesn't have to be a "certain change."

If all the necessary parts to a bike "appear" before a dad Christmas Eve I'm sure he could "order" them a variety of ways before actually taking the time to read the design plans, but these parts ain't just going to randomly "appear" to be "selected" in the first place, so the # of possible combos is irrelevant.

I understand that Darwin cultists believe that "individual unrelated mutations facilitated the production of all 200 necessary parts, completely by chance, and thus created the flagellum" but that belief is faith not science.

 

[PearlWatson]

I just showed my research supervisor, who has a PhD, an MSc, and runs an extremely successful research lab.

He said he completely agrees with me, and that it's a common sentiment in academia.

It is rather flattering and amusing that you felt you to had to run to your Darwiniac clergy to take me on. In a narrow sense I agree with both of you cultists in that I don't expect someone with an advanced degree in Darwinism to have any more knowledge of real science than your average Woman's Studies or History student. I'm sure he has a thorough grasp on Darwin Doctrine but we have OneBrow and the other Darwiniac missionaries in this thread for that.

 

[PearlWatson]

I like how some folks want to act like the world is falling apart. The world is as good now as it has ever been.

In fact, ever since the U.S. came into existence as a secular state the world has been progressing at a break-neck pace.

Long live secularism and the peace and harmony it fosters.

Doomandgloomers are no worse than Pollyannas.

Now let's play the damn glad game!

 

[Deleted member 848]

It is rather flattering and amusing that you felt you to had to run to your Darwiniac clergy to take me on.

You requested that I implore on your inquiry, so I did. I don't need to "take you on", there's no debate here. There's no discussion. You asked that I do something, so I did (making you look rather stupid in the process-- unfortunately for yourself, this isn't the first time).

In a narrow sense I agree with both of you cultists in that I don't expect someone with an advanced degree in Darwinism to have any more knowledge of real science than your average Woman's Studies or History student.

That's not very 'narrow' at all. You're morphing your opinion completely, and you're siding with the view that I've had for months now. Good to see you come to the dark side, Pearl. It's exciting to see you leave one of your foolish conclusions, and agree with my logically-superior ones. Your progress is tantalizing!

I'm sure he has a thorough grasp on Darwin Doctrine but we have OneBrow and the other Darwiniac missionaries in this thread for that.

Exactly, but who knows Pearl! Maybe you'll be finding yourself "narrowly agreeing" with "Darwin Doctrine" in 3 months time!! Wouldn't be the first time

 

[Deleted member 848]

I like how some folks want to act like the world is falling apart. The world is as good now as it has ever been.

In fact, ever since the U.S. came into existence as a secular state the world has been progressing at a break-neck pace.

Long live secularism and the peace and harmony it fosters.

There is still progress that can be made in terms of harmony and peace, but you're correct-- there's a lot to celebrate in contemporary society. Particularly our drive to improve even further.

However, I would say that the world isn't as good now as it's even been in every category-- particularly, the environment. Just my opinion tho.

 

[Dr. Jones]

My environment sucks. And it's my fault.

Where does that place me on this thread's totem?

 

[PearlWatson]

You requested that I implore on your inquiry, so I did. I don't need to "take you on", there's no debate here. There's no discussion. You asked that I do something, so I did
That's not very 'narrow' at all. You're morphing your opinion completely, and you're siding with the view that I've had for months now. Good to see you come to the dark side, Pearl. It's exciting to see you leave one of your foolish conclusions, and agree with my logically-superior ones. Your progress is tantalizing!
Exactly, but who knows Pearl! Maybe you'll be finding yourself "narrowly agreeing" with "Darwin Doctrine" in 3 months time!! Wouldn't be the first time

lolz...you haven't lost your superiority complex.

I shouldn't have to remind you of the content of a post you made a mere handful of hours ago, but I will gladly do so. You suddenly appeared in this thread with all the confidence of a 5 year old going to kindergarten for the first time and declared you were gonna bring your clergy along so you could respond to my future posts:

Keep posting, PearlWatson. I'm probably gonna read through this thread with my evolutionary biology prof (yes, he does have a PhD, which seems to matter so much to you).

I narrowed my "concession" down to a specific type of PhD, but in reality I've never had high regard for "evolutionary biology."

 

[Deleted member 848]

lolz...you haven't lost your superiority complex.

Sure.

I shouldn't have to remind you of the content of a post you made a mere handful of hours ago, but I will gladly do so.

Not sure why you're doing this, seeing as this in no way refutes that you asked me to inquire my professor on a particular question.

Well, I am sure why you're doing this-- trying to shift attention away from your idiocy. I get it.

You suddenly appeared in this thread with all the confidence of a 5 year old going to kindergarten for the first time and declared you were gonna bring your clergy along so you could respond to my future posts

Pearl walks in with all the confidence of a 5 year old going to kindergarten for the first time, but then forgets the basic tenets of reading comprehension.


Tell me, PearlSapa: where did I ever say that I would be showing my professor these posts in order to reply to you? Even if I was serious with these posts, I would simply let him read through some of the posts at the absolute most.

I didn't say anything of the sort, because I had no desire to involve him in these discussions. He has better things to do than carry conversations with you. Why should he stoop down to your intellect (or lack thereof)?

I narrowed my "concession" down to a specific type of PhD, but in reality I've never had high regard for "evolutionary biology."

Special caveat: I said I would show this conversation to an evolutionary biology-- but when you implored me to ask a professor about my post regarding the significance of the "PhD", I asked my research supervisor.

He doesn't have a PhD in Evo-Bio. I work in a prostate cancer research lab. He has a PhD in Cell Biology.




So, as always, you lose.

 

[MVP]

but in reality I've never had education or understanding of "evolutionary biology."

I fixed it for you my dear.

 

[One Brow]

I applied relevant quotes like my heroes. If Darwinian cultists define "any change" future or past as "evolution" "evolution" necessarily has to be true...at least in their Darwiniac world.

Kicking a ball, shooting a basket, or throwing a pass is movement by design.

Logically "selection" only comes into play after change has occurred, and it doesn't have to be a "certain change."

If all the necessary parts to a bike "appear" before a dad Christmas Eve I'm sure he could "order" them a variety of ways before actually taking the time to read the design plans, but these parts ain't just going to randomly "appear" to be "selected" in the first place, so the # of possible combos is irrelevant.

I understand that Darwin cultists believe that "individual unrelated mutations facilitated the production of all 200 necessary parts, completely by chance, and thus created the flagellum" but that belief is faith not science.

Your heroes also quote-mine authors to indicate they believe something that they don't believe. It's not an honest tactic, and you degrade yourself when you do it.

Even young-earth creationists acknowledge evolution happens. It is true.

Physically, kicking a ball is a result of the release of chemical energy, which is a manifestation of electromagnetic energy. Every movement or change we know of comes from a combination of the four basic forces.

If you want to claim certain changes are the result of an intelligence, you still need to provide a method by which those changes are accomplished for your suggestion to be science.

Selection is not random. Some changes can be explained through selection, other changes can not. For example, there is no selective mechanism that explains why primates can not produce Vitamin C.

Since living things only resemble bicycles in a very superficial manner, what applies to bicycles does not apply to loving things, generally.

I agree that "individual unrelated mutations facilitated the production of all 200 necessary parts, completely by chance, and thus created the flagellum" is not science, and it is in particular not evolutionary science. It's a straw man created by people trying to discredit evolution.

 

[carolinajazz]

Even young-earth creationists acknowledge evolution happens. It is true.

...who are these "young-earth creationists" you speak of? Do they believe that the creative "days" described in Genesis chapter 1 are 24 hours long? (Not true!) Do they believe that the first human couple were Adam and Eve? (This is absolutely true!) Who are these "guys?"


If you want to claim certain changes are the result of an intelligence, you still need to provide a method by which those changes are accomplished for your suggestion to be science.

The "method" we subscribe to is similar to the expression made by biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz who wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history is to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”

...exactly WHAT methods do you subscribe to in the evolutionary "process?"
Is "evolution" really scientific? The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, p. 19.)

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey, p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists .*.*. argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. .*.*. Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”— p. 828.


Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” —Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138.



Selection is not random. Some changes can be explained through selection, other changes can not. For example, there is no selective mechanism that explains why primates can not produce Vitamin C.

....I really wanted to sink my teeth into this one....but it seems you did it for me! So if humans cannot produce there own vitamin C....but can get it from a large variety of fruits and vegetables easily assessable on our planet earth, doesn't that argue for intelligent design?

With our present limited scientific knowledge, we cannot explain how God created....but this statement of fact is true: " Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[carolinajazz]

Religion does not go hand-in-hand with decency, and often goes against it.

...no one mentioned "religion" in this discussion of decency. As you correctly pointed out religious "beliefs" can be anything but decent! But "decency" can and does trump "tolerance" because if we are tolerant of EVERYTHING....well, you got some serious problems and issues!

 

[carolinajazz]

Depends on your definition of decency. In Nazy Germany no decent person would house a Jew knowingly from the state.

Ridiculous illustration of what we actually mean by "decency." Your higher learning has produced another pseudo-intellectual! And by the way, there were more than just a few "decent" people who knowingly housed Jewish people from the state.