The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[balrog666]

Having trouble telling us if you believe in evolution or are you just too dumb to read complete sentences?

Are you this ill-tempered all the time or did somebody spank you recently?

And before you ask, I *accept* that the Theory of Evolution provides the best scientific answer to explaining the history, proliferation, and diversity of life of Earth.

[Aric2000]

#600?

[Aric2000]

Darn, no such luck, oh well, and hey Belrog, how goes it my friend?

[Stultis]

do you believe in evolution?

Ignoring quibbles about the use of the word "believe," yes, I do. Specifically I am well convinced that vastly diverse (and probably all) biological organism share a common ancestry, that is that they are linked by chains of "ordinary" biological reproduction.

[Lurking Libertarian]

show us a lie

In post 565, you claimed (using a doctored quote) that Dr. Save-Sonderbergh admitted to lying. Even after the full quote was posted (which showed that Dr. S-S did no such thing), you repeated that slander of him in posts 575 and 579.

Is that not a lie?

[Aric2000]

Evolution does not make that jump, I have explained and explained and explained until my hands hurts and you still do not get it.

Abiogenesis is the scientific theory trying to explain that, evolution does not even try.

Do you get it yet, or do I have to do what whattajoke does, send it to you certified mail?

[Junior]

"Believe" is not the proper term. We accept the validity of evolution as the best explanation for the current state of the Earth's biosphere. "Belief" implies irrational faith. Evolution has 150 years of evidence to support its contentions; no faith is required.

[ALS]

You don't know what I believe in dummy. You assume practically everything in your life, it appears.

Your opinion is that it's "the best explanation". There are plenty of far more learned people than you that would disagree.
Worse, you haven't spent one keystroke attempting to prove your theory.
Face it. You have an agenda as to why you adhere to a speculation.

Just in case you've never look up what a theory is:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject synonym see HYPOTHESIS

[Stultis]

How did evolution make the jump from no life to life?

Currently unknown. Although this has turned out to be a fruitful field of scientific research in terms of the many interesting things that have been learned along the way, there is no general consensus, and no complete and satisfactory theory able to account for "biopoesis" or "abiogensis" (the origin, presumably by some sort of "chemical evolution," of life from non-life).

[balrog666]

Is that not a lie?

But, but, but... she's a liar-for-God-Almighty-who-might-not-continue-to-exist without such help, so we must forgive her!

[ALS]

Finally, an honest reply.

However, you're still wrong.

keep trying tho

[Rebel_Ace]

PUH-lease....

While you did not respond to or refute my ACCOUNTING class counter example (which was not a "Have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question, but a topic for topic variation, with a one to one correspondence to subject at hand. Your tossing out the "wife beating" question is an utter non sequiter), if you want to play the parsing and symantic games with the question then concentrate on the operative word of the question:

THINK

The question was what do you THINK, not what you BELIEVE. THINKING requires RATIONAL, OBJECTIVE, dare I even say SCIENTIFIC methodology. You might BELIEVE that the world is flat and is held on the back of four strong elephants, but there is no rational THOUGHT process that will support that position.

You know, if the students were so utterly offended by the material, why the heck were they taking the class at this institution? Why not take their whiney behinds to some school that will preach what they want to hear?

I was a teacher for about 6 years. In my class, you demonstrated that you learned the material AS TAUGHT, and if you wanted to present counter-arguments for anything, THAT WAS JUST FINE, as long as you proved to me that you UNDERSTOOD the concepts presented.

[balrog666]

No need to get testy ... Oh, wait, I mean ... Oh, never mind.

[Junior]

Post one quote evolutionists have taken out of context or twisted to support their views. On the one hand, we have scientists who do actual research and publish their findings in peer-review journals for their compatriates to pick apart (evolutionists). On the other hand we have a group of people who do no research other than to pour over scientific journals looking for quotes that can be taken out of context in an effort to prop up their position (creationists). I know you don't want to or can't admit it, but the folks you support are intentionally bearing false witness, something which God specifically frowns upon.

[balrog666]

However, you're still wrong.

I don't have a problem with your opinion; however, will you admit to the lie-by-omission to LL? Will you correct your future posts?

[Stultis]

You should have highlighted the definition that applies to scientific theory:

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

[Aric2000]

Poor little troll.

Did the iddy biddy evo upset the poooo wittle ALS?

It's been explained enough, get your panties out of a bunch and answer MY question.

Since you know so much about evolution to say that you think it's crap, then give me ONE example of scientifically verifiable evidence that disproves evolution.

Just one, I'll wait, but I think I will be waiting a LONG time, because you don't have one.

Thanks for playing troll, have a nice day....

[Junior]

How did evolution make the jump from no life to life?

Sweetie, evolution does not cover the origins of life. It simply deals with the changing of organisms over generations. You're wanting a comment on biogenesis, a related but completely separate field. And, then, to start, you need to define what exactly constitutes "life" and where the boundary between life and non-life exists. Remember, at its most basic, life is simply chemical reactions. At what point do chemical reactions become life? As you initiated the question, I'll let you define the terms.

[Lurking Libertarian]

How did evolution make the jump from no life to life?

I'm not sure it did. Evolution explains how life developed from the first self-replicating creatures to the diverse species that inhabit the earth today. Those first creatures did not arise from evolution as I understand the term (descent from a common ancestor, with speciation occuring through modifications acted upon by natural selection).

My faith tells me that God created all life. Science illuminates how He used natural processes to create humanity from primitive forbears. As to the very first living things, science, for now, has little evidence to tell us how God created them -- perhaps He did it in a supernatural way, perhaps in a natural way that has yet to be discovered. Neither possibility would bother my faith; God created the laws of nature, so saying that something happened in a natural way is not to contradict that God did it.

[ALS]

"unknown"

And will remain unknown for obvious already proven reasons.

One of which I stated the other night and no one stepped up to the plate to deal with it.

Without even going into the complexities of how to deal with replicating instructions sets, let's just try this one aspect:

Assuming you could get the proper combination of amino acids to assemble themselves in one place and "lightening struck", the myelin sheath (that also magically appeared) couldn't last 2 minutes, yet the said structure is now supposed to replicate and remain viable enough to continue that replication.

Nevermind that Darwin himself said that if there were any significant jumps in the process of "natural selection", then his THEORY couldn't be true.