Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)

Page 3 of 9 First 123458 ... Last
  1. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
    I think science's only purpose is to improve our quality of life. But with the blessings it brings it also brings curses, for example:the machine gun(to save lives, lol) and nuclear missels.
    Hey, I like nukes.

  2. Registered User
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Answers
    0

    lol

    Where is you sig from CDB?
  3. Running with the Big Boys
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,019
    Answers
    0

    Yes Edision and Tesla both keep trying to find answers about things.. that is the nature of science and the reason I mentioned sex pilli on bacteria is that they serve the same funcition as genitals in higher organisms.. a way of transferring gentic material from one organism to another.. Steve, no offense but if you don't know anything about the subject, then why wade into the middle of it? Science's mission is our attempt to explain what is going on around us in the universe.. that is the accepted definition of science..
    While I know a bit about Phrenology I would not wade into a discussion of it without first doing a ton of study about it..
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Answers
    0

    gees, sorry bro. you asked me a question and I explained my reasoning. And I do not have a vast knowledge of Evolution theory so I have stayed out of this thread.....and i will continue to stay out of it. (easy, easy, i meant no offense I just offered my thoughts).....

    and using Telsa as an analogy was a bad idea and i knew someone would call me on it..... anywho
    why are you defending phrenology...lol
    Im out
  5. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
    lol

    Where is you sig from CDB?
    Paradise Lost, just after the great fling down I believe. Satan is the ultimate individualist in my opinion. I don't really belive in God, not in the Judeo-Christian sense so don't think I'm committing a sin by using him as an example of good. I love the idea that he refused to bow down to anyone, even though his actions led to him paying the ultimate price. But then again, even if you are a believer in Judeo-Christian faith, maybe even Satan can be redeemed eventually.

    I had a very brief fling with satanism when I was young. Literal mock God kind of satanism. I realized two things: one, when it comes to women there's healthy pale and just plain pale; and two, defining yourself in opposition to something makes you an automatic loser, because what you're rebeling against is in the end still defining your actions.
  6. Registered User
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Paradise Lost, just after the great fling down I believe. Satan is the ultimate individualist in my opinion. I don't really belive in God, not in the Judeo-Christian sense so don't think I'm committing a sin by using him as an example of good. I love the idea that he refused to bow down to anyone, even though his actions led to him paying the ultimate price. But then again, even if you are a believer in Judeo-Christian faith, maybe even Satan can be redeemed eventually.

    I had a very brief fling with satanism when I was young. Literal mock God kind of satanism. I realized two things: one, when it comes to women there's healthy pale and just plain pale; and two, defining yourself in opposition to something makes you an automatic loser, because what you're rebeling against is in the end still defining your actions.
    You make some beautiful points.

    And I think it is because of that philosophy that when you become a 13th(i think) level Mason they "reveal" to you that satan is the Christ. (thats just what I have heard)

    buy anywho, im out

    (I am not calling you a mason btw,, im just saying what I think members might find interesting)
  7. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Satan is the ultimate individualist in my opinion. I don't really belive in God, not in the Judeo-Christian sense so don't think I'm committing a sin by using him as an example of good...
    If you don't believe in God then you can't believe in sin either
    Without God there is only good and evil as it is perceived and defined by each individual, and even then they may only be defined as what is convenient and inconvenient. God is the arbiter of absolutes. Without Him, it's all relative.
  8. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Paradise Lost, just after the great fling down I believe. Satan is the ultimate individualist in my opinion. I don't really belive in God, not in the Judeo-Christian sense so don't think I'm committing a sin by using him as an example of good. I love the idea that he refused to bow down to anyone, even though his actions led to him paying the ultimate price. But then again, even if you are a believer in Judeo-Christian faith, maybe even Satan can be redeemed eventually.

    I had a very brief fling with satanism when I was young. Literal mock God kind of satanism. I realized two things: one, when it comes to women there's healthy pale and just plain pale; and two, defining yourself in opposition to something makes you an automatic loser, because what you're rebeling against is in the end still defining your actions.
    If you stick to a strict " rules of the opposite " philosophy then by natural progression you will eventually become what you oppose ....but you have to admit it is great fun to play the devils advocate( not the movie) at parties, especially when the other people don't realise your playing opposites with them.
  9. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    But that mechanism is key to explaining a lot about the process. How some objects are more rigid than others, or only rigid in one way, but will crumble or break when pressure or a shearing force is applied in another way. Without the mechanism all you have is observation.
    Please refer to your last statement (3rd quote)
    Odd how a discussion this long errupts over something that's basically agreed upon. Would you agree, though, that a lot of people take evolution on faith the same way they take religion on faith, without having the slightest clue as to what's involved? I guess my main problem with evolution isn't with the theory itself, but those who expound on it in public and think their literal belief in the process, without understanding it, is somehow superior than someone's similar belief in creationism. Chosing to worship 'science' is no different than worshipping God in my opinion. In the way of many religious people, believers in evolution refuse to admit any possible alternatives.
    I agree to a degree, and yes, I'm disgusted by people who start claiming they know science and start trashign religion when they know nothing of either. Its just plain stupid.

    And, there is definitely an element of faith in a lot of science based works, but in most cases (and in my case) you have to have "faith" that 99.9...9% is enough to claim proof. Otherwise, NOTHING is for certain.

    They can prove with as close as you can get to 100% certainty we've evolved from organism x into y and z, and even including the mechanism of evolution won't increase the odds much because we wont' "know" it happened unless we can witness it, and even then, our eyes are the most deceiving of our senses. So, we never "know" anything, but we have a level of confidence that's infinitely higher in our assertions about science and evolution than people do in regards to things like god's existence and the creation of adam and eve, etc.
    I doubt my own existence at times, so I'm hard to convince of anything.
    I don't have any problem believing you on this statement, haha. But, if I may make a suggestion....Please put the Matrix back on the shelf now
  10. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    I don't have any problem believing you on this statement, haha. But, if I may make a suggestion....Please put the Matrix back on the shelf now
    No Matrix here my friend, just a ****load of LSD and philosophy courses when I was young.
  11. Board Supporter
    SOWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    111
    Answers
    0

    The path is narrow and few will find it.
  12. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by SOWarrior
    The path is narrow and few will find it.
    That's beautiful... now if you have anything to add to the substance of the thread, please let me know
  13. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    Easy Kwyck.
  14. Gold Member
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    879
    Answers
    0

    Think of this...

    Thousands of Muslams (no, not just them, several other cultures) have given there life to islam. This includes recent terrorist attacks, and the war in which the conquered much of spain, france, and other parts of western Europe in the medival ages.

    Why did they die for there cause? They THOUGHT it was the real truth. THOUGHT being the key word. None of those people witnessed the acts of Muhammad.

    After christ's death, the appostles(sp?) died for there cause. The difference, they would know if what they were dieng for was real or not real. They witnessed the resurection of jesus. They would KNOW if jesus was the savior or not. They KNEW what they were dieng for as they were being burned, beaten, and stoned to death. Why would they die for somethign that they KNEW wasn't real?
  15. Gold Member
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    879
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by SOWarrior
    The path is narrow and few will find it.

    This is my life motto.

    If I didnt have to fight like dog in the alley trying to get a piece of meat for every inch of muscle and every lb of strength I have, it wouldn't be so rewarding, because it would be easy and a everyone could do it.

    If following god was easy and I could do things that I would like to do but knew were wrong, it wouldnt be so rewarding.
  16. Registered User
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by spatch
    They KNEW what they were dieng for as they were being burned, beaten, and stoned to death. Why would they die for somethign that they KNEW wasn't real?
    I might add being crucified upside down or being skinned alive.....
  17. Gold Member
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    879
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
    I might add being crucified upside down or being skinned alive.....

    And there is NO WAY in hell someone would go through with that for someting they KNOW was a crock.
  18. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    As much as I completely agree, Spatch, it would probably be best to keep discussion on-topic (Evolution) so the thread doesn't go where it will get closed.
  19. Gold Member
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    879
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    As much as I completely agree, Spatch, it would probably be best to keep discussion on-topic (Evolution) so the thread doesn't go where it will get closed.
    your right this wont be good.


    I do have a few questions about evolution though.

    1) If proteins can only be made by DNA and DNA is itself a protein... how did that happen

    2) How do you explain the process of though?
  20. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by spatch
    your right this wont be good.


    I do have a few questions about evolution though.

    1) If proteins can only be made by DNA and DNA is itself a protein... how did that happen

    2) How do you explain the process of though?
    Deoxyribose nucleic acid is a template( blue print ) for molecular level protien structures. It is the lattice which influences the behavior of other cells at the molecular level. Some of the molecules are directed toward protien structures. Which can then become more complex structures through simple chemical bonding. While other molecules are directed toward the replication of the template(the DNA itself) This discovery helped cement the soundness of the evolutionary theory. That is one of the reasons why many creationist challenge the functionality of DNA. Oddly enough it seems to function intelligently, so it can also lend credence to the ID theory. The uniqueness of DNA to its respective owner could also be taken as the proof of a soul to some degree. I would like to think that there is room for both evolutinary theory and the existance of a soul within the scientific world.
  21. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Oddly enough it seems to function intelligently, so it can also lend credence to the ID theory.
    While I'm not sure about that statement it does illustrate one of the key points about evolution claims that gets on my nerves. Evidence consistent with a theory doesn't prove a theory. For example, suppose an asteroid with some weird radiation is orbiting the sun. It comes around here at regular intervals, causes a mass extinction of most like, and radiation mutates DNA and gives rise to a boatload of mutants, many of which shortlived but some of which survive over time and adapt.

    A 'theory' like that, or slightly modified, could be just as consistent with the evidence presented in favor of evolution, and it could conceivably make macro evolution unecessary, or make it clear that it's dependent on an outside influence and doesn't arise from the mere nature of life.

    I just don't know what's wrong with saying there's a great empirical case for macro evolution and that research is proceeding apace to discover how it happens. Or in more layman terms saying based on the evidence we're very certain some process of evolution takes place, and right now the details are being discovered and worked out.

    That would seem to be a hell of a lot more honest and accurate than stating evolution is proven as close to 100% as anything can be. Then when pressed you uncover the fact that no one knows how it happens. Proven, but no idea how it works... Sounds so solid. And I've yet to see any possible way to falsify the theory presented.

    People have become way too invested with this issue to make an objective look at it possible. Creationists think everyone who believes evolution also believes in a Godless, mechanistic and reducable world. Darwinists attack anyone who expresses doubt about their pet theory as a religious lunatic intent on keeping the world in the dark ages.
  22. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    People have become way too invested with this issue to make an objective look at it possible. Creationists think everyone who believes evolution also believes in a Godless, mechanistic and reducable world. Darwinists attack anyone who expresses doubt about their pet theory as a religious lunatic intent on keeping the world in the dark ages.[/quote]

    Well, Thems the choices right?, gotta pick one right? It is a two sided argument right? I can't remember a third view point. The darwinist have a theory. The theory does not claim to know the begining of life. or the end of life. the evolutionary theory just shows a logical progression from point "A" in the past to point "B" in the present. The creationist claim both a knowledge of the beginning of life and also lay claim to the end( heaven or hell ). While claiming that all in between is just a test. This seems a little presumptuous to me.
  23. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Well, Thems the choices right?, gotta pick one right? It is a two sided argument right?
    No. It's been framed as such, but it isn't. For one, a belief in God doesn't preclude accepting evolution. To say otherwise is to deny God the power to design evolution. Likewise, accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean someone has to accept a reductionist view of the universe. But, because the debate has been framed as being the rational against the lunatic, or the devout against the heathen depending on the fanatic you talk to, those are often the only two choices that are seen or presented.
  24. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    The problem of DNA will never be overcome by evolutionists.

    http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

    Moreover, not one reasonable assertion has been proffered to explain the origins of life from non-life. The very first step in the theory of evolution is a leap of faith.
  25. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    The problem of DNA will never be overcome by evolutionists.

    http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

    Moreover, not one reasonable assertion has been proffered to explain the origins of life from non-life. The very first step in the theory of evolution is a leap of faith.
    Bud, don't tell me you're going to take anything that guy says seriously. Did you read his "summary" of evolution?

    "
    All the complicated DNA in each life form, and all the DNA in every other life form—all made itself out of nothing way back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirt and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
    Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that cells can and must do (see the chapter The Cell for a glimpse into those many functions).
    That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair, and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc."



    Absolutely laughable and obviously designed to sway the uninformed reader away from believing that evolution takes place.


    There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

    That description sounds as ridiculous as the Adam and Eve theory.
  26. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    incomming!... fire in the hole( in your head )!


    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Bud, don't tell me you're going to take anything that guy says seriously. Did you read his "summary" of evolution?




    Absolutely laughable and obviously designed to sway the uninformed reader away from believing that evolution takes place.


    There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

    That description sounds as ridiculous as the Adam and Eve theory.
    Look out its a smart bomb!!! Obfusification of the facts is one of the favored strategies of the anti-evolutionists. The art of confusing your opponent with more facts. The facts are deliberately vague with multiple ending scenarios. Kind of like a maze for your mind, It is a trap for you free will. confuse and conquer! Yikes, I just scared myseilf.( hahaha)
  27. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    You sure lightning doesn't play a part in your theory?

    And you're evading anyway.
  28. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    Evading what?

    There was no good rebuttal to evolution in the entire article.

    Proteins developed on top of the sea. During that time the atmosphere was 20% CO2, therefore much heavier, and the ocean was 300degrees centigrade. This is where the random mixing of molecules took place for billion of years before there was any sort of abundance of important molecules, like proteins, etc.

    Nothing about lightning and during that time, there wasn't land anyway. So, the author is either a liar or uneducated.
  29. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.
    I do remember hearing of an experiment a long time ago where a couple scientists blasted an imitation of primordial soup with an electric charge. Supposedly little spheres of protein formed and, even though they weren't cells, started dividing into smaller versions of themselves. Don't quote me on that, it was a long time ago I heard that claim.

    And however ridiculous the author's explanation, once again the point comes up that it may just be impossible for something as complex and varied as current life on this planet to merely be the product of random mutation and chance. Saying it happened therefore it must be possible assumes the answer and begs the question. Once again, the lack of a mechanism is apparent. And that missing piece, at least in my personal opinion, puts evolution significantly further from the 99.999999...% certainty you claim.
  30. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    The lightning comes in when scientists attempt to conjure the initial energy that started the spark of life. You should go back and give your theory another look because you're missing some fundamental information.

    And I said you're evading because you're evading every other point I've made this entire thread, along with the remaining bulk of that one article.
  31. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    When I was referencing the lightning it was in regards to this:
    There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirt and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
    Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that cells can and must do (see the chapter The Cell for a glimpse into those many functions).

    There was no lightning instantly creating what the author describes.

    The process was long and drawn out, nothing was instant.
  32. Snuggle Club™ mascot
    bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,448
    Answers
    0

    Hey kwyck, off topic but I am cutting now. Can you take the burger off the avatar, LOL.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  33. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    I'm not bulking, I just like the pic hahaha Its so classic
  34. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    Hey kwyck, off topic but I am cutting now. Can you take the burger off the avatar, LOL.
    Christ, I just noticed that. I'm getting constipated just looking at that thing.
  35. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    When I was referencing the lightning it was in regards to this:

    There was no lightning instantly creating what the author describes.

    The process was long and drawn out, nothing was instant.
    That's what I mean by evading. You're skirting the crux of this debate by displaying your disapproval of his humorous definition of your theory rather than addressing the numerous problems he pinpoints. In a sense, you're argumentum ad hominem.

    Moreover, many crucial points in the process of evolution indeed must have occurred instantly. Irreducible Complexity addresses many of these fatal flaws.
  36. Gold Member
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    879
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Christ, I just noticed that. I'm getting constipated just looking at that thing.

    Whats with the helmit in that pic?
  37. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by spatch
    Whats with the helmit in that pic?
    If you were going to attack a burger that big, you'd need one. And a cup, and a big ass dose of a good **** pill.
  38. Snuggle Club™ mascot
    bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,448
    Answers
    0

    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  39. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    That's what I mean by evading. You're skirting the crux of this debate by displaying your disapproval of his humorous definition of your theory rather than addressing the numerous problems he pinpoints. In a sense, you're argumentum ad hominem.

    Moreover, many crucial points in the process of evolution indeed must have occurred instantly. Irreducible Complexity addresses many of these fatal flaws.
    Dude, I'm not even sure what freggin' point you're trying to make. And irreducible complexity has a lot more to do with the formation of a first cell that it does with evolution.

    Argumentum ad hominem, eh? No, that would be saying something like english classes aren't a good replacement for biology classes when you get into a debate regarding biology and evolution. I doubt you even knew what irreducible complexity, as an anti-spontaneous life theory, was before a few google searches ago.

    You posted a link saying that evolutionists have a problem trying to prove evolution because of DNA and you take the information from a creationist website that has obviously misleading material on it.

    I'm not evading anything because you're not making a point regarding evolution.

    And, I've addressed this "leap of faith" required for buying into the beginnings of life, but the thing is, there is a 99.9..9% chance that evolution is taking place in the sense that we were randomly birthed and that we've evolved from simple bacteria, so I'll take the 0.0...1% leap of faith. But again, not a whole lot to do with evolution.

    I've also said that its entirely possible that there is some sort of creator out there and that I personally do believe there is something out there, but he sure as hell didn't make the earth in 7 days nor did he put adam and eve here.

    Go back and read my posts, I made an educational thread but the refusal to accept what all science indicates is the truth of our origins as far as 4billion years back isn't worth arguing over. Pretty much back to the first chemotrophic organism we can generate a consistent line of evolution...a 4 billion year line of evolution!

    If you want to read about all plausible theories of the origins of the first cell and of life, knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

    But, that's not what the thread was about.

    This thread is a thread of evolution, not abiogenesis. So, nothing is being evaded, you're running off the topic trying to invalidate evolution because of something that is really unrelated to it. The first cell isn't what we're talking about here and it wasn't the point of the thread is and the fact that we don't know how the first cells came to be, doesn't invalidate the fact that we've got a darn good idea of how we evolved from them and from our more recent ancestors.

    The point of the thread is that we've got a common ancestor with all life. And yes, we really are primates...sorry bud.
  40. Snuggle Club™ mascot
    bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,448
    Answers
    0

    I personally have not seen a single thread of evidence in any of these posts that support macro evolution let alone anything that would be considered 99.9% proof. All I have heard is circular reasoning begging the question. "We evolved so it must have happened and since we evolved we will interpret all data that is collected based upon that fact".

    Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of some of the same. I believe the guy who showed dominion over life and death by raising himself from the dead, witnessed by men who died for their beliefs and as posted earlier, very unlikely (or 99.9% proven) that a man would willingly die a terrible death for something he knew to be false let alone hundreds. He (Christ) believed in the literal interpretation of the scriptures. He believed in Adam & Eve and a 7 day creation. This belief does give me a bias and I can't help but following a certain path of reasoning while examining the facts.

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

    I think kwyck was thinkin of:

    Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Not really a powerlifter but heres my max bench video.
    By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/Strongman
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 01:24 AM
  2. is something wrong with this site it says im not logged in but
    By Outside Backer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2005, 04:33 PM
  3. Not an Anabolic, but ?? about Clen vs ECA
    By Guido in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 04:14 PM
  4. Noobie here....well not really.
    By JTrans in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 09:27 PM
  5. M1T not really working??
    By WannaGro in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 03:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in