Prove Evolution...win money

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ouch. I just think I felt some of my well being towards my fellow man wither and die.... There is so much wrong with this... I think I need to lie down.

But first, using a slightly flawed example, you do know that your house cat (a particular species) is also a member of the same family as the lion, tiger etc? And there are different breeds of cat, but they are still genetically the same species - cat (say, modern humans, Asians, Africans etc), but in family terms they have cousins and ancestors - lions, sabre tooth tigers etc (say, our hominid forefathers, the great apes, evolutionary dead ends, alternatives and the like?) Now, homo sapiens are a single species, but we the latest in the large family homo which includes our dear Neanderthal - he is not human, but he is part of the family that eventually produced humans - simple enough yes? [/B]

So basically what you mean is that myself, and others of similar minded views..have to ascribe to your foolish and biased belief systems, in order to validate our arguments..🙄

Okay..I'll play your game...I'll jump through your hoop..if you first jump through mine.

Tell me my friend..is spontaneous generation currently considered a valid scientific theory?

I'll save you some time and research..the answer is "no."

From a scientific perspective, "something" can't come from "nothing"..Lavoisier proved this ages ago.

You've lost this debate fellas. Evolution will never be proven. Spontaneous generation does not exist. Drop the fantasy and come join the rest of us in reality, it ain't so bad, pariticularly when you have something noble/kind/loving to place your faith in.

Fin

So basically what you mean is that myself, and others of similar minded views..have to ascribe to your foolish and biased belief systems, in order to validate our arguments..

You've lost this debate fellas. Evolution will never be proven. Spontaneous generation does not exist. Drop the fantasy and come join the rest of us in reality, it ain't so bad, pariticularly when you have something noble/kind/loving to place your faith in.

Hey look, more accidentally self condemning rhetoric!

Uh oh, spaghetti-o!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So basically what you mean is that myself, and others of similar minded views..have to ascribe to your foolish and biased belief systems, in order to validate our arguments..🙄

Okay..I'll play your game...I'll jump through your hoop..if you first jump through mine.

Tell me my friend..is spontaneous generation currently considered a valid scientific theory?

Well, I wasn't talking about spontaneous generation, I was trying to show how Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens are part of the same family, but not the same species and show how interspecies differences (Asian, African etc) aren't the same as family differences.

But no, no, no. Spontaneous generation is not a viable scientific theory. It was disproved long ago. And the theory of evolution no longer uses it, and hasn't for a long, long time. Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on what is used now (feel free to jump in and correct me if I am wrong. Anybody.) but I believe the current theory deals with chemical life, chemical evolution up to the point where it becomes biological evolution. We all know that the human body, every living thing, and everything that doesn't live is made up are made up of particles, atoms and all that jazz correct?

And that elements, the most basic level, the chemical building blocks combine to form more complex things? Now, the human body and any life forms aren't special, we are made up of these elements as well - calcium, hydrogen, oxygen etc. Now elements have a tendency to react in the right situation, with the right elements, so elements got together, forming increasingly complex compounds, in the chaotically chemical rich early earth until a time when they got to a point of complexity they could be considered "alive" - now, there is a missing link here I will admit, the question is what was the point when elements went from purely reactive compounds to the simplest live forms?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yup either rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, or some other degenerative bone disease. I'm glad you are finally beginning to accept this.😉

In fact many of these people suffered from hereditary bone conditions. Hereditary conditions are common among people who are of a particular race/ethnic group. Sometimes these conditions can be attributed to a culture's diet, sometimes they're attributed to the environment in which they live, and sometimes the condition is simply a genetic one.

Damn. They must have lowered the standard as to what one has to do to get a PHD nowadays..😆 Anyway, one doesn't need a PHD in molecular biology to comprehend these simple concepts bud...😉

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around..does it make a sound?

If a person spouts bullsh*t unrelated to topic at hand in an obvious attempt to damage credibility and to cover up the fact that their argument has been severly beaten down, does it make it any less bullsh*t..❌

I scanned through the paragraphs a few times..and I didn't see anything that related to the arguments. Wasn't it a wise man who once said..those who cry the loudest..usually have the least to say?

In a secular society, the government is the highest authority my friend.

You are either misunderstanding this simple concept or being stubborn. My guess is that it's both. In this particular case, "Hitler" and the Natzi party represent the Government, and they do indeed determine what qualifications one must have in order for them to qualify as a "doctor."

Translated: Nice debating with you whob. I've lost this debate, and have nothing else to say other than throw insults and ridicule. You win I loose.

Nice debating with you too X..good luck with your studies.. 😄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'll save you some time and research..the answer is "no."

From a scientific perspective, "something" can't come from "nothing"..Lavoisier proved this ages ago.

You've lost this debate fellas. Evolution will never be proven. Spontaneous generation does not exist. Drop the fantasy and come join the rest of us in reality, it ain't so bad, pariticularly when you have something noble/kind/loving to place your faith in.

Fin

hmmm, if u mean prove to a significant doubt, than it can be proven. if u mean prove to 100% with not even a chance of mistake, than im afraid thats not possible. heck even if it cud be done ud just say that since human reasoning is inherently flawed, none of the evidence was plausible. thas the way most mislead relegious people are. let me ask u this can u prove even to a REASONABLE doubt that god exists? NO u cant, ive given my own evidence in the past pages and on other threads{which is really just a drop in the bucket as there are many MANY other proofs for ur faith bein wrong}. now what is more believable, sumthing that can be proven to a reasonable doutb or sumthing which has been proven 100% WRONG.

As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconcievably great.

I'm going to chalk this quote up to "Creationist fiction." And do you know why I'm going to do that? Because this is what he actually said:

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time." (Origin of the Species, Chapter Six).

So the full quote says that the geolocial record is imperfect, and......

What?

It still comes back to the earth's crust not having the amount of missing link fossils that should exist if it was true.

The longer version of the quote does nothing other than restate that point.

Since the people's "natural collections" are imperfect, it hasn't been found.

This is what he says, yes?

Then if the "crust of the earth is a vast museum" then why, 100 years later, with much more effecient, accurate means of search,..... have we not found a GENUINE missing link?

Again, not being a jerk, ...I just want to know. 🙂

Last week I bought a set of socks, but unpacking it I discovered it contained 3 socks instead of 2...
The next morning I woke up with a third foot on my back, as my body evolved to fit it's surrounding conditions. Proof enough I say, hand over the cash!

Oddly enough, that is about as sound as all other arguments when you boil them down.

Pandemoniac has won!!!

Let's march on Dr. Hovind's offices to get him the prize money.
gunsmilie

Nice! Seriously need cash to get that annoying foot removed

It still comes back to the earth's crust not having the amount of missing link fossils that should exist if it was true.

1) Far from merely "not providing context" you just made stuff up, which is dishonest.

2) He discusses the matter at length later in the book; even in that one paragraph I provided, he explains that you don't find more transitory fossiles because the geological record just isn't as good as people seem to think. You quoted the part where he said the Earth was a museum, but apparently ignored the part where he said biological records are imperfect.

3) If you actually read the Origin of the Species, instead of the bits of it you find on Creationist web pages, you'll find that that "extended quote" is still only part of a many-page discussion of the subject, and then refers you to an entirely different chapter dedicated entirely to it, but hey, why read what Darwin actually says when you can try to infer what he thinks from a single paragraph? Also

4) there have been plenty of "missing" links found: Australopithecus afarensis, for example.

5) And why all the talk on Darwin, anyway? OMG, Darwin said such-and-such? So? Has it not occured to anyone that the science of evolution has been going on for almost a hundred and fifty years since Origin was published? Amazing as it might seem to Creationists--who, after all, are still doggedly clinging to millenia-old myths--science advances. Darwin didn't even know about DNA when he proposed evolution, for heaven's sake. Origin of the Species isn't some sort of Gospel, where if you can just find that one sentence that doesn't ring true, it will disprove evolution.

Well, I've answered your questions. How about that positive evidence for Creationism I asked for?

I don't want to be a jerk, either, but if you actually want to know, go away. Stop trying to learn about evolution on a movie board. Try talkorigins instead.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Oddly enough, that is about as sound as all other arguments when you boil them down.

No, it isn't

Creationism is all about the bible, even if evolution was wrong (something I do not believe), creationism is not necessarily right. If evolution is wrong, that doesn´t mean that the genesis happened, that there were a man, and a woman called Adam, and Eve that appeared by spontaneusly generation somewhere.

IF EVOLUTION IS WRONG, THAT DOES ONLY MEAN WE DO NOT KNOW HOW WE APPEARED.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'll save you some time and research..the answer is "no."

From a scientific perspective, "something" can't come from "nothing"..Lavoisier proved this ages ago.

You've lost this debate fellas. Evolution will never be proven. Spontaneous generation does not exist. Drop the fantasy and come join the rest of us in reality, it ain't so bad, pariticularly when you have something noble/kind/loving to place your faith in.

Fin

Hehe. Of course the creationist theory basically said God created everything out of nothing. The only difference between it and spontaneous generation is SG would be a blind process while creation had some level of intelligence behind it.

As you said, something can't come from nothing. 😉

Originally posted by Atlantis001
...a man, and a woman called Adam, and Eve that appeared by spontaneusly generation somewhere.

Kudos.

Spot the trend and find the irony. Win money...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

The Origin of Species
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
"One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long...I've tried putting a simple question to various people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only asnwer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time. Eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.' "

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it, he explained his sudden "anti-evolutionary" view.

Letter to Steven Binkley, 17th June 1982.
"Dear Mr. Binkley,

Obviously I have not helped you fight your local creationists - sorry. The
story behind the "Impact" article is that last November I gave a talk to the
systematics discussion group in the American Museum of Natural History. I was
asked to talk on 'evolutionism and creationism', and knowing the meetings of
the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among
specialists, I put the case for difficulties and problems with evolution,
specifically in the field of systematics. I was too naive and foolish to guess
what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to
Luther Sunderland. Sunderland made a transcript, which I refused to edit since
it was pretty garbled, and since I had no exact record of what I did say.
Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to
stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect.

There is not much point in going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking
about systematics, a specialised field. I do not support the creationist
movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify
school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views.
But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational
discussion, not be quoting 'authorities' which seems to be the creationists'
principal mode of argument.

Sincerely, Colin Patterson"

Originally posted by sithsaber408
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconcievably great."-Charles Darwin

The Origin of Species
As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hehe. Of course the creationist theory basically said God created everything out of nothing. The only difference between it and spontaneous generation is SG would be a blind process while creation had some level of intelligence behind it.

As you said, something can't come from nothing. 😉

Kudos.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning. God created the heavens and the earth.

Call me crazy, but I don't see anything in that line stating that God created the heavens and the earth out of "nothing." 😉

No why don't you explain to me how "chemical life" was created. Let me guess..a young virgin earth..was impregnated by Space Aliens? 😆

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the Space Aliens..

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the creator of the Space Aliens.

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the creator of the creator of the Space Aliens...

😕 😆

We all have our own religions my friends. Some of us however, are at least competent enough to understand that our belief systems rely on those principles grounded in faith, as opposed to being grounded on principles representing the empirical.

Fin

The evolution does not deny the possibility of an intelligent designer, but it makes no sense to say that the existence of an intelligence behind the universe means that anything on the genesis happened. There could be an intelligent designer and the bible will still be wrong, all religions believe in an inteligent designer, and every single one of them is different from each other. Which one is right ? To prove the existence of an intelligent designer is to prove just a single point that is true to all religions. As for their doctrines, they could still be wrong. Thats why creationism is wrong, it tries to justify the entire christian beliefs using just one small argument that even if its true it does not mean that the others things are real too.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Call me crazy, but I don't see anything in that line stating that God created the heavens and the earth out of "nothing." 😉

No why don't you explain to me how "chemical life" was created. Let me guess..a young virgin earth..was impregnated by Space Aliens? 😆

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the Space Aliens..

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the creator of the Space Aliens.

Which then begs the answer to the question..Who created the creator of the creator of the Space Aliens...

😕 😆

We all have our own religions my friends. Some of us however, are at least competent enough to understand that our belief systems rely on those principles grounded in faith, as opposed to being grounded on principles representing the empirical.

Fin

So God, who drifted around in the big nothingness and did things like say " let there be light, and lo there was", actually had matter to work with? It's not really nothing then. So where were his materials? What did he use? Where did he produce his materials from? Where in the bible does it say God got some play dough and created the heavens and the earth? To all intents and purposes it's implied he created everything out of nothing. So it's erroneous to condemn evolution based upon a theory it stopped using long ago when creation essentially uses it as well.

And you never my responded to my query about cats, lions and Neanderthals.

And no, I didn't say seeding aliens. Once again - do you know the human body, the live, living human body is a sum of many parts? That brake these parts down far enough and you have things that aren't alive, but combine to form life? These elements? Hydrogen + oxygen combine to form H2O, water etc, various elements combine and combine and you have a human - lifeless elements that are complex and interact to the level of life.

Now I said the chaotic early earth - it was hot and in terms of elements very energised and reactionary, as the elements hadn't settle down and organised themselves yet, so plenty were in their reactionary state - now this was an earth on the cusp of something special that could only happen it seems in these conditions - as I said a chemical compound sufficiently complex to be considered life, early life. And one aspect of evolution is that it's believed every living thing today is descended from a single, common ancestor - potentially then that bit of early goo that constituted life. It had nothing to do with aliens or creative gods, but rather a natural series of chemical reactions.