It is as simple as this. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a lie that lacks supporting evidence. It is wrong to teach young people creationism myths/lies in science biology classes. Creationism/Intelligent design should only be taught in classes such as the comparison of world religions and the various other differing traditions and creation myths.
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@flensdude If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
@1tabligh I agree. You can't deny anything's existence if it's not physical in the sense what we understand a physical thing to be. But to claim such a thing even exists, yet alone is "the" source of everything that's physical as we know it, demands evidence--physical evidence.
And what do you mean by: "[...] they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder."? I sorta get the purposelessness, but anarchy and disorder? What? So if you're an Atheist you cannot believe in scientific laws?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Consider the propagation of plants and various species o vegetation. They need nutrition as much as animals. The have, however, no mouths to feed themselves, nor can they move about to work for acquiring their food. They have therefore, been gifted with about under the earth, to receive their nutriment for transmission to their branches, leaves anc fruit. The earth serves to them as mother from which the suck their nutriment through their roots
"various species"? I am quite sure you can't even name 2 species of plants. "been gifted"? non sequitur, your conclusions do not follow the premises. You have no evidence for the supernatural. Thus I ask: How do you explain AB resistance or plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
"serves to them"...your analogies don't follow reality, you are just making shit up.
now answer to my challenge: evidence for creation?
@transtlantic The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@transtlantic which serve them a• mouths to obtain their food, just as the young ones of animal fed on the milk from their mother's breasts.
Don't you see the pegs propping up straight without fear of fall or bending the tents and shouldaries, by means of rope tied tightly?
Similarly, you will find every plant reared in the earth by the roots spreading in all direction to support it. How could the massive trees and all date-palms stand steady against the storms?
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@transtlantic The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
Oh the irony ! I am the one quoting real science here, you are quoting a holy book written by a pedophile ! I believe that electrons can produce themselves because i have seen it myself in a laboratory, it happens all the time ! THAT´S REAL SCIENCE, not quoting a religious text. You are the demagogue here, you are the one who insists on his position being right, no matter what the evidence. Your arrogance is unfuckingbelievable !
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
@MrRichardQED either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
First of all ,why would i need to choose between science and religion ? I never claimed to be an atheist, i merely said that your idea of god and science don´t fit together,l and the evidence shows your idea of god has major problems. My ideas about gods and science not.
Then i would like to remind you that i had asked you something first, and its very rude to just ignore that question, and ask a question of your own, especially this one.
@MrRichardQED In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@transtlantic Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
"four walls of matter"; why not 5 walls of matter? word salad, you are just full of shit.
We find plenty of accidental stuff in life: life, death, birth, disease, rain, cold, heat,...all accidental.
For example: snowflakes would be impossible without accidental causes.
you are just full of buy bull shit.
now fuck off, your God doesn't exist. why would movement require an externa,l agent in order to happen? your denial does not substitute the fact that you are wrong.
@transtlantic What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
Why can't you explain the formation of snowflakes without mentioning chaotic random interactions of matter?
"precise and orderly"? Quite an amazing claim...considering that thermodynamics does mention randomness and a tendency to disorder as a Law of the universe...
Tell me...is rain not an accident and happenstance?
@transtlantic Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
@transtlantic The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
the cause can originate random events, thus the effect be also the result of a random cause, if the said effect can originate from different causes.
Rain be caused by many factors, thus you created a false dichotomy.
why just two existing things? you require three things to produce fire, with just 2 you can't make fire. Your vision is limited, thus your argument is also limited.
"affinity and harmony"? word salad.
now answer my question: is rain not an accident and happenstance?
@transtlantic Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
"being and non being", yet more word salad, that means jack shit. You said: "between 2 existing things"...but fire requires three existing things at the same time. Rationally your logic is flawed. You assume 1 is to 1, yet ignoring that sometimes in order for 1 you require 2, 3 or 4. thus you are wrong.
"essence"? word salad. things are, not being is fantasy talk.
Thus I ask: is rain not an accident and happenstance?
@transtlantic If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
"if being"? word salad, is rock a "being"? is fire a "Being"? ofc not. You are just making shit up. The existence of fire requires three things, three things transform into fire. There is not 1 to 1 or 1 remains as 1. There's transformation. Thus...God doesn't exist. it has nothing to "be".
Thus I ask: Is rain not an accident and happenstance?
@transtlantic Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
@transtlantic Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
Actually the universe has different dimensions, the universe is made out of energy and matter. "immersed"? nope. it is all there is. It doesn't acquire anything. IT IS the dimensions. You are just creating more false dichotomy.
fire can't exist with three things, thus the necessary being is made out of more than 1.
All the phenomena that once did *not* exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a *cause* that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an *external* factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
"all the phenomena"...if you claim that there were, there is no question of "not exist". Fire is the transformation of three things, the things that make the fire existed prior to the fire, everything else is the same: Matter exists and transforms, nothing comes out of nothing.
The "cause" is the mere fact of the properties of matter. three things exist with X property and together make fire.
Thus...there is no "external factor", only matter and energy are required.
@transtlantic Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
"a phenomenon that comes into being"? Fire is the union of three things, the phenomena fire is just the trasnformation of the previous three. The cause is the union of three things, thus there is no "essential neediness", only matter and energy.
There is no being here, there's matter and energy, there's no "need", but matter and energy.
@transtlantic Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to *non-existence*, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator *stops* working, all the bright lamps connected to it *fall* dark. It is for this reason that *cause and effect*, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed *nothing* would remain but darkness and non-being.
"relationship"? wtf... fire is made by three material elements, if those three are not together forming fire, yet they remain existent. Thus..."non existence" is a fallacy. Because while fire is not there, the three elements that form it, surely are. even if not in contact making fire.
The generator might stop, but the electrons that form the light are still there, but now, not moving in a directed line.
for this reason cause and effect is irrelevant, as matter always IS.
"relationship"? wtf... fire is made by three material elements, if those three are not together forming fire, yet they remain existent. Thus..."non existence" is a fallacy. Because while fire is not there, the three elements that form it, surely are. even if not in contact making fire.
The generator might stop, but the electrons that form the light are still there, but now, not moving in a directed line.
for this reason cause and effect is irrelevant, as matter always IS.
@transtlantic Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
@transtlantic Behold! The ingenuity of creation has preceded the skill of industry. The skill employed in setting up tents and shouldaries by artisans, has before gone into the designing; plan of rearing up trees which precedes the propping up of tents with pegs and poles all acquired from trees. It is obvious that this skill has been copied from the ingenuity employed in propping up trees.
@16nowhereman a well rounded education should teach all fields, science, math, languages, art, culture (religion) etc.
A good SCIENCE education should teach the facts. and the theories for which w actually have good solid evidence. we can teach aliens and creationism when they are proven scientifically
@16nowhereman "A well rounded education should teach all theories, not just evolution"
that is very true, i mean we also have to teach the Germ theory of disease, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Electromagnetism etc etc. we have so many theories, it would be very dumb to only teach evolution.
@JehovahourGod you are a wolf in Sheep's clothes. Here's some honest advice. 1. Slap your parents for making you. 2. Pray to God that your family evolve into Monkey's one day. 3. Slap your parents again.
Creationists should stand next to the Westboro Baptist Church monsters with pickets that say "God hates Education" "God hates Thinking". Creationists do not understand the world around them. An unnamed well known creationist stated that Harvard University supports creationism and rejects evolution.
Is not a science class you ignorant , its another religion based on monsterous faith sold to you as science ! think on your own don't go with tho flow ! I hate dumb people
@Jehovahourgod If you are an example of an enlightened creationist/christian, you have failed miserably. God will not be pleased.You have turned more people from God than any atheist ever . In the vernacular of youtube, MASSIVE FAIL.
@Jehovahourgod Why aren't you more humble then? You boast, and brag and fill the screen with bombastic rhetoric. I see no humility, only arrogance. Practice what you preach. In Corinthians it is written that you can do all sorts of things, with much noise and such, but if it it is done without love(charity) it is nothing but empty hollow gestures in the eyes and ears of God. Do you know your Holy book at all?? You are like the rich man, you will have a hard time entering Heaven .
@Jehovahourgod Almost forgot, you must be one of those Pharisees that Jesus mentioned, standing on the street corner, pontificating for all to see. Wailing about how evil your fellow man is, where everyone can see how just and righteous you must be. Jesus suggested you go and pray in private, away from prying eyes, in secret , in your closet. Might be a good idea if you followed his advice, or are you too good for Jesus?
@Jehovahourgod hahaha!!!!!! Who cares if you type 90 wpm. As for assertions of intelligence, it's known that that the wise don't trumpet their IQ, it's plain for all to see, or read, as the case may be. Be the air is a bit rarefied, and thin up there in your creationist ivory tower. We lower sorts really should grovel at your pristine feet; alas, I have better things to do, such as wash my socks. Btw that thin air is messing with your ability to cogitate in an effective manner.
@1984potionlover Convoluted logic gives birth to arrogant ranting rhetoric. You have clearly demonstrated this unsound mindset. Subsequently your future will no doubt follow that of Christopher Hitchens, dead and soon forgotten as billions before him. Jehovah is eternal and all who do his will.
@Jehovahourgod Orientate?? Dissever? Do you read any of the drivel that you spew Spell check please. Pedophile homosexual? Why the prurient interest in such things? Seems you are the one whose mind strays to thoughts of devience. Takes one to know one, so "they" say.. How many "fundie" ministers have been found to be closet paedos, or homosexuals? Your whole post is utter tripeI'm waiting for the wave of righteous outrage to follow this post of mine. lmfaso!
@It has been on tv and in the papers. Where have you been? As long as people cling to superstition, and mythology, churches will endure. The intolerant will always use beliefs to bulwark themselves against simple logic and reality. If God is love, why do you spend so much time being hateful and intolerant of those who do not share your ideology? You preach vengeance and hate.Reread your Holy Book. You cherry pick your beliefs. Would Jesus approve of your hatred of others? FAIL
@So you agree with Richard Dawkins. You heard it here first folks.If your SCHOOL SYSTEM only instructed in you in the teaching of CREATIONISM and you were never exposed to EVOLUTIONISM you would be a creationist. Luckily, science protects the sane from the misguided foolish, superstitious folks who would have us wandering around like it's still the 16th century.
@ColonPal ummm , perhaps we should forget the Catholics. I'm not going to use institutionalized pedophiliacs as shining examples of forward thinking Christians That being said..most Christians are not raving, backward loons..Just a bit misguided. No one is perfect.
@Get it right dude, it's accepting, not excepting If you cannot construct a proper sentence with reasonable spelling, it is unlikely that your thought processes are "evolved" enough to carry out a reasonable logical discussion of anything with any intellectual weight. At least use your spell check. How hard is that?
@Jehovahourgod So masses of ignorant idiots are a good thing? Mob rule? ok I'm backing slowly away. This is turning into schoolyard politics. Bullies rule and the rest of us better just shut up. How civilized. No wonder that many creationists also have such a loving relationship with their guns, and bombs and manifest destiny.
@Jehovahourgod you cannot learn if you are not wiling to look at all the evidence. Creationist are apparently happy to remain stagnant and never question anything that isn't in their ancient books. How sad.Of course they cannot tolerate the idea of evolution. They themselves are not evn capable of intellectual evolution, and so they remain, locked in the beliefs of the dark ages. Imagine if modern detectives used the same faulty methods? Common sense is uncommon isn't it? Sad..
@Jehovahourgod superstitious twat.. satan is the boogey man for ignorant manchildren who can bring themselves to believe that we are animals, . Gotta be special cause the truth hurts too much. It's like the salem witch trials all over again. Mass hysteria, and superstitious claptrap that caused countless innocents to be burned and tortured to death because some idiot girls were afraid of getting into trouble..
@7CellarDoors sorry for the cut and paste, but if you don't understand what laws and theories are you cannot discuss them properly.You make yourself look like a fool, which is not what you intended,I'm sure. An eloquent windbag spouting flowery flatulent nonsense. Crap is crap no matter how nice it looks on the page.
In the hierarchy of knowledge, laws are *BELOW* theories, not above.
From lowest to highest:
- Fact: independently verifiable observation
- Law: formulaic description of a series of observations
- Hypothesis: testable claim about a set of facts or laws.
- Theory: explanatory model consisting of facts, laws and hypotheses.
for those of you who don't know what theory is, in science, here's the info. It's not hard. Learn it, and then you won't sound stupid when speaking about science.
@7CellarDoors right, and children are such critical thinkers. Likewise teenagers. Seriously, have you seen the tripe that the impressionable young believe? Just look around online, or listen to them sometimes.. Belief in the reality of vampires and werewolves, skinheads, santa claus, mcdonalds as a source of good food. Righttttttttt, let them decide on their own.. what could possibly go wrong? The young tend to pick the weird, the easy, and the downright annoying to their parents.
@achilles197474 talking donkeys, talking snakes, talking bushes make more sense????Give your head a shake before you start criticizing things you obviously don't,or more likely, don't want to understand. If you place christian beliefs along side the beliefs of any other religion, you see the same odd beliefs in supernatural events, and beings. It's all mythology, with a dash of social commentary, religious indoctrination, and some really dodgy history and quack science.
@1984potionlover Oh and the ritual cannibalization of god's alleged son. That's just the sort of thing I want my children to learn. (communion, if you don't know what I'm on about). There's torture, incest, human sacrifice, genocide, sexism, slavery as well, just to round things out. Wholesome family reading. Thanks, I'll stick with evolution, saner and much less traumatic for children.
@annie10103 i agree, except i begin to get seriously annoyed with people who don't even try to make logical . Hehe maybe they should make a reality show about religious flame wars. can't be any worse than the stuff that's being broadcast .
@daogdaog dude keep up.. it was just in the news that a small proportion of the European population still carries neandertal DNA. we did interbreed with them.
@philster00700 You said "What a stupid bitch, evolution is a theory."
OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
@philster00700 Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
@philster00700 Oh, sorry, I was trying to correct you and now I understand you were just pointing out the irony of her saying that 'creationism' was a theory. So, please forgive my being presumptuous.
Anyhow, as I am sure you are aware, creationism couldn't possibly be considered a theory because it hasn't been tested and proven repeatedly....and obviously it isn't falsifiable. Creationism would have to be considered an hypothesis at best....and a poor one at that...
Why is it that I only need to have my measles vaccine once, could it evolve much slower than a common cold? If there is a micro-biologist out there please answer this has measles ever evolved. I can see lots of disease caused by gene mutation. Sickle-cell disease causes a lot of complications and average life expectancy drops to 42 years. Has any one seen a mutation that increases live expectance or fertility? Are there any communities that have DNA mutations that give them the advantage?
@transtlantic Yes sickle cell does provide resistance to malaria but life expectance drops significantly due to other complications. On other websites there seams to be long lists of sickle cell complications causing a reduction in life expectancy, so overall I would say sickle sell is a huge disadvantage especially in London, that is why in the UK our National Health Service call it a disease. Are there any Africans out there who think there is an advantage with Sickle Cell?
Actually life expectancy due to sickle cell disease in environments with malaria, increases. As proven by research papers and documented, testable evidence. You can read more about it at Harrison's principles of internal Medicine, 18th edition.
The complications for not having sickle cell disease in an environment with malaria, is a quicker death and no offspring.
You clearly are ignoring the environmental factor... typical cretard ignorant mistake...and lack of knowledge.
Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Trait are different. If you carry one of each gene for normal haemoglobin and sickle haemoglobin you have sickle trait and have the highest resistance to P. falciparum malaria. If you carry two genes for sickle haemoglobin you have sickle cell disease and have an extreme survival disadvantage. Children from two parents with sickle trait have a 25% chance of having normal haemoglobin, 50% having Sickle Trait, a 25% chance of having sickle cell disease.
@transtlantic harvard.edu quote "A person with sickle cell disease is at an extreme survival disadvantage because of the ravages of the disease process". I think the point you are making is that people with sickle cell disease are resistant to malaria infection. My point is life expectancy isn't increased if you have two genes for sickle haemoglobin as you die from other complications before child bearing age, especial in developing nations.
Correct. The trait only bestows a reproductive advantage as long as the frequency of incidence remains below a certain threshold. If there is more than a certain percentage of incidence, then the likelihood of homozygosity becomes too great, and the reproductive advantage disappears. I think this is a classic case of a Hamiltonian "evolutionarily stable strategy" model.
London is not an environment with malaria, you ignorant uneducated imbecile moronic retard. Are there any africans who think there is an advantage? sure there is:
ALL of them living in an environment with malaria in the middle of africa, where they live longer, HEALTHIER and with healthier and growing offspring, when compared to those without the sickle cell disorder.
You clearly don't know shit about basic Biology...
Have you ever heard about Fitness? you retarded demented fuck
"The Science of God" is a book that answers this question, buy it, read it, understand that the genesis story and evolution are one and the same thing, it is not a dichotomy - educate yourself.
if you religious people believe that all people are the children of Adam and Eve, then all people on earth must be Jewish, cuz Adam and Eve were Jewish.
@oscarmarin1995 Adam and Eve were first told by the Jewish folklors thousands of years ago, before there were any religions in Europe. Christianty is a Jewish religion; it is a branch of Judaism. the New Testiment is all written from the Jewish holy books cuz there were no holy books in Europe. and the story of Adam and Eve are Jewish folklor and they spoke Hibrew to their Jewish God. Even the God of 3 majore religions is a Jewish God, "Jehovah" is the God u pray2 every sunday.
@arzadi11 Moses wrote the book of Genesis 4,000 years ago I think... not sure. Christianity isn't Judaism. It came from Jews, but it also came from Gentiles. And Judaism doesn't believe in Jesus. Therefore it's not Christian.
Well supposedly Judaism, Islam and Christianity worship the same God, but they don't. Because Jews don't worship Jesus at all. Neither do Muslims or Islamists. Christianity is the only religion that believes Jesus is savior and died for the world's sins
@oscarmarin1995 True, Jews don't believe in Jesus, but that does not change the fact that Christianty is a branch of Judaism. Christianity was made in the Jewish land by the Jewish people and was spread thrroughout the Roman empire and beyond by a Jewish man named St. Paul... After all, Jesus himself was a Jewish man. that picture of Jesus of a blond blue eye man is just a painting, it's a false picture. the true face of Jesus was a Jewish face: olive skin, dark hair & eye, etc.
@arzadi11 Yeah, Christ and Paul were Jews, but not Peter and some other disciples. And Jews get circumcised, Christians, just become born again. I guess you could say it's Judea-Christian, but there's a distinction between the two. Judaism has got laws and regulations. Christians live by faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christianity was also spread by gentiles
Yeah, the paintings are made in likeness and are idealized, we have no idea how Jesus really looked.
@oscarmarin1995 does he have a birth certificate to prove it?:P, sorry I'm just joking around...Still laffin about the obama stuff that's been flying around and this just reminded me of that. Peace
@arzadi11 "and the story of Adam and Eve are Jewish folklor and they spoke Hibrew to their Jewish God." Actually the earliest record of Adam and Eve were told in Pagan mythology. Summerian to be exact (all though while historians conclude Summeria as the earliest civilization; the Summerians themselves, talk about even older civilizations), and yes they did indeed warship multiple gods...
Not only have two theories. Both Darwinism and creationism is religion, which is NOT evidence. Look at my species formation theory, it is the best, the clip is my cont
I'm looking at the arguments and see one problem. Intelligent design and macro-evolution are two different subjects. Macro-evolutionists will say that abiogenesis, objuscates the issue while they push the singularity and big bang. Creationists claim to refute evolution by using the law of biogenesis. Although the law of biogenesis seems to be the achiles heel for evolutionists, let's drop that and ask for intermediate species; transitional forms; the elusive inbetweens.
you must be brain damaged.... the big bang has nothing to do with biology, but with astronomy. Abiogenesis is about how the first life form appeared, not how present species transformed from previous species, that would be Evolution.
"law of biogenesis"? there is no such thing.
There is no "achiles" at all. There are intermediate, transitional and quite obvious inbetweens.
My challenge is still up: can you explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
"attributed to louis pasteur", what's next? Talking about the Aether? HA HA HA
you stupid... you can't even READ wikipedia. HA HA HA HA
The "law of biogenesis", applies to already existing organisms, you moron. that rocks don't originate living organisms by spontaneous generation, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which wikipedia CLEARLY points out at the: READ ALSO.section.
All Pasteur and his colleagues could observe were *modern*, *complex* lifeforms, and then only those in proximity of his observation equipment, at times he was observing them. So his "law" applies only to those complex, modern organisms he could observe.
@LawrenceKennard: Since evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, no matter how much creationists insist it does, the law of biogenesis isn't a problem for evolutionists.
(And it may be wrong anyway. While life did not arise on its own in any environment we've tested, we simply haven't tested all possible environments)
As for transitional forms: Look up "List of transitional fossils" in wiki (for example). There are quite literally tons of those, you just need to look at them... will you?
@goreth01 How wonderful it is to hear from someone civilized! Yes, I will look those up. Give me a few days since I am quite buzy at home and work. But, like I said before, linking abiogenesis with evolution has been the fault of evolutionists as well as creationists. Remember how often you hear, "12-20 billion years ago a singularity...a primordial soup was hit by lightening..." Yes, I will look it up with alacrity!
Do that, you'll find the evidence for evolution is rather massive.
Well, abiogenesis is certainly a big part of the scientific version of the 'where everything comes from' narrative and leaving it out would leave a hole in the story. They should probably mention more often that this part still remains to be proven.
@LawrenceKennard some people have also suggested that comets,etc. may have deposited some type of biomaterial whaen they impacted with the earth. The reasoning is that this bio-material(?) may have activated somehow when it hit the the primordorial soup, or helped to kickstart our own life. I wish I could site the sources for this idea. Perhaps someone else has some links for extra-terrestrial sources of life on planet earth?
@1984potionlover As far as I know this isn't considred a crackpot notion..It might help explain how life started here..alas it doesn't help us with the ultimate "HOW" of the beginning of .Must chuckle tho..if it was proven to be true, it would make the creationists very uncomfortable. Good luck with your studies:) I hope your quest for knowledge continues,and is as much fun, and as enlightening as minecontinues to be.!!
« Macro-evolutionists will say that abiogenesis, objuscates the issue while they push the singularity and big bang »
You do realise that biology and cosmology are different branches of science, investigating different facets of the observable world, right? And that within biology, evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are two different fields of research?
populations tend to change only when there is a need to change. Even then it isn't all at once. look at animals today in threatened habitats. They simply don't have time to adapt to new conditions. We are talking generations needed, but no time for those generations to be.
In Turkey (my home) a teacher got exiled to a far away city just because he had a chat with one of his students on Darwin. And a prestigious Science Magazine got cencored by the goverment because it was on Darwin. Thats... my goverment :(
See a great lecture called: story of life origins: the obvious version
Gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.
Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.
Suggests: if we put aside our preconditioning , and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE.
casshyr obiously never had a parot.. moron like alot of people...believe you can fly hard enough .....and....um....you still cant fly!!!! they have no understanding of anything. so they resort to believing!!! its there only option..cant think so believe!!!!
i love when these people defend creationism as truth because "thats what i was told" there a theory, for ya!!! "if sombody told you to blow yourself up in a car bomb, i guess thed do that to"" wait a minute they do that dont they!!!!!!
Darwin was an ass & all his theories have been proved false meaning no scientific evidence.Darwin actually believed that Whales evolved from Polar Bears
@buschmann69 You couldn't tell the difference between shit and champagne, so, y'know, I'm not concerned if your lower than average, evolved brain can't see why you're wrong. But you are wrong. there are plain facts all around you that are reasonably easy to comprehend. But you don't comprehend it, do you. 'Cos you ain't so bright, are you?
What firm evidence can you provide for yourself to confirm that you are above average intelligence?
Acception Evolution theory in school was the most nauseating thing i remember,beeing forced to accept pseudo science lies and carbon dating bs that refers on a 160 yo piece of a vulcano to have billions of years old,to take benefit from it are never easy,especially if they aren´t anti creationist,and we find fossilized hats and cowboy boots with 50 years old...
1) Scientists don't use carbon dating to date billions of years old rocks.
Carbon dating only works properly on dead life less than 60.000 years gone and they know that.
2) I'd really like the creationists to try and prove this story of theirs about scientists getting the date of new rocks totally wrong. What little details there are varies with who's telling the story.
And curiously no names are ever mentioned. I call bullshit again...
@Heitor619 You are not too bright are you. How do you explain the fossils, dinosaurs living and changing over 160 million years. Mineral deposits on a hat or boot is not fossilization. And proving it does not take very long is just a excuse, it does not prove a young earth.
@Heitor619 ..perhaps if you took the time to delve a wee bit deeper into the subject , you wouldd find a few answers..do your own research, but don't presuppose what your answer will be.. Look at sensible arguments from both sides and you may get an inkling as to who is telling the truth.The first people who got a real notion of how very old this planet is were devout Christians, even ministers, who enjoyed learning more about the mysteries of antiquity. Check their stories out!
I honestly think that Creationism should be taught not because I'm a Christian. But because it is a plausible theory that ACTUALLY has gained a lot of ground while evolution has faltered on many occasions.
@goreth01 not really, for starters the actual atomosphere of the earth at it's beginning could'nt have created the nessesary proteins for life. Also, fossils have supported creationism in that there is no "missing link" between two kingdoms that Darwin was so sure we would find. There is no "half fish-half mammal" type organism. People believed that the Archaeopteryx was the link between reptiles and birds, but it is now know that this dinosaur is not a true ancestor to modern birds.
1) No, we don't know that it couldn't have. Scientists are still working on if and how.
Also, that's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't deal with how exactly the first life arose, only where it went from there.
There also are plenty of 'missing links'. Some of them still alive even. Like mudskippers for a fish-amphiba link. (asking for a fish-mammal link is quite weird, there's a huge history between them and any early reptile would fit the bill)
@zz060210, Cont: There's also quite a bunch of human-ape links: Google hominid fossils.
Even if we actually hadn't found those, comparative genetics still proves a common ancestor of all life on earth.
Also lack of evidence for (or even contradiction of) evolution is not proof of creationism no matter how much you guys like to think that.
And yes, Archaeoperix IS a bird-dino link and there is no doubt about birds being descended from dinosaurs. Where do you have that ridiculous lie from?
@zz060210, Cont: I've read plenty of stuff from creationists. I've yet to see any remotely convincing argument let alone evidence for creationism (or disproof of evolution for that matter).
I did however see plenty of lies, straw men, quote mining and plain ignorance.
And I don't think being written by a former atheist makes 'A Case for a Creator' any more compelling.
As for predictions evolution made, here's one example: Humans and other great apes have a different number of chromosomes.
Evolution predicted that two ape chromosomes had merged in humans (losing a chromosome pair would be lethal). And that is what genetic analysis found. It's chromosome number 2.
Or that whales evolved from some doglike animal. Biologists knew that long before they finally found the fossils confirming it in Iran a few years back.
@zz060210, Cont: And lastly, micro- and macroevolution is a false disctinction. Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution piled up over a long time.
To accept one and reject the other, you'd need to prove that there is some kind of mechanism that prevents too many mutations from accumulating. Or that there wasn't enough time, but the proof of earths extremely old age is very solid.
@goreth01 not really, microevolution is something like an insect growing a resistance to a pesticide, whereas macroevolution is the complete changing of a species to the point where it's a completely new species. Also this "mechanism" you say i need to prove, i can answer that simply: God, although He's not really a mechanism. I could give give you many proofs about God, but I doubt you'd accept them and try to refute them be using something else that hasn't been completely proven.
@goreth01 not at all, if i prove God's existance and that He created the world, then He would have every right and the power to come into the world and do anything he wanted to it. If it's His world and His laws then he could change them at any time, couldn't he?
@zz060210: Wrong! Just that he COULD does not prove that he DOES.
If you were able to prove God is real, that wouldn't automatically prove everything else you believe about him.
Also: We know there is nothing to prevent 'macroevolution' because speciation has been observed and we have loads of evidence that it did happen. The fossil record has lots of intermediary forms, many species have obvious leftovers of their ancestors, genetic and physical (f.ex. birds have genes for teeth), etc.
@goreth01 ok, just one question: if you believe in evolution then we are just "sophisticated monkeys," right? Then explain why we have a moral code embedded in us. you don't see monkeys punish one of their own kind because they're a murderer, and yet we do, why? Also these 'intermediary forms' can't be established as fact because we can't determine what their skin was like or what they ate, that's all speculation. This may seen like a weak argument, but it is legitimate.
@zz060210: Easy, morals are good for survivial, because harming other members of your group will likely end up harming yourself and helping them will make them more likely help you.
And actually monkeys have been observed punishing other monkeys for immoral behaviour.
Well, we're certainly missing details, but even just the bones tell us a lot. Also, there are fossils where the structure of the skin or even what they ate is preserved, they're very rare tho.
@zz060210 "you don't see monkeys punish one of their own kind because they're a murderer, and yet we do, why?" => you should watch Discovery once in a while, instead of always reading the Bible. Even penguins display morality where if a mother tries to take eggs from another mother, other penguins will step in and stop her.
@Casshyr Thanks but I get out, contrary to your belief. So they step in and stop her, but do they punish her? there are two different things. And even if they did and i'm wrong, I still don't see how our morality could have evolved from theirs. Also if we evolved from them why can't they talk? Where does language come onto play? Scientists don't even know how to replicate a voicebox. Also where do feelings come into play? Animals have emotions, but not feelings. They are different
@zz060210 "but do they punish her?" => if she keeps persisting, yes. A form of punishment observed including banishment. "Also if we evolved from them why can't they talk?" => A LOT OF THEY DO TALK. Animals do communicate with each other, and a lot of animals do have voicebox. Seriously..how can you not feel embarrassed making mistakes like this? My 8 year old cousin knows this.."Animals have emotions, but not feelings" => yea right, tell that to a dog lover, or a farmer who works with horses.
@Casshyr That's not what i mean by them "talking." They can communicate, which is obvious, but what i mean is TALKING! I mean language. Apes don't have sounds for "bring it here" or "go fetch water." "They don't have the capacity to form the specific highly specialized movements required for speech sound production." was one answer i found. Quite simply, if they don't, why do we?
Laws of Creation/Intelligent Design
1st- something can come from nothing as long as God did it.
2nd- energy can be created and destroyed.
3rd- if it walks, talks, looks, sounds, tastes and smells like a Duck and says it's a Duck, it's Not.
4th- if you don't understand something, God did it.
5th- when all logic, reason and common sense are against you, quote the Bible.
6th- the Bible is proof that the Bible is true so quoting the bible is fact.
7th- science is a worldwide conspiracy
paramattic70 1 week ago
It is as simple as this. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a lie that lacks supporting evidence. It is wrong to teach young people creationism myths/lies in science biology classes. Creationism/Intelligent design should only be taught in classes such as the comparison of world religions and the various other differing traditions and creation myths.
stanleysteama 2 weeks ago
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh Fancy word phrasings aren't proof of an intelligent creator.
flensdude 2 weeks ago
@flensdude If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh I agree. You can't deny anything's existence if it's not physical in the sense what we understand a physical thing to be. But to claim such a thing even exists, yet alone is "the" source of everything that's physical as we know it, demands evidence--physical evidence.
And what do you mean by: "[...] they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder."? I sorta get the purposelessness, but anarchy and disorder? What? So if you're an Atheist you cannot believe in scientific laws?
flensdude 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flensdude The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
How do you explain AB resistance w/out using evolution theory?
where's your evidence for creation?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Propagation Of Plants
Consider the propagation of plants and various species o vegetation. They need nutrition as much as animals. The have, however, no mouths to feed themselves, nor can they move about to work for acquiring their food. They have therefore, been gifted with about under the earth, to receive their nutriment for transmission to their branches, leaves anc fruit. The earth serves to them as mother from which the suck their nutriment through their roots
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"various species"? I am quite sure you can't even name 2 species of plants. "been gifted"? non sequitur, your conclusions do not follow the premises. You have no evidence for the supernatural. Thus I ask: How do you explain AB resistance or plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
"serves to them"...your analogies don't follow reality, you are just making shit up.
now answer to my challenge: evidence for creation?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic which serve them a• mouths to obtain their food, just as the young ones of animal fed on the milk from their mother's breasts.
Don't you see the pegs propping up straight without fear of fall or bending the tents and shouldaries, by means of rope tied tightly?
Similarly, you will find every plant reared in the earth by the roots spreading in all direction to support it. How could the massive trees and all date-palms stand steady against the storms?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Similarly, you will find every plant reared in the earth by the roots spreading in all direction to support it.
EVERYTHING you mention here is well explained by evolution. Go get an education instead of c+p bullshit arguments from the web.
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRi..God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
God doesn't exist.
If you have no evidence for the claimed fairy that theists call "God", how can you expect to believe in such fairy?
Do you, as a grown adult person, believe in santa? ofc not.
the user 1tab doesn't know anything about reality, thus his incoherent word salad.
Do you really think 1tab knows what an atom or an electron is? come on...
"produce themselves"? lolol failure at basic physics from 1tab.
all we want to know is this: Does 1tab have evidence for God?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
Oh the irony ! I am the one quoting real science here, you are quoting a holy book written by a pedophile ! I believe that electrons can produce themselves because i have seen it myself in a laboratory, it happens all the time ! THAT´S REAL SCIENCE, not quoting a religious text. You are the demagogue here, you are the one who insists on his position being right, no matter what the evidence. Your arrogance is unfuckingbelievable !
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Well then prove that you are right. Do you really think your argument has never been thought through by people way smarter then us 2 ?
btw again matter IS able to produce itself, low lifeforms ARE able to produce themselves again and again, thats the circle of life
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Matter or God ? Take your choice!
First of all ,why would i need to choose between science and religion ? I never claimed to be an atheist, i merely said that your idea of god and science don´t fit together,l and the evidence shows your idea of god has major problems. My ideas about gods and science not.
Then i would like to remind you that i had asked you something first, and its very rude to just ignore that question, and ask a question of your own, especially this one.
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
Why would a god named God create the trees that kill us with allergies?
why would movement require an external agent in order to happen?
"create itself"'? where does it say that all things appeared out of nothing?
"lowly matter"? word salad.
you are just full of shit.
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"four walls of matter"; why not 5 walls of matter? word salad, you are just full of shit.
We find plenty of accidental stuff in life: life, death, birth, disease, rain, cold, heat,...all accidental.
For example: snowflakes would be impossible without accidental causes.
you are just full of buy bull shit.
now fuck off, your God doesn't exist. why would movement require an externa,l agent in order to happen? your denial does not substitute the fact that you are wrong.
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"dawn of being"...word salad.
"infinite interactions"... word salad
Why can't you explain the formation of snowflakes without mentioning chaotic random interactions of matter?
"precise and orderly"? Quite an amazing claim...considering that thermodynamics does mention randomness and a tendency to disorder as a Law of the universe...
Tell me...is rain not an accident and happenstance?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
you didn't answer to my question:
is rain not an accident and happenstance? it's a yes or no question.
"Universe was submerged"? that's not written in any science book. you're just making shit up.
your religious buy bull induced shit is hilarious.
God is not even rethorical, it's sheer fantasy. imagined vomit.
now... how do you explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
the cause can originate random events, thus the effect be also the result of a random cause, if the said effect can originate from different causes.
Rain be caused by many factors, thus you created a false dichotomy.
why just two existing things? you require three things to produce fire, with just 2 you can't make fire. Your vision is limited, thus your argument is also limited.
"affinity and harmony"? word salad.
now answer my question: is rain not an accident and happenstance?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"being and non being", yet more word salad, that means jack shit. You said: "between 2 existing things"...but fire requires three existing things at the same time. Rationally your logic is flawed. You assume 1 is to 1, yet ignoring that sometimes in order for 1 you require 2, 3 or 4. thus you are wrong.
"essence"? word salad. things are, not being is fantasy talk.
Thus I ask: is rain not an accident and happenstance?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"if being"? word salad, is rock a "being"? is fire a "Being"? ofc not. You are just making shit up. The existence of fire requires three things, three things transform into fire. There is not 1 to 1 or 1 remains as 1. There's transformation. Thus...God doesn't exist. it has nothing to "be".
Thus I ask: Is rain not an accident and happenstance?
your fantasy talk is ridiculous
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"material existence":..existence already assumes material, your bullshit doesn't change that fact.
"attribute"'? lolol
"compounded material entity"? that doesn't even make sense.
"conditional"? matter isn't "conditional"
again: is rain not an accident and happenstance?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
Actually the universe has different dimensions, the universe is made out of energy and matter. "immersed"? nope. it is all there is. It doesn't acquire anything. IT IS the dimensions. You are just creating more false dichotomy.
fire can't exist with three things, thus the necessary being is made out of more than 1.
again: is rain not an accident and happenstance?
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
All the phenomena that once did *not* exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a *cause* that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an *external* factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"all the phenomena"...if you claim that there were, there is no question of "not exist". Fire is the transformation of three things, the things that make the fire existed prior to the fire, everything else is the same: Matter exists and transforms, nothing comes out of nothing.
The "cause" is the mere fact of the properties of matter. three things exist with X property and together make fire.
Thus...there is no "external factor", only matter and energy are required.
Thus no God
transtlantic 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh
"a phenomenon that comes into being"? Fire is the union of three things, the phenomena fire is just the trasnformation of the previous three. The cause is the union of three things, thus there is no "essential neediness", only matter and energy.
There is no being here, there's matter and energy, there's no "need", but matter and energy.
again: Is rain not an accident and happenstance?
why don't you answer to my question? you troll.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to *non-existence*, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator *stops* working, all the bright lamps connected to it *fall* dark. It is for this reason that *cause and effect*, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed *nothing* would remain but darkness and non-being.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
"relationship"? wtf... fire is made by three material elements, if those three are not together forming fire, yet they remain existent. Thus..."non existence" is a fallacy. Because while fire is not there, the three elements that form it, surely are. even if not in contact making fire.
The generator might stop, but the electrons that form the light are still there, but now, not moving in a directed line.
for this reason cause and effect is irrelevant, as matter always IS.
u lose
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
"relationship"? wtf... fire is made by three material elements, if those three are not together forming fire, yet they remain existent. Thus..."non existence" is a fallacy. Because while fire is not there, the three elements that form it, surely are. even if not in contact making fire.
The generator might stop, but the electrons that form the light are still there, but now, not moving in a directed line.
for this reason cause and effect is irrelevant, as matter always IS.
u lose
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@transtlantic Behold! The ingenuity of creation has preceded the skill of industry. The skill employed in setting up tents and shouldaries by artisans, has before gone into the designing; plan of rearing up trees which precedes the propping up of tents with pegs and poles all acquired from trees. It is obvious that this skill has been copied from the ingenuity employed in propping up trees.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
A well rounded education should teach all theories, not just evolution. What about alien interference in man's past and present evolution?
16nowhereman 3 weeks ago
@16nowhereman a well rounded education should teach all fields, science, math, languages, art, culture (religion) etc.
A good SCIENCE education should teach the facts. and the theories for which w actually have good solid evidence. we can teach aliens and creationism when they are proven scientifically
haz020190 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@16nowhereman "A well rounded education should teach all theories, not just evolution"
that is very true, i mean we also have to teach the Germ theory of disease, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Electromagnetism etc etc. we have so many theories, it would be very dumb to only teach evolution.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@JehovahourGod you are a wolf in Sheep's clothes. Here's some honest advice. 1. Slap your parents for making you. 2. Pray to God that your family evolve into Monkey's one day. 3. Slap your parents again.
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
Creationists should stand next to the Westboro Baptist Church monsters with pickets that say "God hates Education" "God hates Thinking". Creationists do not understand the world around them. An unnamed well known creationist stated that Harvard University supports creationism and rejects evolution.
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is not a science class you ignorant , its another religion based on monsterous faith sold to you as science ! think on your own don't go with tho flow ! I hate dumb people
MrCobra811 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod If you are an example of an enlightened creationist/christian, you have failed miserably. God will not be pleased.You have turned more people from God than any atheist ever . In the vernacular of youtube, MASSIVE FAIL.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod Why aren't you more humble then? You boast, and brag and fill the screen with bombastic rhetoric. I see no humility, only arrogance. Practice what you preach. In Corinthians it is written that you can do all sorts of things, with much noise and such, but if it it is done without love(charity) it is nothing but empty hollow gestures in the eyes and ears of God. Do you know your Holy book at all?? You are like the rich man, you will have a hard time entering Heaven .
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod Almost forgot, you must be one of those Pharisees that Jesus mentioned, standing on the street corner, pontificating for all to see. Wailing about how evil your fellow man is, where everyone can see how just and righteous you must be. Jesus suggested you go and pray in private, away from prying eyes, in secret , in your closet. Might be a good idea if you followed his advice, or are you too good for Jesus?
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
@Jehovahourgod hahaha!!!!!! Who cares if you type 90 wpm. As for assertions of intelligence, it's known that that the wise don't trumpet their IQ, it's plain for all to see, or read, as the case may be. Be the air is a bit rarefied, and thin up there in your creationist ivory tower. We lower sorts really should grovel at your pristine feet; alas, I have better things to do, such as wash my socks. Btw that thin air is messing with your ability to cogitate in an effective manner.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Jehovahourgod 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1984potionlover Convoluted logic gives birth to arrogant ranting rhetoric. You have clearly demonstrated this unsound mindset. Subsequently your future will no doubt follow that of Christopher Hitchens, dead and soon forgotten as billions before him. Jehovah is eternal and all who do his will.
Jehovahourgod 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod Orientate?? Dissever? Do you read any of the drivel that you spew Spell check please. Pedophile homosexual? Why the prurient interest in such things? Seems you are the one whose mind strays to thoughts of devience. Takes one to know one, so "they" say.. How many "fundie" ministers have been found to be closet paedos, or homosexuals? Your whole post is utter tripeI'm waiting for the wave of righteous outrage to follow this post of mine. lmfaso!
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ Probably a POE, how could anyone be so undeniably obtuse and stubborn, otherwise?
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@It has been on tv and in the papers. Where have you been? As long as people cling to superstition, and mythology, churches will endure. The intolerant will always use beliefs to bulwark themselves against simple logic and reality. If God is love, why do you spend so much time being hateful and intolerant of those who do not share your ideology? You preach vengeance and hate.Reread your Holy Book. You cherry pick your beliefs. Would Jesus approve of your hatred of others? FAIL
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@So you agree with Richard Dawkins. You heard it here first folks.If your SCHOOL SYSTEM only instructed in you in the teaching of CREATIONISM and you were never exposed to EVOLUTIONISM you would be a creationist. Luckily, science protects the sane from the misguided foolish, superstitious folks who would have us wandering around like it's still the 16th century.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColonPal ummm , perhaps we should forget the Catholics. I'm not going to use institutionalized pedophiliacs as shining examples of forward thinking Christians That being said..most Christians are not raving, backward loons..Just a bit misguided. No one is perfect.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Get it right dude, it's accepting, not excepting If you cannot construct a proper sentence with reasonable spelling, it is unlikely that your thought processes are "evolved" enough to carry out a reasonable logical discussion of anything with any intellectual weight. At least use your spell check. How hard is that?
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod How many have died because of religion? btw it's accepted not excepted. Yer book lernnin leaves a hole heap o' hole roflamo
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod so what's up with your screen name then? Just for shits and giggles is it?
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod So masses of ignorant idiots are a good thing? Mob rule? ok I'm backing slowly away. This is turning into schoolyard politics. Bullies rule and the rest of us better just shut up. How civilized. No wonder that many creationists also have such a loving relationship with their guns, and bombs and manifest destiny.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod you cannot learn if you are not wiling to look at all the evidence. Creationist are apparently happy to remain stagnant and never question anything that isn't in their ancient books. How sad.Of course they cannot tolerate the idea of evolution. They themselves are not evn capable of intellectual evolution, and so they remain, locked in the beliefs of the dark ages. Imagine if modern detectives used the same faulty methods? Common sense is uncommon isn't it? Sad..
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehovahourgod superstitious twat.. satan is the boogey man for ignorant manchildren who can bring themselves to believe that we are animals, . Gotta be special cause the truth hurts too much. It's like the salem witch trials all over again. Mass hysteria, and superstitious claptrap that caused countless innocents to be burned and tortured to death because some idiot girls were afraid of getting into trouble..
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1984potionlover oops, "can't bring themselves to believe we are animals"...
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RobLeveille hat is it with the christian per-occupation with weird sex?..troll
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7CellarDoors sorry for the cut and paste, but if you don't understand what laws and theories are you cannot discuss them properly.You make yourself look like a fool, which is not what you intended,I'm sure. An eloquent windbag spouting flowery flatulent nonsense. Crap is crap no matter how nice it looks on the page.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7CellarDoors In the hierarchy of knowledge, laws are *BELOW* theories, not above.
From lowest to highest:
- Fact: independently verifiable observation
- Law: formulaic description of a series of observations
- Hypothesis: testable claim about a set of facts or laws.
- Theory: explanatory model consisting of facts, laws and hypotheses.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the hierarchy of knowledge, laws are *BELOW* theories, not above.
From lowest to highest:
- Fact: independently verifiable observation
- Law: formulaic description of a series of observations
- Hypothesis: testable claim about a set of facts or laws.
- Theory: explanatory model consisting of facts, laws and hypotheses.
for those of you who don't know what theory is, in science, here's the info. It's not hard. Learn it, and then you won't sound stupid when speaking about science.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7CellarDoors right, and children are such critical thinkers. Likewise teenagers. Seriously, have you seen the tripe that the impressionable young believe? Just look around online, or listen to them sometimes.. Belief in the reality of vampires and werewolves, skinheads, santa claus, mcdonalds as a source of good food. Righttttttttt, let them decide on their own.. what could possibly go wrong? The young tend to pick the weird, the easy, and the downright annoying to their parents.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@achilles197474 talking donkeys, talking snakes, talking bushes make more sense????Give your head a shake before you start criticizing things you obviously don't,or more likely, don't want to understand. If you place christian beliefs along side the beliefs of any other religion, you see the same odd beliefs in supernatural events, and beings. It's all mythology, with a dash of social commentary, religious indoctrination, and some really dodgy history and quack science.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1984potionlover Oh and the ritual cannibalization of god's alleged son. That's just the sort of thing I want my children to learn. (communion, if you don't know what I'm on about). There's torture, incest, human sacrifice, genocide, sexism, slavery as well, just to round things out. Wholesome family reading. Thanks, I'll stick with evolution, saner and much less traumatic for children.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@annie10103 i agree, except i begin to get seriously annoyed with people who don't even try to make logical . Hehe maybe they should make a reality show about religious flame wars. can't be any worse than the stuff that's being broadcast .
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brilliantatheist his mom and dad, eh
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog dude keep up.. it was just in the news that a small proportion of the European population still carries neandertal DNA. we did interbreed with them.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
i thought people where allowed to choose what to teach to their, thats why there r catholic schools
azur0x 1 month ago
Leave this.... Just check out, Justin Bieber is a girl now a days.. ;)
mhfateen 1 month ago
What a stupid bitch, evolution is a theory
philster00700 1 month ago
@philster00700 You said "What a stupid bitch, evolution is a theory."
OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philster00700 Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@philster00700 Oh, sorry, I was trying to correct you and now I understand you were just pointing out the irony of her saying that 'creationism' was a theory. So, please forgive my being presumptuous.
Anyhow, as I am sure you are aware, creationism couldn't possibly be considered a theory because it hasn't been tested and proven repeatedly....and obviously it isn't falsifiable. Creationism would have to be considered an hypothesis at best....and a poor one at that...
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
Why is it that I only need to have my measles vaccine once, could it evolve much slower than a common cold? If there is a micro-biologist out there please answer this has measles ever evolved. I can see lots of disease caused by gene mutation. Sickle-cell disease causes a lot of complications and average life expectancy drops to 42 years. Has any one seen a mutation that increases live expectance or fertility? Are there any communities that have DNA mutations that give them the advantage?
hurdygurdy7 1 month ago
@hurdygurdy7
can you explain why sickle cell disease provides an advantage in environments with malaria?
transtlantic 1 month ago
@transtlantic Yes sickle cell does provide resistance to malaria but life expectance drops significantly due to other complications. On other websites there seams to be long lists of sickle cell complications causing a reduction in life expectancy, so overall I would say sickle sell is a huge disadvantage especially in London, that is why in the UK our National Health Service call it a disease. Are there any Africans out there who think there is an advantage with Sickle Cell?
hurdygurdy7 1 month ago
@hurdygurdy7
Actually life expectancy due to sickle cell disease in environments with malaria, increases. As proven by research papers and documented, testable evidence. You can read more about it at Harrison's principles of internal Medicine, 18th edition.
The complications for not having sickle cell disease in an environment with malaria, is a quicker death and no offspring.
You clearly are ignoring the environmental factor... typical cretard ignorant mistake...and lack of knowledge.
transtlantic 1 month ago
Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Trait are different. If you carry one of each gene for normal haemoglobin and sickle haemoglobin you have sickle trait and have the highest resistance to P. falciparum malaria. If you carry two genes for sickle haemoglobin you have sickle cell disease and have an extreme survival disadvantage. Children from two parents with sickle trait have a 25% chance of having normal haemoglobin, 50% having Sickle Trait, a 25% chance of having sickle cell disease.
hurdygurdy7 1 month ago
Comment removed
transtlantic 1 month ago
@transtlantic harvard.edu quote "A person with sickle cell disease is at an extreme survival disadvantage because of the ravages of the disease process". I think the point you are making is that people with sickle cell disease are resistant to malaria infection. My point is life expectancy isn't increased if you have two genes for sickle haemoglobin as you die from other complications before child bearing age, especial in developing nations.
hurdygurdy7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hurdygurdy7
Harvard. edu quotes:
"Rarely, mutations are detrimental to health."
"Sickle hemoglobin provides the best example of a change in the hemoglobin molecule that impairs malaria growth and development... "
plus your quote didn't disprove any of what I said. And keeps proving that sickle cell disease DOES allow resistance to malaria.
Your point is irrelevant. We both know that you are a creationist. Who ignores that this example PROVES human evolution.
transtlantic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hurdygurdy7
Correct. The trait only bestows a reproductive advantage as long as the frequency of incidence remains below a certain threshold. If there is more than a certain percentage of incidence, then the likelihood of homozygosity becomes too great, and the reproductive advantage disappears. I think this is a classic case of a Hamiltonian "evolutionarily stable strategy" model.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@hurdygurdy7
London is not an environment with malaria, you ignorant uneducated imbecile moronic retard. Are there any africans who think there is an advantage? sure there is:
ALL of them living in an environment with malaria in the middle of africa, where they live longer, HEALTHIER and with healthier and growing offspring, when compared to those without the sickle cell disorder.
You clearly don't know shit about basic Biology...
Have you ever heard about Fitness? you retarded demented fuck
transtlantic 1 month ago
"The Science of God" is a book that answers this question, buy it, read it, understand that the genesis story and evolution are one and the same thing, it is not a dichotomy - educate yourself.
onlyJKan 1 month ago
@onlyJKan LOL "educate yourself" Apply that to yourself
RichtoffenRoach 1 month ago
if you religious people believe that all people are the children of Adam and Eve, then all people on earth must be Jewish, cuz Adam and Eve were Jewish.
arzadi11 1 month ago
@arzadi11 They weren't Jewish
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 Adam and Eve were first told by the Jewish folklors thousands of years ago, before there were any religions in Europe. Christianty is a Jewish religion; it is a branch of Judaism. the New Testiment is all written from the Jewish holy books cuz there were no holy books in Europe. and the story of Adam and Eve are Jewish folklor and they spoke Hibrew to their Jewish God. Even the God of 3 majore religions is a Jewish God, "Jehovah" is the God u pray2 every sunday.
arzadi11 1 month ago
@arzadi11 Moses wrote the book of Genesis 4,000 years ago I think... not sure. Christianity isn't Judaism. It came from Jews, but it also came from Gentiles. And Judaism doesn't believe in Jesus. Therefore it's not Christian.
Well supposedly Judaism, Islam and Christianity worship the same God, but they don't. Because Jews don't worship Jesus at all. Neither do Muslims or Islamists. Christianity is the only religion that believes Jesus is savior and died for the world's sins
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 True, Jews don't believe in Jesus, but that does not change the fact that Christianty is a branch of Judaism. Christianity was made in the Jewish land by the Jewish people and was spread thrroughout the Roman empire and beyond by a Jewish man named St. Paul... After all, Jesus himself was a Jewish man. that picture of Jesus of a blond blue eye man is just a painting, it's a false picture. the true face of Jesus was a Jewish face: olive skin, dark hair & eye, etc.
arzadi11 1 month ago
@arzadi11 Yeah, Christ and Paul were Jews, but not Peter and some other disciples. And Jews get circumcised, Christians, just become born again. I guess you could say it's Judea-Christian, but there's a distinction between the two. Judaism has got laws and regulations. Christians live by faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christianity was also spread by gentiles
Yeah, the paintings are made in likeness and are idealized, we have no idea how Jesus really looked.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@arzadi11 Jesus said to the Jews that if they knew God, they would know He is the Son of God. Most didn't believe Him.
Islam only thinks of Him as a prophet, but He's the Son of God.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oscarmarin1995 does he have a birth certificate to prove it?:P, sorry I'm just joking around...Still laffin about the obama stuff that's been flying around and this just reminded me of that. Peace
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
@arzadi11 "and the story of Adam and Eve are Jewish folklor and they spoke Hibrew to their Jewish God." Actually the earliest record of Adam and Eve were told in Pagan mythology. Summerian to be exact (all though while historians conclude Summeria as the earliest civilization; the Summerians themselves, talk about even older civilizations), and yes they did indeed warship multiple gods...
TheBloodyBlackJackal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not only have two theories. Both Darwinism and creationism is religion, which is NOT evidence. Look at my species formation theory, it is the best, the clip is my cont
54eriks 1 month ago
Comment removed
pimpedpope 2 months ago
I'm looking at the arguments and see one problem. Intelligent design and macro-evolution are two different subjects. Macro-evolutionists will say that abiogenesis, objuscates the issue while they push the singularity and big bang. Creationists claim to refute evolution by using the law of biogenesis. Although the law of biogenesis seems to be the achiles heel for evolutionists, let's drop that and ask for intermediate species; transitional forms; the elusive inbetweens.
LawrenceKennard 2 months ago
@LawrenceKennard
you must be brain damaged.... the big bang has nothing to do with biology, but with astronomy. Abiogenesis is about how the first life form appeared, not how present species transformed from previous species, that would be Evolution.
"law of biogenesis"? there is no such thing.
There is no "achiles" at all. There are intermediate, transitional and quite obvious inbetweens.
My challenge is still up: can you explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
yes/no?
transtlantic 2 months ago
@transtlantic Hey, can you discuss a subject without being nasty?
LawrenceKennard 2 months ago
@LawrenceKennard
HA HA HA HA HA that is fucking hilarious! LOLOLOL
"attributed to louis pasteur", what's next? Talking about the Aether? HA HA HA
you stupid... you can't even READ wikipedia. HA HA HA HA
The "law of biogenesis", applies to already existing organisms, you moron. that rocks don't originate living organisms by spontaneous generation, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which wikipedia CLEARLY points out at the: READ ALSO.section.
transtlantic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic Wow, you really are a jerk huh? Look at your posts.
LawrenceKennard 2 months ago
@transtlantic "The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur" -Wikipedia
LawrenceKennard 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LawrenceKennard
Understand what "law" means in this context:
A formulaic description of a collection of facts.
All Pasteur and his colleagues could observe were *modern*, *complex* lifeforms, and then only those in proximity of his observation equipment, at times he was observing them. So his "law" applies only to those complex, modern organisms he could observe.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@LawrenceKennard: Since evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, no matter how much creationists insist it does, the law of biogenesis isn't a problem for evolutionists.
(And it may be wrong anyway. While life did not arise on its own in any environment we've tested, we simply haven't tested all possible environments)
As for transitional forms: Look up "List of transitional fossils" in wiki (for example). There are quite literally tons of those, you just need to look at them... will you?
goreth01 1 month ago
@goreth01 How wonderful it is to hear from someone civilized! Yes, I will look those up. Give me a few days since I am quite buzy at home and work. But, like I said before, linking abiogenesis with evolution has been the fault of evolutionists as well as creationists. Remember how often you hear, "12-20 billion years ago a singularity...a primordial soup was hit by lightening..." Yes, I will look it up with alacrity!
LawrenceKennard 1 month ago
@LawrenceKennard: Well, youtube is pretty rife with trolls.
Do that, you'll find the evidence for evolution is rather massive.
Well, abiogenesis is certainly a big part of the scientific version of the 'where everything comes from' narrative and leaving it out would leave a hole in the story. They should probably mention more often that this part still remains to be proven.
goreth01 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LawrenceKennard some people have also suggested that comets,etc. may have deposited some type of biomaterial whaen they impacted with the earth. The reasoning is that this bio-material(?) may have activated somehow when it hit the the primordorial soup, or helped to kickstart our own life. I wish I could site the sources for this idea. Perhaps someone else has some links for extra-terrestrial sources of life on planet earth?
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1984potionlover As far as I know this isn't considred a crackpot notion..It might help explain how life started here..alas it doesn't help us with the ultimate "HOW" of the beginning of .Must chuckle tho..if it was proven to be true, it would make the creationists very uncomfortable. Good luck with your studies:) I hope your quest for knowledge continues,and is as much fun, and as enlightening as minecontinues to be.!!
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Macro-evolutionists will say that abiogenesis, objuscates the issue while they push the singularity and big bang »
You do realise that biology and cosmology are different branches of science, investigating different facets of the observable world, right? And that within biology, evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are two different fields of research?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« elusive inbetweens »
They're only elusive as long as you refuse to go near any museum of natural history, kid.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
populations tend to change only when there is a need to change. Even then it isn't all at once. look at animals today in threatened habitats. They simply don't have time to adapt to new conditions. We are talking generations needed, but no time for those generations to be.
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
In Turkey (my home) a teacher got exiled to a far away city just because he had a chat with one of his students on Darwin. And a prestigious Science Magazine got cencored by the goverment because it was on Darwin. Thats... my goverment :(
Geckuno 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See a great lecture called: story of life origins: the obvious version
Gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.
Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.
Suggests: if we put aside our preconditioning , and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE.
joflavius 2 months ago
I think that in the USA, creationism should be thought. Also, the number of people in science classes should be reduced. It will help the USA a lot.
vmelkon 2 months ago
casshyr obiously never had a parot.. moron like alot of people...believe you can fly hard enough .....and....um....you still cant fly!!!! they have no understanding of anything. so they resort to believing!!! its there only option..cant think so believe!!!!
i love when these people defend creationism as truth because "thats what i was told" there a theory, for ya!!! "if sombody told you to blow yourself up in a car bomb, i guess thed do that to"" wait a minute they do that dont they!!!!!!
goodlaugh1 2 months ago
Darwin was an ass & all his theories have been proved false meaning no scientific evidence.Darwin actually believed that Whales evolved from Polar Bears
MrPreston49 2 months ago
Yes that it.Apes to humans not so different.Yes of course.Stuff God.
Thank God I,m an Atheist.
Zodist 2 months ago
We've all evolved, but creatards haven't evolved as far intellectually. :P
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
:trololo:
TheNoNameUsername 2 months ago
religion is not a theory.. a theory is supported by fact... religion is hypothesis.. an idea founded by a higher primate
HamiltonSuperRecords 2 months ago
@buschmann69 You couldn't tell the difference between shit and champagne, so, y'know, I'm not concerned if your lower than average, evolved brain can't see why you're wrong. But you are wrong. there are plain facts all around you that are reasonably easy to comprehend. But you don't comprehend it, do you. 'Cos you ain't so bright, are you?
What firm evidence can you provide for yourself to confirm that you are above average intelligence?
USERNAMEfieldempty 2 months ago
Acception Evolution theory in school was the most nauseating thing i remember,beeing forced to accept pseudo science lies and carbon dating bs that refers on a 160 yo piece of a vulcano to have billions of years old,to take benefit from it are never easy,especially if they aren´t anti creationist,and we find fossilized hats and cowboy boots with 50 years old...
Heitor619 2 months ago
@Heitor619: Sigh. That load of bullshit again.
1) Scientists don't use carbon dating to date billions of years old rocks.
Carbon dating only works properly on dead life less than 60.000 years gone and they know that.
2) I'd really like the creationists to try and prove this story of theirs about scientists getting the date of new rocks totally wrong. What little details there are varies with who's telling the story.
And curiously no names are ever mentioned. I call bullshit again...
goreth01 2 months ago
@Heitor619, Cont:
3) Nothing fossilises after 50 years. Things may look a bit like they did, but they are pretty much just crusty.
In fossils, minerals have replaced all organic components. Rest assured that this is not the case with your 50 yo cowboy boots.
So... moar bullshit.
What are you going to bring up next? The dinosaur footprint that had a human footprint put next to it by a lousy creationist forger?
Seriously, the amount of lies you creationists resort to is just sad.
goreth01 2 months ago
@Heitor619 You are not too bright are you. How do you explain the fossils, dinosaurs living and changing over 160 million years. Mineral deposits on a hat or boot is not fossilization. And proving it does not take very long is just a excuse, it does not prove a young earth.
gregrutz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Heitor619 ..perhaps if you took the time to delve a wee bit deeper into the subject , you wouldd find a few answers..do your own research, but don't presuppose what your answer will be.. Look at sensible arguments from both sides and you may get an inkling as to who is telling the truth.The first people who got a real notion of how very old this planet is were devout Christians, even ministers, who enjoyed learning more about the mysteries of antiquity. Check their stories out!
1984potionlover 4 weeks ago
I honestly think that Creationism should be taught not because I'm a Christian. But because it is a plausible theory that ACTUALLY has gained a lot of ground while evolution has faltered on many occasions.
zz060210 2 months ago
@zz060210: Err... all the evidence found so far supports evolution and none of it supports creationism.
Also, creationism has only lost ground since Evolution came up. Among scientists there is pretty much no support for creationism left.
And care telling me where evolution has "faltered" outside of the imagination of creationists?
As far as I know it explains pretty much everything about life, made many correct predictions and all attempts to prove it wrong have failed.
goreth01 2 months ago
@goreth01 not really, for starters the actual atomosphere of the earth at it's beginning could'nt have created the nessesary proteins for life. Also, fossils have supported creationism in that there is no "missing link" between two kingdoms that Darwin was so sure we would find. There is no "half fish-half mammal" type organism. People believed that the Archaeopteryx was the link between reptiles and birds, but it is now know that this dinosaur is not a true ancestor to modern birds.
zz060210 2 months ago
@zz060210:
1) No, we don't know that it couldn't have. Scientists are still working on if and how.
Also, that's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't deal with how exactly the first life arose, only where it went from there.
There also are plenty of 'missing links'. Some of them still alive even. Like mudskippers for a fish-amphiba link. (asking for a fish-mammal link is quite weird, there's a huge history between them and any early reptile would fit the bill)
goreth01 2 months ago
@zz060210, Cont: There's also quite a bunch of human-ape links: Google hominid fossils.
Even if we actually hadn't found those, comparative genetics still proves a common ancestor of all life on earth.
Also lack of evidence for (or even contradiction of) evolution is not proof of creationism no matter how much you guys like to think that.
And yes, Archaeoperix IS a bird-dino link and there is no doubt about birds being descended from dinosaurs. Where do you have that ridiculous lie from?
goreth01 2 months ago
@zz060210, Cont: I've read plenty of stuff from creationists. I've yet to see any remotely convincing argument let alone evidence for creationism (or disproof of evolution for that matter).
I did however see plenty of lies, straw men, quote mining and plain ignorance.
And I don't think being written by a former atheist makes 'A Case for a Creator' any more compelling.
goreth01 2 months ago
@zz060210, Cont:
As for predictions evolution made, here's one example: Humans and other great apes have a different number of chromosomes.
Evolution predicted that two ape chromosomes had merged in humans (losing a chromosome pair would be lethal). And that is what genetic analysis found. It's chromosome number 2.
Or that whales evolved from some doglike animal. Biologists knew that long before they finally found the fossils confirming it in Iran a few years back.
Want more examples?
goreth01 2 months ago
@zz060210, Cont: And lastly, micro- and macroevolution is a false disctinction. Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution piled up over a long time.
To accept one and reject the other, you'd need to prove that there is some kind of mechanism that prevents too many mutations from accumulating. Or that there wasn't enough time, but the proof of earths extremely old age is very solid.
goreth01 2 months ago
@goreth01 not really, microevolution is something like an insect growing a resistance to a pesticide, whereas macroevolution is the complete changing of a species to the point where it's a completely new species. Also this "mechanism" you say i need to prove, i can answer that simply: God, although He's not really a mechanism. I could give give you many proofs about God, but I doubt you'd accept them and try to refute them be using something else that hasn't been completely proven.
zz060210 2 months ago
@zz060210: Yes, really. If microevolution is a population aquiring a new trait,
macroevolution is a population aquiring so many new traits that interbreeding with the
parent species becomes impossible: Speciation (A process that has been observed btw).
And as for God preventing macroevolution, even if you could prove Gods existence,
you'd still need to prove that he actively prevents macroevolution for your argument to work.
Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Just ask Ken Miller...
goreth01 2 months ago
@goreth01 not at all, if i prove God's existance and that He created the world, then He would have every right and the power to come into the world and do anything he wanted to it. If it's His world and His laws then he could change them at any time, couldn't he?
zz060210 2 months ago
@zz060210: Wrong! Just that he COULD does not prove that he DOES.
If you were able to prove God is real, that wouldn't automatically prove everything else you believe about him.
Also: We know there is nothing to prevent 'macroevolution' because speciation has been observed and we have loads of evidence that it did happen. The fossil record has lots of intermediary forms, many species have obvious leftovers of their ancestors, genetic and physical (f.ex. birds have genes for teeth), etc.
goreth01 2 months ago
@goreth01 ok, just one question: if you believe in evolution then we are just "sophisticated monkeys," right? Then explain why we have a moral code embedded in us. you don't see monkeys punish one of their own kind because they're a murderer, and yet we do, why? Also these 'intermediary forms' can't be established as fact because we can't determine what their skin was like or what they ate, that's all speculation. This may seen like a weak argument, but it is legitimate.
zz060210 2 months ago
@zz060210: Easy, morals are good for survivial, because harming other members of your group will likely end up harming yourself and helping them will make them more likely help you.
And actually monkeys have been observed punishing other monkeys for immoral behaviour.
Well, we're certainly missing details, but even just the bones tell us a lot. Also, there are fossils where the structure of the skin or even what they ate is preserved, they're very rare tho.
goreth01 2 months ago
@zz060210 "you don't see monkeys punish one of their own kind because they're a murderer, and yet we do, why?" => you should watch Discovery once in a while, instead of always reading the Bible. Even penguins display morality where if a mother tries to take eggs from another mother, other penguins will step in and stop her.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Thanks but I get out, contrary to your belief. So they step in and stop her, but do they punish her? there are two different things. And even if they did and i'm wrong, I still don't see how our morality could have evolved from theirs. Also if we evolved from them why can't they talk? Where does language come onto play? Scientists don't even know how to replicate a voicebox. Also where do feelings come into play? Animals have emotions, but not feelings. They are different
zz060210 2 months ago
@zz060210 "but do they punish her?" => if she keeps persisting, yes. A form of punishment observed including banishment. "Also if we evolved from them why can't they talk?" => A LOT OF THEY DO TALK. Animals do communicate with each other, and a lot of animals do have voicebox. Seriously..how can you not feel embarrassed making mistakes like this? My 8 year old cousin knows this.."Animals have emotions, but not feelings" => yea right, tell that to a dog lover, or a farmer who works with horses.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr That's not what i mean by them "talking." They can communicate, which is obvious, but what i mean is TALKING! I mean language. Apes don't have sounds for "bring it here" or "go fetch water." "They don't have the capacity to form the specific highly specialized movements required for speech sound production." was one answer i found. Quite simply, if they don't, why do we?
zz060210 2 months ago