Time to clear the decks...

[copacetic]

It avoids the possibility of having a real debate...

A debate about what?

The first post in the thread doesn't make it particularly clear what we are meant to be discussing.

 

[copacetic]

There is however enough evidence to cast serious doubt on the validity of the theory.

You can make up whatever scenario you like, regarding the validity of the theory of evolution, if it pleases you.

It does not change the fact of evolution that the theory seeks to explain....

 

[Swa]

Sorry, its just the truth. 99% of them dont know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

99.999% get hooked on the whole theory terminology, not understanding how science works (ie gravity is also a theory).

There we go again with the "gravity is also a theory" mumbo jumbo. Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact or a law. The Newtonian Theory of Universal Gravity and General Relativity are theories that explain how gravity works and there are also at least two theories trying to explain why gravity works. Gosh you claim to know the difference between theories and facts yet fail to. Just like you fail to recognise your fallacious arguments that even people who believe in evolution point out. You probably also think that all theories are equal like string theory compared to your "theory" of gravity.

And its not like we "evolutionists" have never tried to explain both points. Look at our post history - we really have tried!

You can proclaim that the sky is a blob of spit till you're blue in the face and it still wouldn't make you right. Logic has proven your arguments a fallacy. You get that? IT'S PROVEN IT and you can't even prove evolution.

But eventually I realized theists do not want to understand evolution. They really dont. Understanding it in some way threatens their world view, so they refuse to.

Why else would people confuse abiogenesis and evolution after all this time? I refuse to believe that everyone who debates on these forums (and in other places) is so slow, stupid and/or ignorant as to be incapable of understanding the difference. Yet the mistake is always made. Why?

Because abiogenesis IS evolution. You get biological evolution which is from one or a few organisms to many and chemical evolution which includes non-living to living matter. You see now why you can't use loaded words interchangeably? It's a fallacy! Get it?

It's flawed logic that makes you automatically wrong. Even if you're right it's purely on chance like the throw of a dice.

Well frankly I am getting sick of these evolution threads. They always go like this:

Creationist: Evolution is a lie because I fed my cat a flower but it didnt evolve into pikachu. And there is no way life started from a bunch of chemicals, last night I mixed handy andy, sunlight soap and a bar of chocolate, and cooked it on the stove for 3 hours, but I didnt see any T rexes (there was a weird froth on the surface though). Clearly evolution is a lie because of foul broth did not evolve into a charizard.
Person who understands evolution: I would welcome a debate on evolution. Might I point out that evolution takes generations, possibly thousands of years, in order for results to be visible? Also evolution doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life, thats abiogenesis.
Creationist: Hurp a dur, heres a quote from a guy who has his Phd in Theoretical Physics from the Christian University of Texas, he says evolution is a lie and a governmint conspiracy. And what about that fossil record stuff, I hear its all fake.
Person who understands evolution: oh boy. Why bother?

I know it sounds insulting, and I'm sorry if the dear reader of this is one of few who understands the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but for the majority, what I say is true, and thats why these threads go like they do, and thats why they are so uninteresting.

The majority? Are you serious? Dude, I have never heard that from a creationist but I've heard such convoluted misrepresentations of the argument from many evolutionists. Now can I also have some of that stuff to smoke?

Everyone knows this thread was created with religious motives in mind.

The statement about the sky applies equally to you.

The fact that this group (i shall label them) only questions the theory of evolution in the manner that they do is all but proof that it is religion related. Why do they not question other scientific theories in such an aggressive manner? Of course i have no problem with one questioning scientific theories but then one must atleast have something better to back it up with. They don't do this, instead they sit on the internet (the product of relativity theory, quantum mechanics theory, electro-magnetic theory) saying mildly retarded things with their fingers in their ears.

Techne's only answer to this will be "stop bringing religion into the debate".

Because it's only this theory that's fallaciously claimed a priori fact by a certain group of individuals with their OWN RELIGIOUS MOTIVES.

 

[Swa]

FYP to what actually happened. Or you just easily believe BS, because it certainly wasnt disproved to you, not scientifically (read, with evidence)

Go piss on your own lawn. Changing my post is mighty disingenuous of you. Nest time you WILL be reported for fraud.

 

[Swa]

You can make up whatever scenario you like, regarding the validity of the theory of evolution, if it pleases you.

It does not change the fact of evolution that the theory seeks to explain....

And you can make up whatever scenario you like regarding the "mountains" of evidence for it but it still does not change the fact that it's just a theory. The only way to disprove that is to prove it and not by resorting to fallacious arguments that only make you sound more stupid.

 

[empirex]

And you can make up whatever scenario you like regarding the "mountains" of evidence for it but it still does not change the fact that it's just a theory. The only way to disprove that is to prove it and not by resorting to fallacious arguments that only make you sound more stupid.

Well along with Punctuated Equilibrium, The Public Goods Hypothesis and the Post-Modern Theory of course
Consensus ftw right... or not

 

[alloytoo]

No, the result of x1-5 having died but the rest not is called natural selection.



Describing who survives. I meant no agency behind using 'sorting' just a descriptive term from an observers POV.

Deja vu.

 

[alloytoo]

It avoids the possibility of having a real debate...

The OP preempted any real debate.

 

[alloytoo]

There we go again with the "gravity is also a theory" mumbo jumbo. Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact or a law. The Newtonian Theory of Universal Gravity and General Relativity are theories that explain how gravity works and there are also at least two theories trying to explain why gravity works. Gosh you claim to know the difference between theories and facts yet fail to. Just like you fail to recognise your fallacious arguments that even people who believe in evolution point out. You probably also think that all theories are equal like string theory compared to your "theory" of gravity.

You do a marvelous job of explaining Gravity as a fact which theories seek to explain.

Less marvelous job in explaining why that is any different from the fact of evolution which the theory of evolution seeks to explain.

 

[Swa]

You do a marvelous job of explaining Gravity as a fact which theories seek to explain.

Less marvelous job in explaining why that is any different from the fact of evolution which the theory of evolution seeks to explain.

Because you ignore the fact of what the words mean. What you claim to be the fact of evolution is nothing more than mutation leading to some change. Well whoopee doo it's [-]light years[/-] miles away from proving that I'm an ape (the theory of evolution). What you do is swap the term evolution interchangeably for both which makes it perfectly okay for everybody else to do so as well. But you then turn around and use the fallacy of equivocation so you can refute your strawman. Seems we have a twofer when it comes to fallacies here. Don't pretend you don't know that you're doing it. We both know you are not some dumbass that doesn't know when someone is saying evolution is unproven/just/only a theory that there's a 99.9% certainty they are referring to the theory of evolution. Which means if you're doing it you're being completely disingenuous.

Why is it different from the theory of evolution? Because the theory of gravity has smackloads more evidence to back its assertions up. Actual testable predictions. This again proves why analogies are bad at explaining things. In fact analogies are usually terrible at explaining things. But then we get to some thumbsucked tripe like string theory that has even less to back it up. I reject that not because it has any implication for God's existence but because I believe it's garbage. Why should the reason be any different for rejecting evolution?

Well along with Punctuated Equilibrium, The Public Goods Hypothesis and the Post-Modern Theory of course
Consensus ftw right... or not

Oi, don't derail my argument.
True though. Thousands of differing opinions on evolution yet it must have happened, while religion is denounced based on the same differing opinions. Who would have ever thought that logic should be invited to enter the picture.


I want to expand on this natural selection. We see a bunch of creatures that have survived and call them the selected ones because of their traits. This is all just retrospect. For NS to truly be something you have to be able to predict what traits will influence survival in what manner. Otherwise it's just like describing the flow of water after it had already carved a river that was impossible to predict. If this is so it's nothing but a descriptive term for a random chance occurrence equal to saying **** happens. It's nothing, meaningless.

On another note though discovered this...

Your point is mistaken. If evolutionary biologists tell me tomorrow that they all concur that life at the very basic beginning has been designed, I'll accept it in a second. I'll be gobsmacked, but my paradigm can shift man. It has done so many times before. So the irony of you calling me fundamental and closed minded all the while sucking the cock of a celestial peeping tom for which no credible evidence exists, is quite the joke.

Wow! Just wow! The ultimate admission of faith. And in stories written by other humans, imagine that. Then to top it off no originality at all. If they are wrong then no question as to why the "mountains" of evidence "proved" otherwise and no asking if they are really right the second time and didn't actually have it right the first time.

 

[Ancalagon]

Because abiogenesis IS evolution. You get biological evolution which is from one or a few organisms to many and chemical evolution which includes non-living to living matter.

Techne, you wonder why I refuse to debate evolution. Look at this guy - doesnt know evolution from a bar of soap but claims he does. Swa, how can you debate it when you nothing about it? Its like me trying to debate the advantages of Tampax of Lil'lets - I know nothing about either. And you know less about evolution than I know about tampons, which is nothing.

Regarding gravity, what if Newton's theory was just called the theory of gravity? Then we would have the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity, which attempts to explain it. Thats exactly the case with evolution - there is both the fact and the theory.

But yeah, no point. You are clearly a raving mad fundamentalist Christian. Why bother posting here? What do you get out of it? Looks like you are just making yourself mad from your posts. And let other Christians, who actually understand more than you do, join the debate.

I'll say this again. Evolution is just as bad science as ID. Even if you disproved God today I would much rather believe in aliens because evolution has been disproven to me a long time ago.

How would you know? You dont have a clue what evolution even is. You dont know what it is, you just know you dont like it. The only things you know about evolution are the lies you have been fed. And you are too stubborn to investigate those lies and find the truth. You feel threatened by it, although I cant understand why.

 

[Swa]

Techne, you wonder why I refuse to debate evolution. Look at this guy - doesnt know evolution from a bar of soap but claims he does. Swa, how can you debate it when you nothing about it? Its like me trying to debate the advantages of Tampax of Lil'lets - I know nothing about either. And you know less about evolution than I know about tampons, which is nothing.

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
FEED you ignorance. YOU don't even know the difference between the fact and the theory of evolution. You didn't even know that there are a myriad different evolutions and even multiple different chemical evolutions. YOU are a prime example of the google scientist I was talking about.

Regarding gravity, what if Newton's theory was just called the theory of gravity? Then we would have the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity, which attempts to explain it. Thats exactly the case with evolution - there is both the fact and the theory.

What the heck are you on about? IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IT'S CALLED. WHAT MATTERS IS ONE'S PROVEN AND ONE'S NOT. You however confuse the two deliberately. IT'S A FALLACY. My post to alloytoo specifically refers to YOU.

But yeah, no point. You are clearly a raving mad fundamentalist Christian. Why bother posting here? What do you get out of it? Looks like you are just making yourself mad from your posts. And let other Christians, who actually understand more than you do, join the debate.

And you are a raving mad fundamentalist Atheist. Why do YOU post here? What do YOU get out of it? Must be the LOLZ: "ZOMG here's another one of those pesky fundamentalist christians that don't know anything! Let me just stay ignorant and not even try to find out what he knows."

How would you know? You dont have a clue what evolution even is. You dont know what it is, you just know you dont like it. The only things you know about evolution are the lies you have been fed. And you are too stubborn to investigate those lies and find the truth. You feel threatened by it, although I cant understand why.

What the **** do you know what I know and don't know. Are YOU God? You are just like all the other fundamentalist religious zealots. You are rude, arrogant, obnoxious, and even piss off people that believe in evolution with your superiority complex.

 

[Swa]

You post has just been reported btw. Now have a nice day.

 

[Ancalagon]

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
FEED you ignorance. YOU don't even know the difference between the fact and the theory of evolution. You didn't even know that there are a myriad different evolutions and even multiple different chemical evolutions. YOU are a prime example of the google scientist I was talking about.

You know quite well what people refer to when they say evolution - they mean the evolution of living species over time according to the principles of natural selection. Not "chemical evolution". Funny how that wiki page is not actually a term but a disambiguation page - why am I not surprised?

What the heck are you on about? IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IT'S CALLED. WHAT MATTERS IS ONE'S PROVEN AND ONE'S NOT. You however confuse the two deliberately. IT'S A FALLACY. My post to alloytoo specifically refers to YOU.

Exactly, we could call what is now the theory of evolution, the theory of bob. Then we would have the theory of bob and the fact of evolution. The fact that the two have the same name confuses many people.

You cant prove a theory - your ignorance is showing again. theories can be refuted but not proved. If you knew anything about science you would know this. But obviously you understand nothing, because your fundamentalist brain doesnt allow you to.

And you are a raving mad fundamentalist Atheist. Why do YOU post here? What do YOU get out of it? Must be the LOLZ: "ZOMG here's another one of those pesky fundamentalist christians that don't know anything! Let me just stay ignorant and not even try to find out what he knows."

I'm a rational skeptic. I understand things before I reject them. I understand a lot more about religion than you do about science.

Then we try to have a scientific debate on here, but we cant, because people like you spout their inane nonsense. Yes, its nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking, and are too arrogant and stubborn to make an attempt to understand what it is you are debating. So you shout as loudly as you can to try drown out the other voices.

What the **** do you know what I know and don't know. Are YOU God? You are just like all the other fundamentalist religious zealots. You are rude, arrogant, obnoxious, and even piss off people that believe in evolution with your superiority complex.

It doesnt take God to know you dont know jack about evolution or science. Look at your posts, they tell the story.

I'm only rude, obnoxious and arrogant to arrogant people who claim to know things they dont, like yourself. If you just admitted that you dont know a thing about evolution, and educated yourself, I wouldnt react this way. But you refuse to, and that makes me mad.

And just admit, please, that you do not want a scientific theory. You were talking about God's creation - evidently you want it to always be God's creation, and not something not involved with God. So tell me what kind of "scientific" theory you would accept? Right, none. You dont want a scientific theory, because you dont want science providing explanations for things previously thought to be God's work. Just admit that. You dont have to pretend that you dont agree with evolution. You can just admit that it goes against your religious principles - actually I would like that far more. But you dont want to admit that, you want us to believe that you are rational and dismiss evolution on rational grounds, which we know not to be the case since you dont even know what it is.

 

[porchrat]

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
FEED you ignorance. YOU don't even know the difference between the fact and the theory of evolution. You didn't even know that there are a myriad different evolutions and even multiple different chemical evolutions. YOU are a prime example of the google scientist I was talking about.

It has the word evolution in it sure but it is not the same thing as biological evolution. They are two entirely separate scientific disciplines with entirely separate theories explaining the observations.

Otherwise we could start including technological evolution and the evolution of language in this discussion and that would just be silly.

Just because something has the word "evolution" in it doesn't mean it is closely associated with things like evolutionary biology. Which, using the context, you should have easily been able to determine was the topic of discussion.

 

[copacetic]

And you can make up whatever scenario you like regarding the "mountains" of evidence for it but it still does not change the fact that it's just a theory. The only way to disprove that is to prove it and not by resorting to fallacious arguments that only make you sound more stupid.

You are an unpleasant little ****, reading through your posts, I'd advise you to tone down the attitude, and the insults.

 

[porchrat]

Because you ignore the fact of what the words mean. What you claim to be the fact of evolution is nothing more than mutation leading to some change. Well whoopee doo it's [-]light years[/-] miles away from proving that I'm an ape (the theory of evolution).

If this is what you think is the extent of the observable evidence behind these theories then I have to say that while I don't like calling people ignorant the claims of your ignorance are not an exaggeration friend.

 

[Ekstasis]

Your post has just been reported btw. Now have a nice day.

FTFY

 

[Jab]

Go piss on your own lawn. Changing my post is mighty disingenuous of you. Nest[sic] time you WILL be reported for fraud.

 

[porchrat]

... evolution has been disproven to me a long time ago.

Nobody I know of has ever claimed evolution is proven wrong.

LOL I just noticed this now.