Gaps in Evolution

[Charles_Darwin]

Yes, because you haven’t bothered to study other fields in order to round out your knowledge. It might allow you to see the error of your ways if you could concentrate on things outside of science (which can’t answer metaphysical questions).

Bias and unrounded are not the same. Science is not bais against god, it just exposed the ignorance that is often associated with religious belief.

 

[texson]

We know our origins, no god involved. We know how life could form, no god involved. We know how planets form, no god involved. We know how solar systems form, no god involved. We know how stars form, no gods involved. We know how black holes form, no gods involved. We know how galaxies form, no gods involved. We know how nebula form, no gods involved. So what exactly do we need a god for when clearly he doesn’t do anything.

Who exactly is this “we” in whom you include yourself, CD? Every single one of these
examples you cite are based on almost pure speculation. Humanity has never observed
any of these to record how they happen. You KNOW nothing about these origins.
You believe that certain scientists have come to correct conclusions regarding them.
Geez, CD, as smart as you think you are, you sure come up with some deep bull droppings.

It is sad that you are blinded to the fact that such complexities of our physical universe
are far too complicated to happen by chance. You are an example of a complex creature
who could not have occurred by random chance. Get the blinders off, you look stupid wearing them.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Who exactly is this “we” in whom you include yourself, CD? Every single one of these
examples you cite are based on almost pure speculation. Humanity has** never observed
any of these** to record how they happen. You KNOW nothing about these origins.
You believe that certain scientists have come to correct conclusions regarding them.
Geez, CD, as smart as you think you are, you sure come up with some deep bull droppings.

It is sad that you are** blinded to the fact that such complexities **of our physical universe
are far too complicated to happen by chance. You are an example of a complex creature
who could not have occurred by random chance. Get the blinders off, you look stupid wearing them.

There are so many things wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to begin. No wonder i come across as condescending.

Firstly we HAVE observed plenty of thoses events. Secondly we DONT HAVE to observe them to know how they occured. Do prosecuting lawyers have to see someone being murdered to know someone has been murdered? No they can piece together the evidence.

How do you know what i know? Also i dont believe the scientists as in believe the “person”. I believe the evidence they present, which is peer reviewed AND REPEATABLE! What you really mean is YOU dont know anything, you are ignorant of science and it’s method. That is not my fault, you should educate yourself.

What happend by chance? Chemistry is NOT chance. Abiogenesis is NOT chance. Evolution is NOT chance. All you have succeeded in doing there is showing everyone that you don’t even have the mose basic understanding of these theories.

You are the one with the blinders on, the blinders or ignorance. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess school wasn’t good to you.

 

[Thorwald]

Actually there is strong evidence to suggest neanderthal could do all that just aswell as we can.

The animal kingdom is filled with specialized skills for survival. They construct various ‘homes’, dams, etc. The higher orders of the animal kingdom also have ways of ‘enjoying themselves’. Some also use rocks in order to break open clams, etc., but they all don’t do the same things. The Neanderthals ‘created’ (manufactured) tools/weapons (paintings?). This does not prove ‘evolution’. All of these things (through knowledge) could just as well have been given to them from day one.

We see today, that all animal kingdom species, have their own part in the survival of all others, including us. You are assuming, that this was not necessary at the beginning. Where is your proof?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The animal kingdom is filled with specialized skills for survival. They construct various ‘homes’, dams, etc. The higher orders of the animal kingdom also have ways of ‘enjoying themselves’. Some also use rocks in order to break open clams, etc., but they all don’t do the same things. The Neanderthals ‘created’ (manufactured) tools/weapons (paintings?). This does not prove ‘evolution’. All of these things (through knowledge) could just as well have been given to them from day one.

We see today, that all animal kingdom species, have their own part in the survival of all others, including us. You are assuming, that this was not necessary at the beginning. Where is your proof?

LOL of course it doesn’t. That does not get away from the fact, that evolution is a FACT. I can’t talk to you about evolution any more that i could talk to a dog about maths. For that seems to be the equivalent level of understanding.

You do know that all your church gaffers believe in evolution too.

 

[josie_L]

(you need to prove this wrong with the evidence we have available) No this is where your fundimentally incorrect in your reasoning. I dont need to prove anything. You being the one with the hypothesis are the one that needs to “prove” it. This video will explain where you are going wrong, and save me a lot of typing.

Oh and your opinion is meaningless.

youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Oh and mentally unstable criminals ARE controlled with medication .

Yes, I have to prove my hypothesis but then so do you (because it has not been proven that our consciousness and brain are one and the same). Thus, you stating to Planten that just because we can see emotions chemically affecting the brain as proof that the brain is the originator of these emotions, is false.

P.S. Does that medication make them more loving?

 

[josie_L]

Bias and unrounded are not the same. Science is not bais against god, it just exposed the ignorance that is often associated with religious belief.

But science isn’t the only means by which to know “truth” that is why Buffalo (and myself) stated you are biased as you seem only interested in what Science has to say.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Yes, I have to prove my hypothesis but then so do you (because it has not been proven that our consciousness and brain are one and the same). Thus, you stating to Planten that just because we can see emotions chemically affecting the brain as proof that the brain is the originator of these emotions, is false.

P.S. Does that medication make them more loving?

I have to prove that every single human action is linked to chemical reactions in the brain??? Thats already been proven.

I am skeptical of the claim there is consciousness outside the brain. Its not up to me to prove there is NOT.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But science isn’t the only means by which to know “truth” that is why Buffalo (and myself) stated you are biased as you seem only interested in what Science has to say.

NO NO NO, im only interested in what we can back up with EVIDENCE! Why is this so hard to grasp??? Do you even know what science means? Go look it up. You also don’t seem to understand the difference between SUBJECTIVE truth and OBJECTIVE truth.

You can claim you know god, and you can believe you do. But then someone can claim the EXACT same execpt with a different god. This is SUBJECTIVE. Whereas gravity is OBJECTIVE. If you drop a brick no matter what you believe it wil fall at 9.8ms^2. I dont care about subjective belief, when it comes to futhering our understanding of the cosmos it is meaningless.

 

[josie_L]

NO NO NO, im only interested in what we can back up with EVIDENCE! Why is this so hard to grasp??? Do you even know what science means? Go look it up. You also don’t seem to understand the difference between SUBJECTIVE truth and OBJECTIVE truth.

You can claim you know god, and you can believe you do. But then someone can claim the EXACT same execpt with a different god. This is SUBJECTIVE. Whereas gravity is OBJECTIVE. If you drop a brick no matter what you believe it wil fall at 9.8ms^2. I dont care about subjective belief, when it comes to futhering our understanding of the cosmos it is meaningless.

No, you can’t understand the difference between SUBJECTIVE truth and OBJECTIVE truth, as you attempt to manipulate science to fit your worldview (case in point, stating we have conclusive evidence/proof that emotions originate from the brain when no such thing has been confirmed). Because you interpret science through the eyes of an atheist you axiomatically rule out any other possibility or hypothesis and expect others to accept this without argumentation.

P.S. You have not answered how mere (dead) matter brought into existence consciousness?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No, you can’t understand the difference between SUBJECTIVE truth and OBJECTIVE truth, as you attempt to manipulate science to fit your worldview (case in point, stating we have conclusive evidence/proof that emotions originate from the brain when no such thing has been confirmed). Because you interpret science through the eyes of an atheist you axiomatically rule out any other possibility or hypothesis and expect others to accept this without argumentation.

P.S. You have not answered how mere (dead) matter brought into existence consciousness?

OMG do some research, its a fact.Every emotion is linked to a chemical reaction. So you can hypothesise all you want, but thats all it is.

What do you mean matter dead? Show me one person that has suggested “dead matter” brought into existence consciousness?

 

[texson]

Abiogenesis is NOT chance.

OK, Mr. Condescension, let us address only one of your many fallible statements.

Since it has been proven many times over that life does not arise from
non-life, you would do well to take in some rational thought on abiogenesis
by clicking the following link: trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Dawkins himself relegated abiogenesis to random chance. I suppose you
think yourself more knowledgeable than Dawkins was?

 

[Thorwald]

LOL of course it doesn’t. That does not get away from the fact, that evolution is a FACT. I can’t talk to you about evolution any more that i could talk to a dog about maths. For that seems to be the equivalent level of understanding.

You do know that all your church gaffers believe in evolution too.

You make ‘evolution’ all-inclusive. There are changes brought about by climate, availability of different food sources and even medical differences. Food preferences and availability can create drastic differences, on their own. The ‘passing on’ of certain medical problems through heredity will also create differences. There are differences in body metabolism, whereby most humans can eat peanut butter, whereas this same ‘food’ will kill other humans. Are you labelling all of these differences ‘evolution’?

Why is it, that many animal & plant lifes have ‘developed’ poisons/toxins, but the rest did not. How did the change to ‘teeth’ come about (carniverous animals versus plant eaters).

Why is it, that only human beings use fire for many purposes, but all other life forms do not? The ‘gap’ between Humans and animals is like two different worlds. There is no way in this world, that humans evolved from other animal life forms. Your ‘evolution theories’ are full of it.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

OK, Mr. Condescension, let us address only one of your many fallible statements.

Since it has been proven many times over that life does not arise from
non-life, you would do well to take in some rational thought on abiogenesis
by clicking the following link: trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Dawkins himself relegated abiogenesis to random chance. I suppose you
think yourself more knowledgeable than Dawkins was?

Im not interested in what Jerry Bergman of Columbia Pacific “University” has to say on the subject. This is EXACTLY what i am talking about. If you want to learn about abiogenesis why don’t you read up on what the real scientists have to say?

Im also not interested in you quote mining Dawkins. While there is an element of chance involved this does not mean abiogenesis is random chance. Even high schools kids are aware of the fact that chemical reactions are anything but random, do you have any sort of education?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But science isn’t the only means by which to know “truth” that is why Buffalo (and myself) stated you are biased as you seem only interested in what Science has to say.

Its by far the best way.

You do realise there are 100’s of millions of religious scientists. Do you think they are all bais against religion too??? Do you think none of them have looked for evidence of god? Science is simply about knowledge. It DOESNT exclude anything, its just that “god did it” is NOT an answer, and when we find the real answers there is no need for myths and gods.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**You make ‘evolution’ all-inclusive. There are changes brought about by climate, availability of different food sources and even medical differences. Food preferences and availability can create drastic differences, on their own. **

These are called selection pressures, and are one of the main driving forces of evolution. Surly you have heard the phrase natural selection?
**
The ‘passing on’ of certain medical problems through heredity will also create differences. There are differences in body metabolism, whereby most humans can eat peanut butter, whereas this same ‘food’ will kill other humans. Are you labelling all of these differences ‘evolution’?**

Yes? Why did god create some humans unable to eat peanut butter lol.

Why is it, that many animal & plant lifes have ‘developed’ poisons/toxins, but the rest did not. How did the change to ‘teeth’ come about (carniverous animals versus plant eaters).

I’m lost for words. SO your whole argument basically boils down to… “I don’t understand evolution and i don’t know anything about the subject. Therefore evolution can be true and a god made us all.”

Dude read a book of something. Here…

youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

Why is it, that only human beings use fire for many purposes, but all other life forms do not? The ‘gap’ between Humans and animals is like two different worlds. There is no way in this world, that humans evolved from other animal life forms. Your ‘evolution theories’ are full of it.

We are not the only animal ever to use fire.

 

[texson]

Im not interested in what Jerry Bergman of Columbia Pacific “University” has to say on the subject. This is EXACTLY what i am talking about. If you want to learn about abiogenesis why don’t you read up on what the real scientists have to say?

Im also not interested in you quote mining Dawkins. While there is an element of chance involved this does not mean abiogenesis is random chance. Even high schools kids are aware of the fact that chemical reactions are anything but random, do you have any sort of education?

Obviously, from all the thoughtful and potentially enlightening posts you have
received from St.A, josie L and many others, you aren’t interested in anything
but your own little, narrow viewpoint. It is obvious to the rest of us that you do
not care to learn or expand your knowledge. I will not see you in hell because
I will not be there. It is a foolish and painful path you have chosen. Your arrogance
is unbelievable.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Obviously, from all the thoughtful and potentially enlightening posts you have
received from St.A, josie L and many others, you aren’t interested in anything
but your own little, narrow viewpoint. It is obvious to the rest of us that you do
not care to learn or expand your knowledge. I will not see you in hell because
I will not be there. It is a foolish and painful path you have chosen. Your arrogance
is unbelievable.

My arrogance!!! I have spent years are university working my butt off to learn and understand these subjects. Learning REAL science form REAL scientists. You then post utter nonsense from the discovery institute and prople like Jerry Bergman (PHD Biol from “Columbia Pacific University” quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/cpu.html ).

You don’t even understand the basic fundamentals of these theories, or science for that matter. You CLEARLY have NO eduction in this area. Yet with out a second though you dismiss 100’s of years of work by the greatest minds this earth has known **AND YOU CALL ME ARROGANT!!! **That is arrogance on a whole new level.

I am not arrogant, im dismissive, i have have no probelm dismissing the the scientific opinions of the scientifically illiterate.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of the subject time and time again. Why on earth would i ever listen to anything you have to say on the matter?

 

[buffalo]

My arrogance!!! I have spent years are university working my butt off to learn and understand these subjects. Learning REAL science form REAL scientists. You then post utter nonsense from the discovery institute and prople like Jerry Bergman (PHD Biol from “Columbia Pacific University” quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/cpu.html ).

You don’t even understand the basic fundamentals of these theories, or science for that matter. You CLEARLY have NO eduction in this area. Yet with out a second though you dismiss 100’s of years of work by the greatest minds this earth has known **AND YOU CALL ME ARROGANT!!! **That is arrogance on a whole new level.

I am not arrogant, im dismissive, i have have no probelm dismissing the the scientific opinions of the scientifically illiterate.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of the subject time and time again. Why on earth would i ever listen to anything you have to say on the matter?

What is a “real” scientist? Give me a break. Please widen your scope.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

What is a “real” scientist? Give me a break. Please widen your scope.

Well a real scientist is one that sticks to the scientific method. One that earns there qualifications. Give me a break and actully LEARN something about a subject before passing comment on it.

What is it that makes you think you know more about the subject than the combination of the worlds leading peers? What is it that makes you think you are the first scientifically illiterate person to have uncovered something that all the greatest minds at all the greatest universities have misseed.

Give me a break, you have a scientific eduction on a par with most 10 year olds, and thats me being nice. Your opinion on the likes of evolution is worthless.