horrible thought on evolution

[Frank Merton]

Indeed. I hoped it was absurd enough to be obvious.

I don't know if you really have seen yet how "absurd" some proponents of things can be.

[tipsy_munchkin]

I don't know if you really have seen yet how "absurd" some proponents of things can be.

Oh I have. I just live in hope.

[danielost]

All living beings, no matter if plant, protozoa, bacteria or vertebrate are selfish. Most are not vile because they don't understand the concept (which is precondition to being vile). And every species tries to be dominant in its environment. Some are more successful than others though.

trying to be dominant is not being selfish. generally speaking the only place conivores seem to attack others are the big cats and hyenas in africa. this is because they are in each others way. the rest of the world it seems they have a picking order from biggest to smallest.

[danielost]

The theory of relativity caused people to believe the universe is vast and complex and that we are just on one little rock spinning around one of many many many stars. Such perspective makes people feel insignificant and therefore they abandon all morals. Ever since we had this information society has gone downhill. Therefore the theory of relativity must be wrong and if i drop me keys they damn well aren't going to fall cause by this logic I must also throw out all evidence on which the theory is based.

After all its just a theory so I can choose if it exists or not. Its not like a huge body of evidence exists to support it because i personally never read such evidence.

Sound familiar?

except gravity isn't a theory its a law. Evolution is theory based on very little evidence, when it comes to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a proven fact.

[Rlyeh]

except gravity isn't a theory its a law. Evolution is theory based on very little evidence, when it comes to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a proven fact.

No, the theory (or theories) of gravity explains why the phenomena occurs.

http://thehappyscien...y-theory-or-law

Edited November 3, 2013 by Rlyeh

[cormac mac airt]

except gravity isn't a theory its a law. Evolution is theory based on very little evidence, when it comes to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a proven fact.

No, it's not. In science a Law explains what is happening, but not why or how it happens. That's where a scientific theory comes into play as it explains the latter and is not the same thing as a "theory" in a non-scientific context (i.e. a laymens usage of the word).

cormac

Edited November 3, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[danielost]

You have it backwards.

[larryp]

". . . I'm a committed Bible-believing Christian who accepts Jesus as the only path to salvation. I just happen to believe that on the basis of scientific understanding that God guides the process of life - the official term is "Theistic Evolution". . ."

A committed bible-believing Christian, like yourself, should read his bible. Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is said that God created plants and animals to reproduce "after their kinds". I'm assuming you can read?

[larryp]

I think this beautifully illustrates the arrogance of ignorance I speak of. It takes not knowing basic things to be so arrogantly wrong.

Basic things that have no support. I'm not gullible like you.

[larryp]

Your reply smacks of willfull ignorance, apparently for no other reason than to play the "all opinions are equal" card. They're not and the ignorance you so desperately cling to could, and should, be put aside for an actual understanding of the difference between the two uses of the word "theory". The non-scientific usage of which is meaningless when discussing evolution (or pretty much anything else of a scientific nature).

cormac

You have a knack for talking in circles.

[larryp]

Your quote is out of context and no doubt drawn from creationist propaganda. . ."

I have a strong feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. If the quote is out of context, what book is it taken from?

[+Link of Hyrule]

[/size]

A committed bible-believing Christian, like yourself, should read his bible. Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is said that God created plants and animals to reproduce "after their kinds". I'm assuming you can read?

Yes, I can read. Quite well, actually. I was reading before I could talk, actually. More than that, I can write as well. So while you're busy deriding my comprehension skills, take a moment to read the following link:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=224183&st=15&p=4240259entry4240259

It's a post I wrote on this topic about a year ago, perhaps it may be of interest.

[Emma_Acid]

You have it backwards.

No, he doesn't.

[aquatus1]

Larryp, out of the 9 posts you have made so far, 5 contain snide commentary to people you have never spoken to, 4 accusations of ignorance, 3 direct character attacks, 1 response that has nothing to do the post, 1 clear misunderstanding of a scientific concept, 1 expectation that another person's opinion on a subject is wrong because it does not match your opinion (in all fairness, that is fairly common when we are talking about interpretations of the Bible), and 1 demand for a source for a quote that you yourself made, but didn't source.

What we don't see are actual explanations or even clear statements of position. It's like all you've done so far in to come into complain about what other people say. Do you have an opinion of your own that you are willing to discuss, bearing in mind that, this being a discussion forum and all, you will be expected to defend your opinion and show support for your claims?

[Arbenol]

Larryp, out of the 9 posts you have made so far, 5 contain snide commentary to people you have never spoken to, 4 accusations of ignorance, 3 direct character attacks, 1 response that has nothing to do the post, 1 clear misunderstanding of a scientific concept, 1 expectation that another person's opinion on a subject is wrong because it does not match your opinion (in all fairness, that is fairly common when we are talking about interpretations of the Bible), and 1 demand for a source for a quote that you yourself made, but didn't source.

What we don't see are actual explanations or even clear statements of position. It's like all you've done so far in to come into complain about what other people say. Do you have an opinion of your own that you are willing to discuss, bearing in mind that, this being a discussion forum and all, you will be expected to defend your opinion and show support for your claims?

But that's pretty standard for the average creationist argument. Whether they're arguing for intelligent design or young earth creationism, they have little to offer in the way of evidence to support their view. The acceptance of their theories depends entirely on trying to pick enough holes in evolutionary theory to cast the seeds of doubt (employing as many logical fallacies as possible), and then present creationism as the default alternative. All without presenting any evidence in favour of it.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Arbenol68

[larryp]

". . . bearing in mind that, this being a discussion forum and all, you will be expected to defend your opinion and show support for your claims?

I was thinking the same thing about most of the post I've read so far, but don't worry additional evidence is coming, can't you hear it.

Edited November 4, 2013 by larryp

[aquatus1]

I was thinking the same thing about most of the post I've read so far, but don't worry additional evidence is coming, can't you hear it.

It is conspicuous in its absence. In your first post, you posted on of the most common and basic mistakes made by creationist, and it was answered with both a definition and an example. You dismissed both as BS and double-speak, and then posted an incomplete quote (again, an old, old, creationists tactic, so old that there is even a website dedicated to all this "quote mining" they do). When your quote was challenged, instead of explaining it, you..demanded it be sourced. Your quote, and you demanded it be sourced by someone else.

You aren't discussion evolution. You aren't even disputing evolution. All you are doing it is denying it. And you are doing so using the same tactics that have been used for over 50 years by creationists.

Well, here and now, you have a chance to educate yourself. You have already seen that you are mistaken in the definition of common "theory" and "scientific theory". I won't go into Paranoid Android's advanced reputation regarding his knowledge of both science and his biblical faith, but I would mention that his abilities in intelligent discussion are sufficiently advanced that he can actually discuss the topic, instead of making personal comment about others. If you want to be thought of as an intelligent contributor to the discussion, try leaving the childish taunts back in the playground, and instead make a point, support it, and when a counter is given (and counters will be made in discussions) respond to the counter in a reasoned and civil manner. You will find the response to be much, much, warmer.

[Odin11]

I have a strong feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. If the quote is out of context, what book is it taken from?

The quote that you are trying to quote mine is: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."

It's from the Origin of Species: Chapter 9, about 5/7 of the way in. But lets see the whole paragraph:

"On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species. The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created."

Yeah, out of context.

[aquatus1]

Indeed. And even at that, Darwin made a tiny mistake in being so absolute about evolution only proceeding in a slow and steady manner. Nowadays, the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium" would have answered some of the questions that had poor Darwin pulling at his hair (as would genetics have answered his infamous question about how the heck something like a peacock could possible be considered fit enough to survive).

[larryp]

You have already seen that you are mistaken in the definition of common "theory" and "scientific theory".

No sure, I'm not mistaken about anything. Just because you stick a definition beside the word "theory", then say look, it's a scientific theory, oppose to a regular theory, does not make it legitimate. Who's going to believe that made up word without support? We where not born last week friday.

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

[Euphorbia]

No sure, I'm not mistaken about anything. Just because you stick a definition beside the word "theory", then say look, it's a scientific theory, oppose to a regular theory, does not make it legitimate. Who's going to believe that made up word without support? We where not born last week friday.

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

Are you not aware that words can have different meanings depending on context. Obviously not.

Charles Darwin's book came out in 1859 I believe and his book was a stepping stone. Much of what he said has been expanded on and some has been supplanted with new information.

Read some real science instead of just your bible or bible based websites!

[scowl]

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents [sic] of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

We did. We've found them.

[cormac mac airt]

No sure, I'm not mistaken about anything. Just because you stick a definition beside the word "theory", then say look, it's a scientific theory, oppose to a regular theory, does not make it legitimate. Who's going to believe that made up word without support? We where not born last week friday.

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

The scientific community would be the ones using the scientific definition of "theory". And they've been using that definition for a long time. That you apparently don't like it is irrelevant to its usage within scientific circles.

cormac

[The Id3al Experience]

He did it again, instead of producing evidence, he picked one line out of the post and cried about it? This is a dead end people. Trolling heaven.

[+Link of Hyrule]

No sure, I'm not mistaken about anything.

Yes, you are.

Just because you stick a definition beside the word "theory", then say look, it's a scientific theory, oppose to a regular theory, does not make it legitimate.

Yes, it does.

Who's going to believe that made up word without support?

Every scientist on the planet. Every human being who has even a most basic grasp of scientific principles and the Scientific Method. But since you wanted support for this view I link you to Exhibit A -

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

There's more in the link but this, particularly the highlighted area, shows how a scientific theory is not just unsupported guesswork, as you are implying it to be.

We where not born last week friday.

Flippancy won't get you very far, Larry. Especially when you haven't put forward any information of your own and routinely ignore 99% of points made to you.

Even your father, Charles Darwin

My physical father was a great man, immigrated to Australia from Latvia in the late 40's/early 50's, and raised me and my brother in total love, unfortunately passing away in December last year. My spiritual father is God, the creator of heaven and earth who loved us so much that he gave his only son to death, so that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

I don't have any fatherly emotions to Charles Darwin, so I can only assume this statement is an attempt to dismiss the view without considering it in detail.

said,without the presents of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

Thinking, thinking, thinking. Now linking

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

There are transitional fossils!

Edited November 5, 2013 by Paranoid Android