|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
darkstar writes: I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes exposing macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions, that the truth will be made known... I'm not sure about your quote obsession. You could provide a billion quotes and not falsify evolution - though a few appropriate pieces of scientific evidence would do the trick. Short on evidence-based arguments? However, since you seem intent on a quote-party, I'll give you another quote from L.L.Cohen, also out of Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Keep in mind this is the first quote by Cohen I've found:
Cohen writes: 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories. This quote discredits Cohen multiple times: - "any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides"- False. We have witnessed random mutation give rise to changes in size, shape, and form - therefore "strictly...purposeful" is incorrect. This statement denies the possibility of micro-evolution. - "Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them."- False. Duplications, rearrangments, point mutations, insertions, deletions are all methods that can contribute to a changing, and sometimes 'increasing', genome. Cohen's statement denies that mutations of any kind occur, and thus denies microevolution. - "The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence"- False, again. Essentially restating the lie that DNA is immutable except by a designer. The statement denies microevolution. Darkstar - Cohen flat out denies the possibility of micro-evolution through his statements. Indeed, he denies the possibility of mutation of any kind through his statements. Perhaps this is not someone you should be quoting, though part of the Cohen quote you provide:
Cohen writes: It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. Is absolutely true, and no true scientist should argue with this specific point. However, Cohen remains a poor choice to support your pro-micro-evolution view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Adolf Hitler was heavily intoxicated with the beliefs of evolution... Hitler was also a Christian, as were the "American white-hooded cult", and those that committed the near genocide of the natives of North America and Australia - as you mention in your disgusting poem. In fact, some of these atrocities predate the theory of evolution - how do you explain that? Considering the Bible and God describe and advocate murder, genocide, and slavery, and that these things have occurred regularly throughout human history, I'd be careful trying to pin them on a theory that few heard of until the past hundred years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Some quotes then on the theory of: Rocks + Water divided by Time * Violent events = (creating) complex life. I guess you still haven't figured out that what you describe is the theory of abiogenesis, and not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life. I guess you also haven't yet figured out that quotes are meaningless in trying to falsify a scientific theory - you need evidence, and quotes are not evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Evolution is a Medieval belief! It was once believed flies arose from rotting flesh. Frogs from wet mud. Mice from wheat. That is NOT evolution, and evolution is not a medieval belief. You have seriously confused the theory of evolution (the origins of species) with the theory of spontaneous generation of life, or abiogenesis (origins of life). The theory of evolution is one of the past 200 years of so... NOT medieval. How can you criticize a theory when you don't even know what it states?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life. No for it can not! Ok, whats your best evidence? Evidence for what? (You just agreed with me on a point, so I don't know what you want evidence for...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Evolution is a wide belief, matter coming alive and becoming more complex over time with chance events and mutations. No? Because thats what the school text books teach! If someone believes that the theory of evolution states that "matter comes alive," they do not understand the theory of evolution. If someone is being taught that, it is incorrect. Please give me specific examples of these school text books you mention - if they are stating that the theory of evolution describes the origin of life, I'll write a nasty letter to the publishers since they are spreading lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Evidence for what? Pink sasquatch.....lol.... No, really. Seriously, what were you asking for? You agreed with a point I had made, and then asked for my best evidence. What did you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Can evolution explain the orign of life. NO! You are absolutely correct.
Then the theories foundations are not solid. Evolution does NOT try to explain the origin of life, therefore the fact that is does NOT explain the origin of life say NOTHING about the solidity of its foundations... Try finding out what the theory is before you try to discredit it - seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Darkstar,
Please respond to my previous post when you get a chance:http://EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 -->EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Let's call it an unfortunate misunderstanding in a zealous quest to confirm the theory of evolution. That statement seems to characterizes your entire quote-mining expedition, for not only are the quotes out-of-context, you yourself are not even aware of the context of your quotes. You also don't seem to realize that even if you were able to produce thousands of quotes, in context, from reputable speakers, that would have no ramification for the theory of evolution. Theories are falsified by evidence, not by quotations. Can you not come up with any evidence to refute the theory of evolution? As far as moving on to the Cohen quote - as I showed before, Cohen does not believe that any change can occur in DNA without "a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence". This means he does not believe DNA mutation ever occurs, and thus reveals himself as a scientific ignoramus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
First let me say it would be appropriate to get your "anti-Lucy" evidence from peer-reviewed scientific sources rather than simply quoting creationist websites - the latter leave me unimpressed.
I would gather that he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing with the laws that he made, I mean, after all, he is god, right? Who is going to argue with him? He can do anything? Even create species via macroevolution? Then who are you to argue with Him?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024