Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 241 of 305 (432442)
11-06-2007 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by sidelined
11-06-2007 2:12 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
Oh really? Since when do logic, math and science postulate the existence of an omnipotent entity that cannot be seen ,heard, touch, smelled or tasted or be shown to follow rigorously from first principles in a way that is compelling beyond reasonable rebuttal?
4000 years ago. For the first time, dieties which can be seen and heard by the senses were overturned. Its a scientific premise: when one believes in a Creator - or any underlying control source, or even the lack of it - that source has to be, at least, transcendent of what is universe contained. Think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 2:12 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 12:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 242 of 305 (432443)
11-06-2007 3:15 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
Q: Aside from the internal factors which illustrate how life forms graduade, what is the source believed by evolutionists, which controls evolution? Is this seen as occuring of and by itself, in evolvements of complexities fron randomity, in grads, and this caused by what is aka 'NATURE'? And what exactly is this thing called 'nature' - is this a force driven without a driver, and knows where to go by itself - based on what scientific premise?
When discussing evolution, which is presented as a naturally occuring process [read, no need to explain it], applying itself in mid-point [no background is provided], and after the fact of life is already emergent - it is good to delve further and away from the internal factors focused only on its process. The premise that evolution does not discuss how life formed, or what evolution really is - aside from what it does as per ToE, is insufficient for its credibility and veracity.
I see no possibility of truth or logic in the acceptence that only the process of what occurs to life, after life has appeared, as a sufficient acceptance by evolutionists. It requires total expounding. Thus far, all evolutionists have done as a response, is bash creationism: this is insufficient and not one which vindicates.
The deflection to other faculties like cosmology is unacceptable, aside from showing a lack of knowledge in biology itself: after all, the universe is an intergrated system, and not really sectionised as biology and cosmology sectors.
The first applicable factor here is: is evolution a universal constant? Are its features universal factors, such as adaptation and speciation: would organism learn to adapt to other conditions outside earth; would viruses on pluto evolve to zebras and humans, or similar life forms? Yes/no; why yes/no?
Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 4:41 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 5:54 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 247 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 243 of 305 (432452)
11-06-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 3:15 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
would viruses on pluto evolve to zebras and humans, or similar life forms? Yes/no; why yes/no?
No, because the conditions on Pluto are drastically different from the conditions on Earth.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 3:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 5:42 AM DrJones* has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 305 (432454)
11-06-2007 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by DrJones*
11-06-2007 4:41 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
No, because the conditions on Pluto are drastically different from the conditions on Earth.
So *Adaptation* works only on harsh earthly conditions!?
Are you really comfortable with that, and does it mean it is thereby not possible for life to exist, emerge or evolve elsewhere [different conditions], or do you mean, other reasonably similar to earth conditions would surely result in life? I mean, the premise of adaptation has to have some substance, else it becomes superfluous, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the term describing it.
Further, what enables the virus or inanimate products to appreciate which is the right conditions: they must be able to see both and differenciate? If the conditions are not right in Pluto, can they see that in another galaxy the right conditions prevail, and would they mirgrate there, as do birds and animals here?
However one answers those questions, it appears encumbent there must be a hovering control or brain centroid which allows or facilitates the actions occuring; or else free floating particles have inherent abilities to perform this task - which is the same thing in the sense it is an independent, external controll mechanism operative here? Otherwise, in the absence of any explanation, it does not sound very imperical and scientific, and shows no requirement on ToE adherants to justify the basis of ToE's underlying principles.
Based on your response, we have adaptation being reduced to a limited and conditional adaptation, despite that there is a claim it functions here in almost any adverse conditions, even in volcanic cores and oceanic pressure at the sea bed. it does not function in other harsh conditions, and it is also subject to time factors, which make their manifestation in any generation examining it impossible. its not the minutae factors of how a virus evolves via dna to a retro virus - these have no shortage of answers; it is the hovering principle of ToE which requires evidencing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 4:41 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 261 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 2:46 PM IamJoseph has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 245 of 305 (432455)
11-06-2007 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 3:15 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
Q: Aside from the internal factors which illustrate how life forms graduade, what is the source believed by evolutionists, which controls evolution?
N - A - T - U - R - A - L frickin' S - E - L - E - C - T - I - O - N.
When discussing evolution, which is presented as a naturally occuring process [read, no need to explain it]
Why should we "read" a true statement as an utterly false one?
I see no possibility of truth or logic in the acceptence that only the process of what occurs to life, after life has appeared, as a sufficient acceptance by evolutionists. It requires total expounding. Thus far, all evolutionists have done as a response, is bash creationism: this is insufficient and not one which vindicates.
The deflection to other faculties like cosmology is unacceptable, aside from showing a lack of knowledge in biology itself: after all, the universe is an intergrated system, and not really sectionised as biology and cosmology sectors.
I wish you'd learn English.
would viruses on pluto evolve to zebras and humans, or similar life forms? Yes/no; why yes/no?
No. Humans and zebras did not evolve from viruses.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 3:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 6:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 246 of 305 (432459)
11-06-2007 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2007 5:54 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
N - A - T - U - R - A - L frickin' S - E - L - E - C - T - I - O - N.
Your imperical proof? Else, how do you know so? And is this a universal premise?
quote:
Why should we "read" a true statement as an utterly false one?
To find out if it is true.
quote:
No. Humans and zebras did not evolve from viruses.
That's cheating. Yourself.
blue marbles come from red marbles, red marbles come from blue and yellow marbles, yellow marbles come from green, yellow and black marbles with green dots in them. They all come from marbles when you track them all down.
I don't see anything existing or real called NS - except as a placebo for the inexplicable. i wonder where this term would fit in Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:14 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2007 12:29 PM IamJoseph has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 247 of 305 (432464)
11-06-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 3:15 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
The first applicable factor here is: is evolution a universal constant? Are its features universal factors, such as adaptation and speciation: would organism learn to adapt to other conditions outside earth; would viruses on pluto evolve to zebras and humans, or similar life forms? Yes/no; why yes/no?
Evolution does not occur in a (ahem) vacuum - one of the factors that is often overlooked in those sorts of discussions is that of gravity - if the gravity was only marginally 'stronger' or 'weaker', then life on earth would look radically different. Gravity is far weaker on pluto.
Here is some other information about pluto:
quote:
Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface.[44] As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground. As it edges closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much like sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation has a cooling effect on the surface of Pluto. Scientists have recently discovered,[45] by use of the Submillimeter Array, that Pluto's temperature is 10 kelvins colder than expected.
Why would you expect something in those conditions to evolve to look like a zebra or a human?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 3:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 7:31 AM CK has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 248 of 305 (432465)
11-06-2007 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 6:35 AM


THIS TITLE IS IN ALL CAPS
blue marbles come from red marbles, red marbles come from blue and yellow marbles, yellow marbles come from green, yellow and black marbles with green dots in them. They all come from marbles when you track them all down.
But if you took more care not to lose them in the first place, you wouldn't have to track them down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 6:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 7:32 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 305 (432467)
11-06-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by CK
11-06-2007 7:13 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface.[44] As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground. As it edges closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much like sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation has a cooling effect on the surface of Pluto. Scientists have recently discovered,[45] by use of the Submillimeter Array, that Pluto's temperature is 10 kelvins colder than expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you expect something in those conditions to evolve to look like a zebra or a human?
I can just see some viruses going YUMMY! As I said, adaptation and NS are very selective and moody critters - they seem to only like one planet, and one cuisine, which makes the terms adaptation and NS very dubious here. I agree, gravity, as other factors would apply - if one subscribes to the principle, which I do not: its unscientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:13 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 250 of 305 (432468)
11-06-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 5:42 AM


Is this a joke thread?
quote:
So *Adaptation* works only on harsh earthly conditions!?
Are you really comfortable with that, and does it mean it is thereby not possible for life to exist, emerge or evolve elsewhere [different conditions], or do you mean, other reasonably similar to earth conditions would surely result in life? I mean, the premise of adaptation has to have some substance, else it becomes superfluous, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the term describing it.
Expect he never said that - he said that a virus would not evolve to a human or a zebra on Pluto - that's not the same as saying evolutionary processes would only occur on the earth.
quote:
Further, what enables the virus or inanimate products to appreciate which is the right conditions: they must be able to see both and differenciate? If the conditions are not right in Pluto, can they see that in another galaxy the right conditions prevail, and would they mirgrate there, as do birds and animals here?
Is this a joke? viruses flying at warp speed to other galaxies?
If this is not a joke, I'm afraid your grasp of basic science is too weak to make this a productive discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 5:42 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by cavediver, posted 11-06-2007 8:21 AM CK has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 251 of 305 (432469)
11-06-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2007 7:14 AM


Re: THIS TITLE IS IN ALL CAPS
Point taken. But it does look like zebras come from viruses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:14 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 252 of 305 (432475)
11-06-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by CK
11-06-2007 7:31 AM


Re: Is this a joke thread?
If this is not a joke, I'm afraid your grasp of basic science is too weak to make this a productive discussion.
Are we only just coming to this conclusion regarding IaJ
Then again, what the hell am I still doing here??? I feel I have lost valuable life reading this damn nonsense thread
Oh, what does that sign say (squints)... "don't feed the troll"
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:31 AM CK has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 253 of 305 (432488)
11-06-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 1:18 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
IamJoseph writes:
that this is the first alphabetical book, with a continuous, multi-page narrative which never existed before.
You do realise that the Epic of Gilgemesh is older? As is the Decent of Inanna.
This may sound familia:
The Flood .
. .
Thus was treated .
Then did Nintu weep like a .
The pure Inanna set up a lament for its people,
Enki took counsel with himself,
An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag . ,
The gods of heaven and earth uttered the name of An and Enlil.
Then did Ziusudra, the king, the pashishu of . ,
Build a giant . ;
Humbly, obediently, reverently he . ,
. the gods a wall .
Ziusudra, standing at its side, listened.
“Stand by the wall at my left side . ,
By the wall I will say a word to you, take my word,
Give ear to my instructions:
By our . a flood will sweep over the cult centers;
To destroy the seed of mankind .
Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods.
By the word commanded by An and Enlil .
Its kingship, its rule (will be put to an end).”
(“History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-nine Firsts In Recorded History” by Samuel Noah Kramer pg 151-152 © 1981 University of Pennsylvania Press)
Ziusudra - The Sumerian "Noah"
Even if Moses did write the Pentateuch he wrote it in a post Abrahamic time.
What was the city Abraham came from again? Could it be the post Sumerian flood city of Ur?
IamJoseph writes:
Controversial issues such as incest and beastiality, which have never been confronted before, are dealt with in the most proper manner,
I dare you to read the Epic of Gilgemesh and say that again.
IamJoseph writes:
All laws, bar none, the world accepts in their institutions, have come from here - exclusively; how is this possible? Not a single worldly law comes from any other theology or philosophy till today.
LOL; never heard of the Code of Hammurabi, have you?
IamJoseph writes:
Historically, a host of cultures, nations, countries, kings and events are mentioned which knowledge is not available elsewhere; 3000 year historical figures, such as King david, are scientifically proven - while we cannot do the same for 2000 and 1500 year figures.
Yawn. This is too easy. I take it you have never heard of the Sumerian King List?
150,000 years of rulers. Easy win.
IamJoseph writes:
As science and math are closely associated, one can discern the power of the OT texts via maths.
Hmmm, how about this for lasting appeal:
"So the Sumerians invented calendars, which they divided into twelve months based on the cycle of the moon. Since a year consisting of twelve lunar months is considerably shorter than a solar year, the Sumerians added a "leap month" every three years in order to catch up with the sun."
http://wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM
I appreciate this is all off topic but I could not resist these open goal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 1:18 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 9:50 AM Larni has replied
 Message 259 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 2:35 PM Larni has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 254 of 305 (432494)
11-06-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Larni
11-06-2007 9:12 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Larni:
Easy win.
Yep. Untouched into the end zone.
Consider yourself high-fived.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Larni, posted 11-06-2007 9:12 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Larni, posted 11-06-2007 1:29 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 255 of 305 (432512)
11-06-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 2:51 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
IamJoseph
4000 years ago. For the first time, dieties which can be seen and heard by the senses were overturned.
Please show us where you have evidence of this.
Its a scientific premise: when one believes in a Creator - or any underlying control source, or even the lack of it - that source has to be, at least, transcendent of what is universe contained.
Why is this the case? Please clarify this statement. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 2:51 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 1:55 PM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024