Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:32 AM
27 online now:
Meddle (1 member, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 226 of 305 (432274)
11-05-2007 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
11-04-2007 11:21 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
ToE is overtaking religion. Note the extent of rejection here of everything, coupled with a total inability to respond to anything which is legitimate! We may soon see the day when the charge of heresy is proclaimed in all who do not bow to ToE and Ceasar. But mighty Rome is no more.

quote:

Several, does not mean what you select. I gave you one check list.

No you haven't, and you still have not refuted the facts of the forams.


My check list began with the very opening of genesis contextually, as was asked of me, which says the universe is VERY 'FINITE'. You must either agree or disagree with the factors in my check list. I do not have to refute any items mentioned in ToE; I am only disputing the conclusions derived therefrom, namely principles: these are unscientific, immathemtical, illogical and unevidenced - specially where it conflicts with genesis. You cannot admit it, but with the aspect of speech - you have lost that one - despite all the excuses for not being able to evidence genesis wrong - the easiest thing with regard to communication progressing to speech. Similarly we see, forams don't perform the trick in our midst: tell us all your reasons why not - is it because of an inability to define it?!

quote:

Not so: while an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence - this is hardly the case with evolutionary imprints - so the response is based on diabolical premises. An offspring is not negatable how it is derived. I call it casino science.

It doesn't matter what you call it and you haven't done squat to refute evolutoin yet -- the link from parent to child is just as demonstrable as is descent of living species from common ancestors by DNA -- the "seed" that gets passed from parent to offspring.


Of coz I have done more than squat: there is no proof or evidence what is claimed by ToE, and the criteria for such proof does not rely on what a ToE advocate chooses. Parents which pass on a seed, and a virus which leaves an imprint on a fossil, have a problem in their equationalising: they reproduce the traits of the parentage, in realtime, able to reproduce its own kind. This renders all the factors of speciation superfluous. Unless you can perform that trick w/o the seed?

quote:

There is no hereditary linkage in evolution, ...

But you just said there is: "... an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence ... An offspring is not negatable how it is derived" so you are contradicting yourself already -- a feature common with people who misrepresent the truth.


No contradiction. Humans do not resemble virus'; they do their parents. Nor do human offspring deviate and then return as humans: because they reproduce their own kind. And if you find a stray part of a human organ resembling another resting on a fossil, it does not evidence ToE: the entire bases of your arguement!

quote:

... while there is absolute linkage with host parents. The fulcrum factor is, a miriad of other reasonings can apply in the evolutionary premise - but solely one applies with an immediate offspring. This applies to all your responsa, which appears in the same vein - the fulcrum non-virtual issues are replaced with imaginative, academic vitual specs. The equivalence is distorted and contrived.

You are babbling again -- if you stop trying to sound intelligent you might actually be able to say something meaningful. Try simple words and aim for clarity, you might be surprised at the result.


Read again. Comprehension must precede science understanding.

quote:

Humans fly planes - does it mean the tail-light of a plane spells evolution from birds to humans? No - because we can see where tail-lights come from, and we do not see them coming from birds per se. But the latter scenario can very easily be contrived by scientists - specially so when their conclusions are accepted by virtue of fcontrived reasonings, and no conclusive proof is demanded.

I've seen some ludicrous straw man arguments in my time but this is really devoid of any possible relationship to evolution.


It is a principle held in ToE, that each life form begat its traits by its mechanisms being osmosized for another life form. I showed that traits can be adapted, without a life form becoming another one, as in humans flying planes.

quote:

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits (DNA or "seed") in populations from generation to generation, the only trail is from parent to offspring, which you acknowledge.


Better, which you don't acknowledge.

quote:

Irrelevent - these are twists and turns to propel a certain perspective and view, which leads to a preferred conclusion - its anything to run far from nearing any actual proof. To get closer to understanding where it is poor casino science - you have to contemplate the reverse premise: what factors would enable a subset of an octopus eye to appear similar to a subset of another life form? Here, any reasonable imagination will pour out 100s of other factors. You want to select one of them, and make this your *PROOF* to an unrelated scenario, and thereby escape any further examination or deliberation.

Yet it still invalidates your point. Calling it irrelevant just means you can't deal with it, just as your claim to turn it around is pathetic -- because it's the same argument either way.


I do deal with it, and in its most fulcrum point: the results. All the transit factors alledged in ToE does not result in what it claims - but this is not the case with Genesis. The latter is what you don't deal with, and it is the fulcrum factor here. If you want to prove that a plane can fly - then you have to prove this by flying the plane; instead, you want to take us to Mars and show us a stone which resembles tail-light magnified and re-contructed after millions of years - but you still have not evidenced by flying the plane. The time factor does not apply in an 'ongoing' process. Babble?

quote:

Oh - even though you are argueing humans came from those who suddenly exhibit no similarity? The reverse appears more coherent: if a human can copy a bird to fly planes, then it is more probable a bird can copy an existential trait by his environmental life surrounds - even if this is done via instincts instead of human thought and speech. This is an example how you select what fits your premise only.

Here you attempt to turn the argument around is even more ludicrous.


Is imperical proof criteria different from reality?

quote:

After all, you are argueing that life forms graduate and speciate on the one principle: evolution, but a very selective and moody evolution?

Life forms change through mutation and natural selection among other mechanisms. This is happening to all species known today.


Mutation = deviation; it does not mean another life form. A handicapped life is also a mutation. The deviated cancer cells will not become zebras and humans in millions of years. The point here.

quote:

Be assured, if it had occured, no one can deny it, and this debate is subsequent to its reverse factor only. You cannot deny the offspring via the seed - because it occurs every day, in all living species.

Of course. Evolution is an observed fact, it has been observed: species have changed hereditary traits from one generation to another. This is because your "seed" is identical and inseparable from DNA passed from generation to generation as demonstrated by your usage without any differentiation of definition.


New traits, aside from skeletal and body design, are inculcated and lodged within the dna, and these come from observation of one life form of another: this is how humans learnt to fly planes - not by virus transmissions of another life form passing into its dna. This is the meaning of the passing on of hereditory traits.

quote:

I won't ask what you mean by 'generation' - millions of years visavis nine months for a human! Re-evaluate what 'equitable comparison' means.

What I mean is what people normally mean by generation, which has nothing to do with nine months or millions of years for humans. Can you really be so ignorant to (1) not know the meaning or (2) can't figure out how to look it up? I really wonder how many creationists are embarrassed to read your posts when you make comments like this. The reason generation is used is because the length of time is different from species to species, while a little rational consideration will show that absolute time is irrelevant to the process of evolution. See if you can figure it out.


Exactly, and the reason i never bothered to ask. Anything can be claimed on that basis: a billion years ago [generations!], pigs used to fly in another galaxy. Go check! I know very well what a generation means with humanity, and what you cannot prove, is any speech endowed humans 20,000 years ago: drop all the excuses, and say this is correct! You cannot choose when and how to apply what measures 'generations'.

quote:

The seed transmission is an ongoing process!

Yep, evolution is an ongoing process, I fully agree.


Define 'ongoing'? Does it apply to last friday?

quote:

You say its a fact and observed; I see a miriad of other explanations to account for your conclusions, but none which equates with the seed factor.

So you have said before, however the essential point that you fail to make is what a single one of those could be and how it is different from evolution. Until you do all you are doing is talking about evolution by a different name so you can fool yourself.


I did, you call it babble: humans did not learn to fly planes because of dna data transmitted by forams millions of years ago.

quote:

Just as you claim: "seed" == DNA, as I have already said. You have made no distinction of one from the other.

It was uncalled for. The seed contains all required data, including dna, and is not defficient: meaning repro does not need ToE premises to validate itself, and ToE becomes redundent without the seed factor.

quote:

Nor did I fail in asserting speech being different in kind than degree: ...

Yet the Thread Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind stands at 262 messages without showing any difference in kind, only difference in degree. If you don't regard that as a failure, then perhaps you need to look up the definition of failure.


The dif is speech, which you refused as being unique from communications, by virtue of a problem in its definition. The fact is, speech has not been seen elsewhere; while miriad forms of communication are seen everywhere. You then resorted to everything has unique features - thereby nullifying any reality of uniqueness per se. Such semantics does not prove your case, while my premise needs no proof by virtue of its blatancy in real terms. Your kind of semantics can nullify the sun being hot. But science and logic require boundaries to be set what is a sound premise, and when it is strayed from a sound premise.

Speech is a unique phenomenon in the universe, and its most powerful trait - speech changed the universe; speech allows humans to conquer the universe. Its not just another dot in an endless thread of other dots, is what Genesis is saying; its not somewhere between virus and zebras' communication dots. There would be no science and ToE but for speech. I agree with genesis.

I also respect the daring and bold declaration that speech never existed prior to 6000 years - and all the excuses aside - this is a fact which has not been over-turned, when it aught to have been, long ago, and in millions of available avenues for evidences: it makes genesis an astounding anomoly. That there is a mystery with genesis is blatant: can you give any reasoning why five alphabetical books emerged, in perfectly advanced grammar, without any precedence, from a late coming, small nation, always in wondering and dispersions, and with no emulation by any other sector of humanity for a 1000 years thereafter? I cannot. I respect genesis that it opens with a preamble of the universe before addressing the creator factor and humanity: its good protocol, and a lesson for ToE. I respect the opening of the universe being finite - it is evidenced by what I see, namely the universe is expanding: meaning it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. I hail genesis for providing the most accurate calendar, and giving wise answers which are not even considered in ToE, but fully applicable: that the first of any life form had to be dual-gendered. Then I see that there is a fully equipped biological knowledge of the hidden attributes of life forms, which could not have been known to ancient man: that a pig harbours latent biological traits which are different from all other life forms; so do three other animals in different traits; so do finned and scaled fish hidden in the oceans. Then I see that all the laws which are accepted by the world at large today - come only from this source - exclusively; this says that one who understands correct judiciary laws, which have never been added or subtracted to - must know science too. I see the same with history and geography, and with names and dates in geo-history. I do not see any babbles here - but obviously you do. Mostly, you do not even adress these fulcrum factors!?

quote:

Which does not invalidate speech in other animals, the actual issue at hand eh?

But you can only say that while possessing speech.

quote:

More babble. Other animals use speech - verbal communication of emotion and thoughts - therefore it is not unique to man, not a difference in kind but ONLY in degree.


Is writings also a difference in degree from a bird call?

quote:

It's a very simple experiment: take any fertilized egg, remove the DNA inside the nucleus, and replace it with DNA from the nucleus of a fertilized egg from another species and that other species will grow.

Here you agree with genesis by emulating its premise. It contradicts ToE which does not mention the seed factor at all.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2007 11:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2007 8:16 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 227 of 305 (432316)
11-05-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by IamJoseph
11-04-2007 5:47 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Is Genesis science? Where did science come from!

Genesis is a myth. Science comes from observation, hypothesis, Teating & drawing conclusions from the testing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 5:47 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 2:30 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 228 of 305 (432359)
11-05-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by bluescat48
11-05-2007 9:54 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
Genesis is a myth.

Which part? Genesis even has the first mythical calendar and the first mythical alphabetical books to prove its myth.

quote:

Science comes from observation, hypothesis, Teating & drawing conclusions from the testing.


Science comes from Genesis. The factors you listed are a verification method for examing any scientific proposition, as with any historical, mathematical or any other assertion. The first scientific stat of the universe is that it is finite, and this comes from Genesis.

To be scientific, also means acknowledging what is science and scientific, from observation, hypothesis, Teating & drawing conclusions from the testing - without omissions. Only what is correct can counter a faulty premise, and genesis is the only source which can show ToE as faulty.

No one can produce a speech endowed life form older than 6000 years, despite that 60 million year old dinosaurs can be evidenced: must be an anomoly or a strange co-incidence. No one can produce writings, or even a 'name' of a human, or any history per se, prior to genesis' mythical dating challenge. Genesis says all repro and offspring transmissions come via the seed, and able to continue their repro cycle with no help from ToE. These are serious, non-mythical challenges, and ToE has not absolved itself from any of these.

The relative importance of facts: Evolution comes from genesis, the first recording of chronological life forms, which says a seed follows its own kind. Trees do not become zebras even after millions of years, and this is provable when one sees the time factor does not impact in an on-going process. Do the maths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 8:44 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 229 of 305 (432402)
11-05-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
11-05-2007 1:09 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
ToE is overtaking religion. Note the extent of rejection here of everything, coupled with a total inability to respond to anything which is legitimate! We may soon see the day when the charge of heresy is proclaimed in all who do not bow to ToE and Ceasar. But mighty Rome is no more.

Rational people are unable to respond to babble because it is meaningless, not because there is any merit to it. What is legitimate? Some births are legitimate while others aren't and yet both involve evolution -- so again you use words to appear to say something when it is really meaningless babble.

You could just say that rational thought anchored in reality is overtaking old ways of thinking anchored in mythology and fantasy -- do you consider that a bad thing?

My check list began with the very opening of genesis contextually, as was asked of me, which says the universe is VERY 'FINITE'. You must either agree or disagree with the factors in my check list.

Which is not a list of alternate explanations for the evolution of forams. All this amounts to is more babble pretending to say something.

I do not have to refute any items mentioned in ToE; I am only disputing the conclusions derived therefrom, namely principles:

And in order to dispute the conclusions your need to refute them. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the scientific process.

... these are unscientific, immathemtical, illogical and unevidenced - specially where it conflicts with genesis.

Denial does not make the evidence disappear nor is it an alternate explanation for the evidence, it is delusion. When you reach a conclusion that the evidence must be false in order to maintain a belief, then you have reached a point where you can believe anything you want to with equal validity.

You cannot admit it, but with the aspect of speech - you have lost that one - despite all the excuses for not being able to evidence genesis wrong - the easiest thing with regard to communication progressing to speech.

I cannot admit it because that would be an outright lie: the thread clearly shows you complete and total inability to make a single rational point about speech being unique to humans. This topic is not about speech so take your speech babble back to the speech thread and try again.

Of coz I have done more than squat: there is no proof or evidence what is claimed by ToE, and the criteria for such proof does not rely on what a ToE advocate chooses. Parents which pass on a seed, and a virus which leaves an imprint on a fossil, have a problem in their equationalising: they reproduce the traits of the parentage, in realtime, able to reproduce its own kind. This renders all the factors of speciation superfluous. Unless you can perform that trick w/o the seed?
No contradiction. Humans do not resemble virus'; they do their parents. Nor do human offspring deviate and then return as humans: because they reproduce their own kind. And if you find a stray part of a human organ resembling another resting on a fossil, it does not evidence ToE: the entire bases of your arguement!

Babble. Try english.

Read again. Comprehension must precede science understanding.

Which is precisely why your babble is irrelevant -- all it demonstrates is your lack of understanding, your inability to communicate is because you don't understand. For example:

It is a principle held in ToE, that each life form begat its traits by its mechanisms being osmosized for another life form.

Evolution has nothing to do with osmosis of traits from one life form into another. You don't know what evolution is therefore you are incapable of discussing evolution.

I showed that traits can be adapted, without a life form becoming another one, as in humans flying planes.

Which also has nothing to do with evolution.

I do deal with it, and in its most fulcrum point: the results. All the transit factors alledged in ToE does not result in what it claims - but this is not the case with Genesis. The latter is what you don't deal with, and it is the fulcrum factor here. If you want to prove that a plane can fly - then you have to prove this by flying the plane; instead, you want to take us to Mars and show us a stone which resembles tail-light magnified and re-contructed after millions of years - but you still have not evidenced by flying the plane. The time factor does not apply in an 'ongoing' process. Babble?

Babble. None of this applies to evolution, never has, never will.

Mutation = deviation; it does not mean another life form. A handicapped life is also a mutation. The deviated cancer cells will not become zebras and humans in millions of years. The point here.

And the point is totally irrelevant, as it does not in any way deal with evolution, just with your fantasy world buried within your babble that attempts to hide you complete ignorance of the reality of evolution.

Exactly, and the reason i never bothered to ask. Anything can be claimed on that basis: a billion years ago [generations!], pigs used to fly in another galaxy. Go check! I know very well what a generation means with humanity, and what you cannot prove, is any speech endowed humans 20,000 years ago: drop all the excuses, and say this is correct! You cannot choose when and how to apply what measures 'generations'.

Nope. More babble.

I did, you call it babble: humans did not learn to fly planes because of dna data transmitted by forams millions of years ago.

More babble. I call it babble when you don't deal with the issue and use unusual words in unusual ways as if there was something meaningful said in arguments that are totally irrelevant.

It was uncalled for. The seed contains all required data, including dna, and is not defficient: meaning repro does not need ToE premises to validate itself, and ToE becomes redundent without the seed factor.

Which does not even begin to refute the fact that DNA has been shown to be where hereditary traits are passed from one generation to the next, so it necessarily contains everything you assign to your yet to be defined "seed" -- thus showing identity between "seed" and DNA.

The dif is speech, which ...

... you have failed to define in any way that shows a unique trait for humans, rather than just another difference in degree. All your babble about speech is totally irrelevant to this thread (and any other until you actually step up to the plate on the speech thread).

Here you agree with genesis by emulating its premise.

Then you have no problem with evolution.

It contradicts ToE which does not mention the seed factor at all.

No, it contradicts (1) what you think ToE is as well as (2) what you think "the seed factor" is. It shows that hereditary traits are carried by DNA and not by anything else in the fertilized egg.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 1:09 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 9:38 PM RAZD has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 230 of 305 (432403)
11-05-2007 8:17 PM


TRIVIALISING THE WORD 'MYTH' IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE.
Many examples of 'first' and 'transcendent knowledge' have been shown relating to Genesis, in many categories, including science, maths, history, grammar, alphabetical books, the world's most accurate & oldest calendar - and no example of error or any disproof existing 3,500 years later. When an unscientific attitude is displayed, with no acknowledgement forthcoming, and all is described as myth, it becomes evident that true science cannot be derived from such a dogmatic and fundamentalist mindset anymore, even when it assumes itself as the only science acceptable, even when it cannot see where science itself comes from.

It appears large sectors of science oriented peoples have become unscientific, and cannot see outside their own tunnel vision radar. They have positioned all writings as mythical theology, and all as belonging in one green bag, unable anymore to deciphere any existing insight therein. Like the theologies they reject, their attitudes have become another theology instead of science - and can thus only end up in the same green bag of mythical science they reject.

The first and most prominent myth is not realising that the theologies they reject as myth, have no connection with genesis, appearing some 2000 years later, and fashioned only on a platform of assuming ownership of a document they at no time had any connection or knowledge of. This blatant, blarring and obvious insight escapes those locked in a tunnel vision. This unscientific attitude does not allow them to percieve any differences in all documents, and not understand how to separate real science from myth anymore, by virtue of their own attitude and lack of insight that Genesis cannot be represented by those who never knew it, and spread their own incorrect interpretations of it. Such a mindset becomes doubly effected when there is a contradiction in their own incorrect notions of science, believed in with the same non-negotiable terms of all theologies. ToE has descendent into a theological, Talibanic science - a first indication it is not science anymore.


  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 231 of 305 (432404)
11-05-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by IamJoseph
11-05-2007 2:30 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
To be scientific, also means acknowledging what is science and scientific, from observation, hypothesis, Teating & drawing conclusions from the testing - without omissions. Only what is correct can counter a faulty premise, and genesis is the only source which can show ToE as faulty.

How can Genesis show ToE is faulty when it is mythological & has no scientific info at all?¿
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 2:30 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 305 (432410)
11-05-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by RAZD
11-05-2007 8:16 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
quote:
ToE is overtaking religion. Note the extent of rejection here of everything, coupled with a total inability to respond to anything which is legitimate!

Rational people are unable to respond to babble because it is meaningless, not because there is any merit to it. What is legitimate? Some births are legitimate while others aren't and yet both involve evolution -- so again you use words to appear to say something when it is really meaningless babble. You could just say that rational thought anchored in reality is overtaking old ways of thinking anchored in mythology and fantasy -- do you consider that a bad thing?


I dont think so: the term legitimate is hardly limited to child birth or ToE, specially not so in the context it was positioned. The irrationality claim applies to faulty grammar rendering, and is yours. Ever heard of a legitimate defense?

quote:

My check list began with the very opening of genesis contextually, as was asked of me, which says the universe is VERY 'FINITE'. You must either agree or disagree with the factors in my check list.

Which is not a list of alternate explanations for the evolution of forams. All this amounts to is more babble pretending to say something.


Babbling can also be described as not seeing where science is on display.

quote:

And in order to dispute the conclusions your need to refute them. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the scientific process.


I did refute them by showing numerous other reasonings apply than what was concluded in ToE. You did not refute nor acknowledge the first scientific reference to the universe as finite, a premise introduced in genesis.

quote:

Denial does not make the evidence disappear nor is it an alternate explanation for the evidence, it is delusion. When you reach a conclusion that the evidence must be false in order to maintain a belief, then you have reached a point where you can believe anything you want to with equal validity.


Equally, you show a delusion in not seeing science where it is evidenced. You have not shown any alternate scenario to the universe being finite.

quote:

I cannot admit it because that would be an outright lie: the thread clearly shows you complete and total inability to make a single rational point about speech being unique to humans. This topic is not about speech so take your speech babble back to the speech thread and try again.


Babble is not being able to disprove by evidence, and resting on excuses resting on semantics only.

quote:

Evolution has nothing to do with osmosis of traits from one life form into another. You don't know what evolution is therefore you are incapable of discussing evolution.


Speciation is a form of osmosis: both incorporate change and exchange. Its about perspectives.

quote:
I showed that traits can be adapted, without a life form becoming another one, as in humans flying planes.

Which also has nothing to do with evolution.


It can - by the princple basis being applied backwards. ToE is not a free floating principle without any foundation: nothing is.

quote:

I do deal with it, and in its most fulcrum point: the results. All the transit factors alledged in ToE does not result in what it claims - but this is not the case with Genesis. The latter is what you don't deal with, and it is the fulcrum factor here. If you want to prove that a plane can fly - then you have to prove this by flying the plane; instead, you want to take us to Mars and show us a stone which resembles tail-light magnified and re-contructed after millions of years - but you still have not evidenced by flying the plane. The time factor does not apply in an 'ongoing' process. Babble?

Babble. None of this applies to evolution, never has, never will.


Yes, it does. The 'result' best evidences and vindicates what a process is saying. And ToE relies on runaway time periods, qualified with elusive transit twists and turns, which results never vindicates itself in reality: this allows ToE an immunity from evidencing an amoeba or root plant becoming a zebra, even when this is exactly what it is saying when properly examined, and prefers not being asked to evidence itself as does genesis. Here, I pointed out that the time factor is irrelevent, and gave actual examples: the runaway immunity subsequently does not apply. ToE must thus evidence its claims in reality - as does genesis: if the time factor does not apply, the transit phase time factors also do not apply. This means to evidence ToE, a life form evolving into another should be seen as commonplace and pervasively. Pause from ToE an instant, and examine my premise in any reductionist example: I suggested blue marbles turning to red marbles every 10 days, on an on-going basis. The latter must thus be seen at all times occuring in our midst - w/o pause and w/o any other affectations applying.

quote:

Mutation = deviation; it does not mean another life form. A handicapped life is also a mutation. The deviated cancer cells will not become zebras and humans in millions of years. The point here.

And the point is totally irrelevant, as it does not in any way deal with evolution, just with your fantasy world buried within your babble that attempts to hide you complete ignorance of the reality of evolution.


You introduced the mutation factor. I suggested it is not an evidence of speciation, only a deviation and still fully contained in that kind of life form. I gave an example that a percieved similarity on two life forms can have other reasons than that proposed by ToE.

quote:

I did, you call it babble: humans did not learn to fly planes because of dna data transmitted by forams millions of years ago.

More babble. I call it babble when you don't deal with the issue and use unusual words in unusual ways as if there was something meaningful said in arguments that are totally irrelevant.


I did deal with the issue. It means life forms emulate traits they see elsewhere. Humans are a life form which emulates traits of other life forms: it does not evidence ToE. Humans in africa may become darker skinned by environmental factors - not by those listed in ToE: both, human traits and environmental effectations are examples of an effect independent of ToE claims.

quote:

It was uncalled for. The seed contains all required data, including dna, and is not defficient: meaning repro does not need ToE premises to validate itself, and ToE becomes redundent without the seed factor.

Which does not even begin to refute the fact that DNA has been shown to be where hereditary traits are passed from one generation to the next, so it necessarily contains everything you assign to your yet to be defined "seed" -- thus showing identity between "seed" and DNA.


This is not so. It requires ToE to be demonstrated w/o the impact of the seed, irrelevent of the dna factor. This is especially the case if you view the dna as common to both premises is taken. E.g: if you say red marbles turn to blue marbles every 10 days, because of gravity appling to both colored marbles equally, then the gravity factor does not apply to any one marble only as being the source of effectation. The dna has no impact here, and must still be shown to foster the same result: this is not the case, and by your own criteria. In contrast, genesis does not suffer this problem: the seed transmission is uneffected by ToE claims, and thus stands as the operable factor.

quote:

... you have failed to define in any way that shows a unique trait for humans, rather than just another difference in degree. All your babble about speech is totally irrelevant to this thread (and any other until you actually step up to the plate on the speech thread).


Then take another stat in genesis: that life forms began as a dual-gendered entity. This is not babble but a variant logical and scientific premise: to get blue and red marbles from one original marble, it has to contain both propensity traits. The original seed has to contain a propensity to result in either male or female offsprings. Its not babble.

quote:

It contradicts ToE which does not mention the seed factor at all.

No, it contradicts (1) what you think ToE is as well as (2) what you think "the seed factor" is. It shows that hereditary traits are carried by DNA and not by anything else in the fertilized egg.


If the dna carries hereditory traits, it corresponds with genesis and the host parentage source in an evidential and observable manner, as can be seen in dna evidencing in legal court actions today. But that a human dna also contains hereditory traits of a zebra, is not as evidential or observable, and has not been accepted or ratified in an open legal court case: why so? In any case, this dna connection corresponds with genesis, and is not a negating factor of it: yet you posit is as such, and accuse me of babble!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2007 8:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2007 8:10 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 305 (432412)
11-05-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by bluescat48
11-05-2007 8:44 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
How can Genesis show ToE is faulty when it is mythological & has no scientific info at all?¿

This has been responded to previously. The creation chapter is not mythical, and does not mention any head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy - it mentions Creationism and monotheism, which are logical premises without any alternatives evidenced by science or elsewhere. Thereafter, it mentions only imperical entities like light, water, stars, the moon, reproduction, and all categories of life forms. Genesis makes declarations, and these require scientific justification, same as does any historical or geographical declaration. Genesis has not erred or been disproven of any of its stats. Why is it mythical?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 8:44 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2007 10:33 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 235 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 10:50 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 305 (432417)
11-05-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by IamJoseph
11-05-2007 9:54 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
The creation chapter is not mythical

Why do you say that, when genesis 1 and 2 are both written in a style of Hebrew poetry used to indicate mythical events?

Like "Once upon a time" in English literature, Genesis 1 and 2 contain phrases that, to the intended audience, clearly indicate that the narrative is mythical. What leads you to believe that genesis is not mythical when it's written to indicate that it is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 1:18 AM crashfrog has responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 235 of 305 (432419)
11-05-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by IamJoseph
11-05-2007 9:54 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
The creation chapter is not mythical, and does not mention any head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy

why would mythology have to have head bashing deities.

Babylon-Oxford Engish Dictionary:

mythology
■ noun (plural mythologies)
a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
a set of widely held but exaggerated or fictitious stories or beliefs.
the study of myths.

mythologer noun
mythologist noun
mythologize or mythologise verb
mythologizer or mythologiser noun

ME: from Fr. mythologie, or via late L. from Gk muthologia, from muthos 'myth' + -logia (see -logy).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 1:31 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 236 of 305 (432431)
11-06-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
11-05-2007 10:33 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
Why do you say that, when genesis 1 and 2 are both written in a style of Hebrew poetry used to indicate mythical events?

Like "Once upon a time" in English literature, Genesis 1 and 2 contain phrases that, to the intended audience, clearly indicate that the narrative is mythical. What leads you to believe that genesis is not mythical when it's written to indicate that it is?


Examine instead your own mythical premise here, and what is disregarded: that this is the first alphabetical book, with a continuous, multi-page narrative which never existed before. Poetry, english, and once a upon a time, are relatively recent items, while Genesis is written in the new grammar delivery. The correct aim being to apply to all generations - which it succeeds in, and is the world's most widely harkened document, its majestic prose used by the greatest writers and thinkers, its ownership faught over by both christianity and islam.

While all forms of literary factors are introduced here, such as expressionism, analogy, metophor, anagrams, poetry - the texts are not mythical or naive, but pristine and exacting, speaking about the loftiest subjects: only the most appropriate nouns, adjectives and adverbs are employed, enabling the shortest distance between two points. It performs this with the least number of alphabets [22], which incorporates numerals in them; thus the first scientific cencus, with sub-totals of age and gender, backed by affirming sum totals, in the millions, is seen for the first time. Controversial issues such as incest and beastiality, which have never been confronted before, are dealt with in the most proper manner, dispensing them in a few, pristine words - enhancing the power of speech and writings for all future generations.

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. If in doubt, name one law the world accepts, and is not contained in the 613 OT laws? 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. This is not myth but factual, and thus the premises what contradicts ToE cannot be taken lightly, or dismissed as generic myth: there is no equavalence of this document anyplace, and is a mystery. It has to be responded to scientifically, addressing each exacting word as one would MC2 or any mathematical equation. This is seen when examined, making the texts deceptively simple.

As science and math are closely associated, one can discern the power of the OT texts via maths. The five books cover a period of some 3000 years, from Adam to Moses, and is interspersed with 1000s of dates and numbers, covering the ages and life spans of 1000s of figures, with dob and dod's. Here, any error in a single instant, can be easily picked out, making it open to ridicule. But there is not a single error in the maths. The Ten Commandments were given on a specific known date, celebrated each year in Judaism. The day of this event is also known, and this is a Saturday. Here, the text says, 'REMEMBER THIS DAY AS THE SABBATH. *THIS DAY* infact was the sabbath, illustrating the exactitude of its texts, and this can be checked by accounting the entire dates and numbers against the Hebrew calendar. This is math prowess at its highest point, and not seen in any other document, nor in any theology - which are usually devoid of specific dates.

i don't pose this theologically [I'm not religious], but as a mysterious document. That there are some FX miracles also listed should not be confused with its historical and imperical sectors. if it was myth, this would be borne out without any exertion, in its historical, mathematical and scientific positations. This has never occured. toE will not survive if it cannot prove itself against this document: because the first description of the universe emergence, and Creationism, came from here. I say, prove ToE here, but w/o referring to generic theology, because there are awesome discrepensies between christianity and islam's interpretation of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2007 10:33 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Larni, posted 11-06-2007 9:12 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2007 2:07 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 237 of 305 (432432)
11-06-2007 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by bluescat48
11-05-2007 10:50 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Because the buck stopped with Monotheism, a premise also in alignment with science, math and logic. This was a difference in kind, not degree. Many wars were faught over it, many nations rebelled and then fell, but this concept prevailed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 10:50 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by anglagard, posted 11-06-2007 1:44 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 239 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 2:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 238 of 305 (432435)
11-06-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 1:31 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Because the buck stopped with Monotheism, a premise also in alignment with science, math and logic. This was a difference in kind, not degree. Many wars were faught over it, many nations rebelled and then fell, but this concept prevailed.

That's an interesting proposition, care to enlighten India, or for that matter all of Southern and Eastern Asia, which has half the world's population, on how they are essentially all either Jewish, Christian, or Islamic?

Edited by anglagard, : Add southern


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 1:31 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 2:45 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 305 (432437)
11-06-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by IamJoseph
11-06-2007 1:31 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
IamJoseph

Because the buck stopped with Monotheism, a premise also in alignment with science, math and logic.

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?


"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 1:31 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2007 2:51 AM sidelined has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 240 of 305 (432439)
11-06-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by anglagard
11-06-2007 1:44 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
You will find, that all those respected religions also uphold Monotheism when examined and deliberated further. This is true also of all other religions, with one source underlying all intermediatary thresolds of belief. It is also true with those beliefs which are not Creator inclined, and atheism as well: whatever their directed source, or its absence, concludes in ONE.

Monotheism appears a commonsense premise today, but it was akin to today's MC2 or QM some 4000 years ago, with charges of heresy, unpartiotism, enemy, criminal, sorcery, etc, with the penalty of death of the entire household: it required great compulsion in an ancient period. Abraham had to flee for his and his family's life, in a far worse scenario than with Geleleo 3,500 years later. Israel was destroyed by Rome, and exiled to Europe 2000 years ago for the same reason. Monotheism changed the universe for humanity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by anglagard, posted 11-06-2007 1:44 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019