デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2015, 07:10 AM
デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
Part 1:

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Evolution is a total LIE scientifically because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence it is a religion forced
upon students. and religiously believed even by those that haven't studied Science.

It is not forced on students, it is taught. Also there is evidence of evolution. I will save it for the next part though because this would be over too quick. Also know you calling evolution a religion is like the pot calling the silverware black.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Yet because the BIGGER the lie is,
and evolution is a BIG LIE, then the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare
to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

I want to establish now that we don't believe evolution we accept it. Also there is projection in this comment.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident,
forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of
beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

Strawman.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is
therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great
principle" of biology.

It is for a reason. Know why we have dog breeds, or how animals like tiktaalik exist? This can be explained by evolutionary biology.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OR MINIMIZING THE TRUE SCIENCE OF TRUE
BIOLOGY, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on.

So all of evolution pretty much. I don't see how you can except evolution and try to disprove it. Evolution has not limits. This too will be explained later. Just know this word monophyletic

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false
faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution)
must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, WE CAN PROVE THAT
NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED ... NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL,
which is the groundwork of the theory."

First Charles Darwin is not a priest, as a matter of fact he is pretty much irrelevant. Natural selection has been known for years, and modern evolution is different from Darwin. If he was a priest, we would not change that much when it came to evolution. Also ring species are a thing. Ring species is not just one species changing, but a bunch of species.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT
grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to
recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but AN ACT OF PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH.".

I would like to first say that what Thomas said is irrelevant. He too has nothing to do with what we discovered in modern evolution.

Second, it is better to quote modern science and understand the context.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  SO EVOLUTION
IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD

I resident theist KC's brother has a great post on how god and evolution can exist.

http://edenstree.weebly.com/multimedia/t...sis-part-1

I post this because evolution does not disprove god, and vice versa. Evolution explains the diversity of life. That's it.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking!". IT'S LIKE WHAT
THE IDOL-MAKERS SAID TO ANCIENT ISRAEL THAT DAY THEY MADE THE GOLDEN CALF

Not even. Evolution is a theory and a fact like other fields of science. It is not a golden calf, as evolution is a biological model, not an idol. And don't talk about monkey being the idol, as their is not mascot in evolutionary biology.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  AT THE CORE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS THE BIG ASSUMPTION THAT LIFE SOMEHOW AROSE FROM
NON-LIFE

No, abiogenesis is not evolution. For example some body can believe a goddess made the first cell, and let evolution happened. Evolution explains the diversity of life once it happens.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second
law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder,
disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity."

Goddess damn it, not this again. First off earth is an open system, there for energy can go in and out. So because of this life will not go into disorder on earth because it is not a closed system.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  And even if the elements could
arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell
because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals!

Well actually it is. I mean DNA and RNA is just chemicals, proteins are chemicals, everything is chemicals. So in that case chemicals in the beginning of life on earth just became a different shape of chemicals.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that
Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is
comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

About your quote, the quote was said in 1956, Edwin died in 1952. Also Edwin did not believed it take this quote for example:

Quote:"Man in his entirety is regarded by science as the product of evolution. His actual origin goes back not to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden...but to more primitive races of men, and then to prehuman ancestors, and in the end to the earliest forms of life upon the earth. Between us and these earliest forms there has been an unbroken line of descent, an uninterrupted stream of life, through all the ages."

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  As for the so-called "simple cell", from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine
declared, "THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY."

Okay. Still doesn't argue for anything.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by
itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution's
imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind,
unguided chance!

Well dictionaries, a chemical factory, or New York City can not self replicate. Cells can. So because cells can, they can create them selves, New York city can not.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, "It is simple
dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen."

Holy irony batman! I find it funny the creationist quotes this. I want this to sink in.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, TODAY'S PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ARE ALL MERELY TRANSITIONAL
FORMS, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages.

Well not really. Animals that go extinct without leaving decedents are not transitional.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO GOD'S WORD which states that all living creatures were
created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind." (Gen. 1) Now this word "kind"
is the old King James translation of the Hebrew word "min", which today's scholars have translated to which today's
scholars have translated to mean "species"

Oh boy. So what about the transition of kind is only species to species? So what about horse evolution, in which is from genus to genus. If kind means species, then horse evolution broke that definition. And to make it better AiG has it in their "museum" as kinds.

Now if you change it from species, then I can now explain monophyletic. Monophyletic is defined as this.

Quote:In common cladistic usage, a monophyletic group is a taxon (group of organisms) which forms a clade, meaning that it consists of an ancestral species and all its descendants

Why do I bring this up? Because if I take any ancestral species I can make it a kind. For example ichthyostega is the ancestral species, I can say we are part of the tetrapod kind. This can be applied across the board in taxonomy. This means that evolution can happen on the scales you don't want to see, and still be in the definition of kind.

In short, kind not defined is useless, because of monophyletic groups, any group, species, order, family, even domain can be a kind.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  WE NEVER HEARD YET OR THEY NEVER PROVED YET THAT ANY DOG EVER BECAME A CAT OR A
CAT A DOG! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs!

Well if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution, not prove it.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Because God
created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or
specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!

You know what you are right. Kinds can not change into different kinds. Mammals can not become the not mammal kind, in which the amniote can not become the not amniote kind, in which the fish can not become the no fish kind, in which the chordate can not become the chordate kind, etc, etc.

[Image: 2009-19.jpg?66447135]

I will do a part a day.

またね

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
21-08-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
(21-08-2015 07:10 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Part 1:

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Evolution is a total LIE scientifically because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence it is a religion forced
upon students. and religiously believed even by those that haven't studied Science.

It is not forced on students, it is taught. Also there is evidence of evolution. I will save it for the next part though because this would be over too quick. Also know you calling evolution a religion is like the pot calling the silverware black.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Yet because the BIGGER the lie is,
and evolution is a BIG LIE, then the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare
to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

I want to establish now that we don't believe evolution we accept it. Also there is projection in this comment.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident,
forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of
beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

Strawman.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is
therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great
principle" of biology.

It is for a reason. Know why we have dog breeds, or how animals like tiktaalik exist? This can be explained by evolutionary biology.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OR MINIMIZING THE TRUE SCIENCE OF TRUE
BIOLOGY, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on.

So all of evolution pretty much. I don't see how you can except evolution and try to disprove it. Evolution has not limits. This too will be explained later. Just know this word monophyletic

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false
faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution)
must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, WE CAN PROVE THAT
NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED ... NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL,
which is the groundwork of the theory."

First Charles Darwin is not a priest, as a matter of fact he is pretty much irrelevant. Natural selection has been known for years, and modern evolution is different from Darwin. If he was a priest, we would not change that much when it came to evolution. Also ring species are a thing. Ring species is not just one species changing, but a bunch of species.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT
grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to
recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but AN ACT OF PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH.".

I would like to first say that what Thomas said is irrelevant. He too has nothing to do with what we discovered in modern evolution.

Second, it is better to quote modern science and understand the context.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  SO EVOLUTION
IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD

I resident theist KC's brother has a great post on how god and evolution can exist.

http://edenstree.weebly.com/multimedia/t...sis-part-1

I post this because evolution does not disprove god, and vice versa. Evolution explains the diversity of life. That's it.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking!". IT'S LIKE WHAT
THE IDOL-MAKERS SAID TO ANCIENT ISRAEL THAT DAY THEY MADE THE GOLDEN CALF

Not even. Evolution is a theory and a fact like other fields of science. It is not a golden calf, as evolution is a biological model, not an idol. And don't talk about monkey being the idol, as their is not mascot in evolutionary biology.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  AT THE CORE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS THE BIG ASSUMPTION THAT LIFE SOMEHOW AROSE FROM
NON-LIFE

No, abiogenesis is not evolution. For example some body can believe a goddess made the first cell, and let evolution happened. Evolution explains the diversity of life once it happens.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second
law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder,
disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity."

Goddess damn it, not this again. First off earth is an open system, there for energy can go in and out. So because of this life will not go into disorder on earth because it is not a closed system.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  And even if the elements could
arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell
because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals!

Well actually it is. I mean DNA and RNA is just chemicals, proteins are chemicals, everything is chemicals. So in that case chemicals in the beginning of life on earth just became a different shape of chemicals.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that
Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is
comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

About your quote, the quote was said in 1956, Edwin died in 1952. Also Edwin did not believed it take this quote for example:

Quote:"Man in his entirety is regarded by science as the product of evolution. His actual origin goes back not to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden...but to more primitive races of men, and then to prehuman ancestors, and in the end to the earliest forms of life upon the earth. Between us and these earliest forms there has been an unbroken line of descent, an uninterrupted stream of life, through all the ages."

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  As for the so-called "simple cell", from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine
declared, "THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY."

Okay. Still doesn't argue for anything.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by
itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution's
imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind,
unguided chance!

Well dictionaries, a chemical factory, or New York City can not self replicate. Cells can. So because cells can, they can create them selves, New York city can not.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, "It is simple
dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen."

Holy irony batman! I find it funny the creationist quotes this. I want this to sink in.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, TODAY'S PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ARE ALL MERELY TRANSITIONAL
FORMS, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages.

Well not really. Animals that go extinct without leaving decedents are not transitional.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO GOD'S WORD which states that all living creatures were
created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind." (Gen. 1) Now this word "kind"
is the old King James translation of the Hebrew word "min", which today's scholars have translated to which today's
scholars have translated to mean "species"

Oh boy. So what about the transition of kind is only species to species? So what about horse evolution, in which is from genus to genus. If kind means species, then horse evolution broke that definition. And to make it better AiG has it in their "museum" as kinds.

Now if you change it from species, then I can now explain monophyletic. Monophyletic is defined as this.

Quote:In common cladistic usage, a monophyletic group is a taxon (group of organisms) which forms a clade, meaning that it consists of an ancestral species and all its descendants

Why do I bring this up? Because if I take any ancestral species I can make it a kind. For example ichthyostega is the ancestral species, I can say we are part of the tetrapod kind. This can be applied across the board in taxonomy. This means that evolution can happen on the scales you don't want to see, and still be in the definition of kind.

In short, kind not defined is useless, because of monophyletic groups, any group, species, order, family, even domain can be a kind.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  WE NEVER HEARD YET OR THEY NEVER PROVED YET THAT ANY DOG EVER BECAME A CAT OR A
CAT A DOG! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs!

Well if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution, not prove it.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Because God
created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or
specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!

You know what you are right. Kinds can not change into different kinds. Mammals can not become the not mammal kind, in which the amniote can not become the not amniote kind, in which the fish can not become the no fish kind, in which the chordate can not become the chordate kind, etc, etc.

[Image: 2009-19.jpg?66447135]

I will do a part a day.

またね

Nicely done

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
(21-08-2015 08:08 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 07:10 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Part 1:


It is not forced on students, it is taught. Also there is evidence of evolution. I will save it for the next part though because this would be over too quick. Also know you calling evolution a religion is like the pot calling the silverware black.


I want to establish now that we don't believe evolution we accept it. Also there is projection in this comment.


Strawman.


It is for a reason. Know why we have dog breeds, or how animals like tiktaalik exist? This can be explained by evolutionary biology.


So all of evolution pretty much. I don't see how you can except evolution and try to disprove it. Evolution has not limits. This too will be explained later. Just know this word monophyletic


First Charles Darwin is not a priest, as a matter of fact he is pretty much irrelevant. Natural selection has been known for years, and modern evolution is different from Darwin. If he was a priest, we would not change that much when it came to evolution. Also ring species are a thing. Ring species is not just one species changing, but a bunch of species.


I would like to first say that what Thomas said is irrelevant. He too has nothing to do with what we discovered in modern evolution.

Second, it is better to quote modern science and understand the context.


I resident theist KC's brother has a great post on how god and evolution can exist.

http://edenstree.weebly.com/multimedia/t...sis-part-1

I post this because evolution does not disprove god, and vice versa. Evolution explains the diversity of life. That's it.



Not even. Evolution is a theory and a fact like other fields of science. It is not a golden calf, as evolution is a biological model, not an idol. And don't talk about monkey being the idol, as their is not mascot in evolutionary biology.


No, abiogenesis is not evolution. For example some body can believe a goddess made the first cell, and let evolution happened. Evolution explains the diversity of life once it happens.


Goddess damn it, not this again. First off earth is an open system, there for energy can go in and out. So because of this life will not go into disorder on earth because it is not a closed system.


Well actually it is. I mean DNA and RNA is just chemicals, proteins are chemicals, everything is chemicals. So in that case chemicals in the beginning of life on earth just became a different shape of chemicals.


About your quote, the quote was said in 1956, Edwin died in 1952. Also Edwin did not believed it take this quote for example:



Okay. Still doesn't argue for anything.


Well dictionaries, a chemical factory, or New York City can not self replicate. Cells can. So because cells can, they can create them selves, New York city can not.


Holy irony batman! I find it funny the creationist quotes this. I want this to sink in.


Well not really. Animals that go extinct without leaving decedents are not transitional.



Oh boy. So what about the transition of kind is only species to species? So what about horse evolution, in which is from genus to genus. If kind means species, then horse evolution broke that definition. And to make it better AiG has it in their "museum" as kinds.

Now if you change it from species, then I can now explain monophyletic. Monophyletic is defined as this.


Why do I bring this up? Because if I take any ancestral species I can make it a kind. For example ichthyostega is the ancestral species, I can say we are part of the tetrapod kind. This can be applied across the board in taxonomy. This means that evolution can happen on the scales you don't want to see, and still be in the definition of kind.

In short, kind not defined is useless, because of monophyletic groups, any group, species, order, family, even domain can be a kind.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm



Well if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution, not prove it.


You know what you are right. Kinds can not change into different kinds. Mammals can not become the not mammal kind, in which the amniote can not become the not amniote kind, in which the fish can not become the no fish kind, in which the chordate can not become the chordate kind, etc, etc.

[Image: 2009-19.jpg?66447135]

I will do a part a day.

またね

Nicely done

ありがとう

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2015, 08:34 PM
RE: デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
(21-08-2015 07:10 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Part 1:

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Evolution is a total LIE scientifically because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence it is a religion forced
upon students. and religiously believed even by those that haven't studied Science.

It is not forced on students, it is taught. Also there is evidence of evolution. I will save it for the next part though because this would be over too quick. Also know you calling evolution a religion is like the pot calling the silverware black.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Yet because the BIGGER the lie is,
and evolution is a BIG LIE, then the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare
to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!

I want to establish now that we don't believe evolution we accept it. Also there is projection in this comment.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident,
forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of
beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

Strawman.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is
therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great
principle" of biology.

It is for a reason. Know why we have dog breeds, or how animals like tiktaalik exist? This can be explained by evolutionary biology.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OR MINIMIZING THE TRUE SCIENCE OF TRUE
BIOLOGY, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on.

So all of evolution pretty much. I don't see how you can except evolution and try to disprove it. Evolution has not limits. This too will be explained later. Just know this word monophyletic

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false
faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution)
must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, WE CAN PROVE THAT
NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED ... NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL,
which is the groundwork of the theory."

First Charles Darwin is not a priest, as a matter of fact he is pretty much irrelevant. Natural selection has been known for years, and modern evolution is different from Darwin. If he was a priest, we would not change that much when it came to evolution. Also ring species are a thing. Ring species is not just one species changing, but a bunch of species.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT
grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to
recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but AN ACT OF PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH.".

I would like to first say that what Thomas said is irrelevant. He too has nothing to do with what we discovered in modern evolution.

Second, it is better to quote modern science and understand the context.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  SO EVOLUTION
IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD

I resident theist KC's brother has a great post on how god and evolution can exist.

http://edenstree.weebly.com/multimedia/t...sis-part-1

I post this because evolution does not disprove god, and vice versa. Evolution explains the diversity of life. That's it.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking!". IT'S LIKE WHAT
THE IDOL-MAKERS SAID TO ANCIENT ISRAEL THAT DAY THEY MADE THE GOLDEN CALF

Not even. Evolution is a theory and a fact like other fields of science. It is not a golden calf, as evolution is a biological model, not an idol. And don't talk about monkey being the idol, as their is not mascot in evolutionary biology.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  AT THE CORE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS THE BIG ASSUMPTION THAT LIFE SOMEHOW AROSE FROM
NON-LIFE

No, abiogenesis is not evolution. For example some body can believe a goddess made the first cell, and let evolution happened. Evolution explains the diversity of life once it happens.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second
law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder,
disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity."

Goddess damn it, not this again. First off earth is an open system, there for energy can go in and out. So because of this life will not go into disorder on earth because it is not a closed system.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  And even if the elements could
arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell
because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals!

Well actually it is. I mean DNA and RNA is just chemicals, proteins are chemicals, everything is chemicals. So in that case chemicals in the beginning of life on earth just became a different shape of chemicals.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that
Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is
comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

About your quote, the quote was said in 1956, Edwin died in 1952. Also Edwin did not believed it take this quote for example:

Quote:"Man in his entirety is regarded by science as the product of evolution. His actual origin goes back not to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden...but to more primitive races of men, and then to prehuman ancestors, and in the end to the earliest forms of life upon the earth. Between us and these earliest forms there has been an unbroken line of descent, an uninterrupted stream of life, through all the ages."

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  As for the so-called "simple cell", from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine
declared, "THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY."

Okay. Still doesn't argue for anything.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by
itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution's
imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind,
unguided chance!

Well dictionaries, a chemical factory, or New York City can not self replicate. Cells can. So because cells can, they can create them selves, New York city can not.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, "It is simple
dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen."

Holy irony batman! I find it funny the creationist quotes this. I want this to sink in.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, TODAY'S PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ARE ALL MERELY TRANSITIONAL
FORMS, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages.

Well not really. Animals that go extinct without leaving decedents are not transitional.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO GOD'S WORD which states that all living creatures were
created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind." (Gen. 1) Now this word "kind"
is the old King James translation of the Hebrew word "min", which today's scholars have translated to which today's
scholars have translated to mean "species"

Oh boy. So what about the transition of kind is only species to species? So what about horse evolution, in which is from genus to genus. If kind means species, then horse evolution broke that definition. And to make it better AiG has it in their "museum" as kinds.

Now if you change it from species, then I can now explain monophyletic. Monophyletic is defined as this.

Quote:In common cladistic usage, a monophyletic group is a taxon (group of organisms) which forms a clade, meaning that it consists of an ancestral species and all its descendants

Why do I bring this up? Because if I take any ancestral species I can make it a kind. For example ichthyostega is the ancestral species, I can say we are part of the tetrapod kind. This can be applied across the board in taxonomy. This means that evolution can happen on the scales you don't want to see, and still be in the definition of kind.

In short, kind not defined is useless, because of monophyletic groups, any group, species, order, family, even domain can be a kind.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  WE NEVER HEARD YET OR THEY NEVER PROVED YET THAT ANY DOG EVER BECAME A CAT OR A
CAT A DOG! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs!

Well if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution, not prove it.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Because God
created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or
specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!

You know what you are right. Kinds can not change into different kinds. Mammals can not become the not mammal kind, in which the amniote can not become the not amniote kind, in which the fish can not become the no fish kind, in which the chordate can not become the chordate kind, etc, etc.

[Image: 2009-19.jpg?66447135]

I will do a part a day.

またね

I didn't even read it and "liked" it, because the obvious joke title is all you needed to say and I was 100% convinced on that alone.

Smartass.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
21-08-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
(21-08-2015 08:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 07:10 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Part 1:


It is not forced on students, it is taught. Also there is evidence of evolution. I will save it for the next part though because this would be over too quick. Also know you calling evolution a religion is like the pot calling the silverware black.


I want to establish now that we don't believe evolution we accept it. Also there is projection in this comment.


Strawman.


It is for a reason. Know why we have dog breeds, or how animals like tiktaalik exist? This can be explained by evolutionary biology.


So all of evolution pretty much. I don't see how you can except evolution and try to disprove it. Evolution has not limits. This too will be explained later. Just know this word monophyletic


First Charles Darwin is not a priest, as a matter of fact he is pretty much irrelevant. Natural selection has been known for years, and modern evolution is different from Darwin. If he was a priest, we would not change that much when it came to evolution. Also ring species are a thing. Ring species is not just one species changing, but a bunch of species.


I would like to first say that what Thomas said is irrelevant. He too has nothing to do with what we discovered in modern evolution.

Second, it is better to quote modern science and understand the context.


I resident theist KC's brother has a great post on how god and evolution can exist.

http://edenstree.weebly.com/multimedia/t...sis-part-1

I post this because evolution does not disprove god, and vice versa. Evolution explains the diversity of life. That's it.



Not even. Evolution is a theory and a fact like other fields of science. It is not a golden calf, as evolution is a biological model, not an idol. And don't talk about monkey being the idol, as their is not mascot in evolutionary biology.


No, abiogenesis is not evolution. For example some body can believe a goddess made the first cell, and let evolution happened. Evolution explains the diversity of life once it happens.


Goddess damn it, not this again. First off earth is an open system, there for energy can go in and out. So because of this life will not go into disorder on earth because it is not a closed system.


Well actually it is. I mean DNA and RNA is just chemicals, proteins are chemicals, everything is chemicals. So in that case chemicals in the beginning of life on earth just became a different shape of chemicals.


About your quote, the quote was said in 1956, Edwin died in 1952. Also Edwin did not believed it take this quote for example:



Okay. Still doesn't argue for anything.


Well dictionaries, a chemical factory, or New York City can not self replicate. Cells can. So because cells can, they can create them selves, New York city can not.


Holy irony batman! I find it funny the creationist quotes this. I want this to sink in.


Well not really. Animals that go extinct without leaving decedents are not transitional.



Oh boy. So what about the transition of kind is only species to species? So what about horse evolution, in which is from genus to genus. If kind means species, then horse evolution broke that definition. And to make it better AiG has it in their "museum" as kinds.

Now if you change it from species, then I can now explain monophyletic. Monophyletic is defined as this.


Why do I bring this up? Because if I take any ancestral species I can make it a kind. For example ichthyostega is the ancestral species, I can say we are part of the tetrapod kind. This can be applied across the board in taxonomy. This means that evolution can happen on the scales you don't want to see, and still be in the definition of kind.

In short, kind not defined is useless, because of monophyletic groups, any group, species, order, family, even domain can be a kind.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm



Well if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution, not prove it.


You know what you are right. Kinds can not change into different kinds. Mammals can not become the not mammal kind, in which the amniote can not become the not amniote kind, in which the fish can not become the no fish kind, in which the chordate can not become the chordate kind, etc, etc.

[Image: 2009-19.jpg?66447135]

I will do a part a day.

またね

I didn't even read it and "liked" it, because the obvious joke title is all you needed to say and I was 100% convinced on that alone.

Smartass.

Not a joke name, david called his age that.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 09:47 AM
Part 2
(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  THESE FACTS EVEN DISTURBED DARWIN, who questioned, "Why, if species have descended from the other species by
fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?

Quote:"LONG BEFORE HAVING ARRIVED at this part of my work, a
crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader.
Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never
reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the
best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal
to my theory.

You quote mined, just had to point that out.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The answer to Charles' question is simple! All he had to do was read
Genesis Chapter One and he could have known that species have not descended from other species, but were created by
God in orderly, set "kinds"--and that's why all nature is not in confusion!

First, Darwin was a christian, and wrote the theory of evolution as a christian. Second genesis in the bible is unreliable. In all the major books of both Christianity and Judaism genesis differs. If you don't know of lilith, you won't understand until you read about her.

Also I addressed kinds. Mono mono.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  BUT HAVEN'T THE SCIENTISTS WORKING WITH GENETICS PRODUCED NEW SPECIES OF HYBRID PLANTS
AND ANIMALS?
Doesn't this prove that entirely new species could have evolved from the interbreeding of different parent
species? NO! The accepted definition among the scientific community of a species is, "A group of organisms that freely
interbreed and produce fertile offspring."

Yes it is, so what point are you trying to make?


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  And the rare hybrids that can be produced by crossing two species are not
"fertile offspring," but are sterile! As The Collegiate Encyclopedia acknowledges, "The infertility of species hybrids is
one mechanism by which species can remain distinct."

Well evolution does not work in two species breeding a hybrid and that hybrid breeds. Evolution works when a population is faced with change in the environment. If the species dies, they won't evolve, if they survive they do evolve. See how that works. Natural selection

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  In other words, GOD HIMSELF HAS PLACED THE BARRIER OF STERILITY AGAINST THE MIXING UP OF HIS
ORIGINAL APPOINTED "KINDS."

I am going to beat a dead horse. We know what I am going to mention when you mention kinds, every time. So with that I can say the barrier ends at the life kind. There for the barrier for life to change kind is to be a life kind. Like pikaia to vertebrates.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  This God ordained biological principle was verified by the famous
evolutionary professor of zoology, Richard B. Goldschmidt, who wrote, "No where have the limits of the species been
transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, sterility.

Well he was in the 40's not much was known then. But today we know, I see so far you post quotes from older scientist. Wonder why?

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  . NO! NONE OF THE MANY THOU SANDS OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS WITH MUTATIONS HAVE EVER
PRODUCED A NEW "KIND" OR SPECIE OF ANIMAL OR PLANT--NEVER!

There was an experiment by Richard Lenski, in which e.coli did something it could never do before, or what it was never intrinsic in its older form that it can do. This experiment was able to show mutations can happen.

And to you if kinds are species, then a mutation happens when a new species appears.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  All of the geneticists and evolutionists, with
all of their knowledge and intellect, under "perfect" laboratory conditions, and using their modern radiation techniques
that speed up the occurrence of mutations a million-fold--they have utterly failed to change or mutate one "kind" into
another! Yet these same evolutionists somehow expect us to believe that blind, unguided chance has produced the millions
of beautiful, varying and complex forms of life on the earth today!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lenski

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

Here.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  And as far as mutational changes being the "chief building blocks" of evolution, Hermann J. Muller, who won the 1946
Nobel prize for his contributions to the science of genetics

Noticed he mentioned Nobel prize. Seems it is not so bad when he tries to make a point.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  IN MORE THAN 99 PERCENT OF CASES THE
MUTATION OF A GENE PRODUCES SOME KIND OF HARMFUL EFFECT, SOME DISTURBANCE OF FUNCTION.

Again, information is added as time is added when it comes to scientific information. Also I can't find the book on this quote. Next time you should source your quotes book, that is what honest truthful people do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html

^add insult to injury.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so rare that we may consider them ALL as BAD.

Well their are also neutral mutations. There are as many as these as the bad ones. Also mutations depend on environment. Just had to put that in their.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  A CLEAR-CUT EXAMPLE OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF GENE MUTATIONS OCCURRED IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, JAPAN, AT THE END OF WORLD WAR II

くたばれ ぼけ。 あなたはどてもくそがきです。

This is a fucked up example to prove your point くそがき人。

But in fairness lets see why.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  The members of the populace that escaped immediate death from
the hellish atomic bombs used against these cities were subjected to varying degrees of atomic radiation--resulting in
thousands of mutations. None of these mutations produced any new, superior, advanced forms of human beings, as
evolution might lead us to expect. Instead, the pitiful victims of these gene mutations suffered deformities, damage and
death!

You read to many marvel comics bro. Anyway, this would not cause a mutation in which humans would become super, evolution does not work that way. I can't say if 日本人 have a better resistance to radiation, but this does not prove your point of how such a horrible event disproves evolution.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  DRUGS AND CHEMICALS CAN ALSO CAUSE MUTATIONS, as countless victims today can sadly testify. One of the
most widely known instances of this in recent years was the tranquilizer THALIDOMIDE. Again, none of these
chemically-induced mutations were beneficial to the "human species," but rather resulted in cruelly deformed babies,
many without arms or legs!

What do you think mutations are? A sudden introduction to a harmful chemical will not cause humans to evolve into super humans. A mutation like that could happen if humans ended up in an environment like that, and even then that does not mean survival. And what about the animals that can survive dangerous chemicals. Giant tube worms for example.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  IF THIS BIG, RIDICULOUS, IDIOTIC LIE, THIS COMPLICATED, FABRICATED FRAMEWORK OF FICTION
CALLED EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, THEN THERE SHOULD BE MORE MISSING LINKS DUG UP THAN ANYTHING ELSE!

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...al-Fossils

Here is a list of them. I think I will be using this a lot refuting this.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  If there were billions of years of evolution, we'd be up to our ears in missing links!

Well no. One transitional fossil is enough to give us an idea of an entire order's evolution, a chain of them lined up in the time they evolved, is enough to confirm and explain evolution of a group.


(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM
EMBEDDED IN COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH?

This still does not discredit transitional fossils. I hear a lot that if you find two transitional fossils you have to go and find the fossil inbetween those. Has it every come to the pseudo-scientific minds that the in between is going to be one of those two. In fact if we take lets say A.afrensis and A.africanus, the in between would still be one of those species. So in other words find two transitional fossil and asking for the in between is redundant.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  BUT NOW, 120 YEARS LATER, DARWIN'S EXCUSE IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS! Literally hundreds of millions of
fossils have been extracted from all fossil-bearing rock strata and none of them are "transitional forms" or missing
links--they all obviously belong to a definite species! In fact, it is estimated that over 100,000 different, distinct species of
fossils have been found! Yes, no "links"

What about aegyptopithecus, the monkey with teeth of an ape. What about Sphecomyrma, an ant with the traits of wasp like its short mandibles, and double tibial spurs found on its mid and hind legs, which are traits one wasp have, but have no wings like an ant. These two are just one of the many of the animals that are transitional fossils.

[Image: guilmon_nom_by_xxthedarkdragonxx-d6z378d.png]

またね

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
22-08-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: デユークギルン応える:EvolutionisaBIGLIE
I can't understand how people like this guy can quote-mine, deliberately taking things out of context to make the author say what he did not say, and not feel humiliated!

You should be ashamed of yourself for misquoting Darwin's passage, when it's one of the most well-known quotes taken out of context, and the real context is obvious.

Let me say it again: You should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: