Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 07:57 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 08:04 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Coming up to speed on this (why is it I always seem to miss the good threads?)...

Chas, terse and deadly as always.

CLJR, most thorough and relentless.

jaguar3030 you sir a most astute detective! ROFL it's not even a good forgery!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay now Mr.Birdseye...

You have shown us nothing but that you are adapt at using logical fallacies to build a case for your sky daddy out of thin air and so I was thinking that perhaps you should go to law school? ... But then I realized that I was giving you too much credit. So instead I have taken the liberty of suggesting some other career paths for you....

birdseye Wrote:Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

Perhaps you would you make a better farmer? You seem to enjoy constructing lovely little strawmen like this one.

birdseye Wrote:Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, computer science

Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics

......

Or have you could consider becoming a lobbyist because you are appealing to authority figures, but (and here is a pro tip) it only helps your argument when you appeal to an authority in the field of the argument (in this case an evolutionary biologist, embryologist, geneticist, bio chemist, etc.), so on second thought maybe you should get a bus drivers license for that bandwagon.

birdseye Wrote:The theory of evolution originated in an un-organized and dishonest manner... evolutionary scientists have still not been able to show any worth-while evidence for the theory.
.....
Honestly... a forum controlled like this is like a football game with a hometown ref. who calls a penalty on the apposing team on every play... I guess you may as well forfeit right... then it's done none of us any good... you haven't given me any proof that evolution is right, and Atheism is correct, and my proof has all been given up in penalty yards... sounds about right. :-)


I don't know if you should try for a pundit position on with Fox News with ad hominem skills like that, or if you are already practicing pleading for mercy at the unemployment office?


birdseye Wrote:Nearly all of the millions of so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, or "the true species". Today there are many different kinds of one sub-species, such as the hummingbirds, but, orignally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species, hence... the close genetics... As all breeds of dogs, coyotes, wolves, foxes, have the same genetic make-up, they are all still dogs... same with cats/lions etc. There has not been a brake in the genetic barrier creating a New genetically separate species, and there is no example of that. The other aspect of genetic differences come in the form of mutations, however, mutations are almost always degrading, which doesn't fall in line with evolution theory. Bacteria that changes still contains the same genetic make-up, but switches within the genetic strand are turned off, altering one or another characteristic of the bacteria. As a true education student studying a Biblical aspect... just so you know, not to prove anything... we consider the genetic switches God's way to adapt species to address different aspects of life. As plants have changed into what we call weeds, though sharing a genetic make up with edible and palatable plants, they actual address different deficiencies in the soil they grow in. Mineral deficient ground will rise up thistles and other tap-rooted weeds that grow down deep into the soil drawing up minerals, that washed out of the topsoil from our improper use of it.


In the end one thing I do know is that a career in biology and the sciences is not for you. You are simply incredulous . But it's okay to be stupid so long as when your IQ is just a little low and the words are big and the books are long, you just stop kidding yourself and accept that EVOLUTION IS A FUCKING FACT! and then just go right back to sucking on that six pack.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like ridethespiral's post
16-11-2013, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 09:39 PM by kim.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 07:57 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  and then just go right back to sucking on that six pack.

Uh Ride... I think he's a teen... maybe "thumb" - "...sucking on that thumb."... probably more behaviorally appropriate. Shy anything to help out, man.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 09:26 PM
Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:10 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 03:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  We have far more evidence than they did, and insight into the mechanisms of evolution.

And no, science today is not just the follower; ideas and concepts literally inconceivable to those men are today common in scientific thought.

Please join us in the 21st century.

I would like to give you a quick list of who we are "following", and exactly what they provided us to follow. Here are the men who made the fundamental discoveries and inventions that our modern world is based upon(they were all creationists):

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, computer science

Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology

Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829): thermokenetics

Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects

Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory

Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve

Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer

Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars

James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics

Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery

Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography,

James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics. statistical thermodynamics

Gregor Mandel (1822-1884): genetics

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph

Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescope,

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination and immunization

Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotopic chemistry

John Ray (1627-1705) natural history

Lord John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis

Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry

Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology

Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686): stratigraphy

Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics

Leonardo de Vinci (1452-1519): hydraulics

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): pathology

John Woodward (1665-1728): paleontology
I suppose you have a nice book where this list comes from. Care to share?
(seems to be a problem with the reply button. I don't know why it does that)
[/quote]

How many of these scientists have read Darwin?
How many of them denied the law of evolution?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like black_squirrel's post
21-11-2013, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 21-11-2013 11:12 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures
GODDAMMIT !! EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE !!

Why are you people not grasping the logic of simple science is BEYOND ME !

IF you Observe a pattern of something happening ARE YOU WITNESSING HOW THAT PATTERN BEGUN ? No Evolution IS NOT a theory about creation of ANYTHING.. it merely shows how life "Evolved" NOT HOW IT CAME TO BE !

And besides God is a LOGICAL PARADOX anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Moving this thread out of "Introductions".

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(21-11-2013 11:34 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Moving this thread out of "Introductions".

The trash bin would be a suitable landing spot for it. Dodgy

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
21-11-2013, 12:32 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
WOW! Got a real firecracker here. Birdseye, you seem very bitter at the world for some reason. Where you severely punished for having any cognitive thoughts growing up? I am trying to understand your methods to your madness (I mean arguments) with your shotgun approach to invalidate modern science.

If you want to reference past thinkers and innovators as having all of the answers, then why don't we throw out germ theory and stop producing medicines as all diseases were not known in the not so distant past. And I guess we should alter how we launch new sattelites since at one point some of our past geniuses thought the earth was flat, so this must still be true.

Step back, take a breath, and absob some current knowledge available to you so you may understand what credible information is when presented to you.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 06:18 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  3.6 million years. And they are not human footprints, but what is your point?

Those footprints are barefoot and were formed when volcanic ash buried them immediately.

What's really interesting here is that the toe prints of both the human and the dinosaur are shallower than the rest of the footprint. Since feet roll forward, placing weight on the toes as we walk, toe prints should be as deep, or deeper than, the heel print. Yet they are not. It's as if they were stamped into the ground.

This is damning evidence that early humans and dinosaurs actually walked backwards in a forceful manner. Fascinating.

Postscript: It's unfortunate that it was a one-legged man passing a one-legged dinosaur. After all, we'd need that elusive transitional fossil showing two footprints to prove that people had two legs back then.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
27-11-2013, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2013 08:42 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Seriously, how has this gone on this long and nobody has brought up Aron Ra's 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism' and 'Falsifying Phylogeny' series?


1 of 17





1 of 6



[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  We have far more evidence than they did, and insight into the mechanisms of evolution.

And no, science today is not just the follower; ideas and concepts literally inconceivable to those men are today common in scientific thought.

Please join us in the 21st century.

I would like to give you a quick list of who we are "following", and exactly what they provided us to follow. Here are the men who made the fundamental discoveries and inventions that our modern world is based upon(they were all creationists):

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, computer science

Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology

Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829): thermokenetics

Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects

Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory

Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve

Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer

Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars

James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics

Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery

Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography,

James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics. statistical thermodynamics

Gregor Mandel (1822-1884): genetics

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph

Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescope,

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination and immunization

Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotopic chemistry

John Ray (1627-1705) natural history

Lord John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis

Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry

Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology

Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686): stratigraphy

Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics

Leonardo de Vinci (1452-1519): hydraulics

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): pathology

John Woodward (1665-1728): paleontology

And how many of them were exposed to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION?

Darwin's book on it was published in 1859, and some of the scientists you've mentioned died way before then.

Obviously, they couldn't have been evolutionists if they were never introduced to the current idea of evolution through natural selection or even the idea AT ALL.


Talk about intellectually dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Boysurroundedbymoms's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: