Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical & Reasoned out Scientific Questions.

Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 12:23:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"When did the most complex inanimate grouping of elements clumped together in the precise arrangement forming a supposed working thingy, decide it was alive and realize consciousness and was aware it had to think up the next level of change?

When do atoms, amino acids, proteins, start consciousnesses?

What would be the minimum requirement for the most complex inanimate thing to achieve awareness, let alone conscience planning?

How did the most complex inanimate thing know it had to change? Did it reason and think to itself? Did it know it was the first of it's kind? Did it know where it was?

And when thus 'said' stuff begin to 'think' about changing itself at the molecular and or cellular level?

How come so-called simple cells, aren't?

How come evolutionist scientists cannot make a viable so-called simple cell from scratch? (not taking from existing cells parts and pieces into putting together some 'Frankenstein' cell)

Since no one knows authoritatively, why is evolution taught as fact when its very foundation can't be proven, without human interference? (With human interference that proves intelligence controlling and researching an outcome, not mindless, non-involvement from any sort of Intelligent Designer.)

I have set up the evolutionists own parameters, using their thoughts and reasonings to see if their make sense to themselves.

If you believe in evolution, you should be able to competently handle these EASY logical and reasoned out honest questions.

Why? Because these are scientific based questions.

Using evolutionist's reasoning and thought patterns and belief, "it just happened", how is that explanation scientific?

"Once upon a time, it just happened...", Is that really a scientific reason?

Is just saying it happened is supposed to be The Scientific Explanation?

This would be considered the foundation of evolution. Wouldn't it?

Wouldn't that logic and reason and belief be likened to having a large Skyscraper with no sound/solid foundation? It looks good from a distance, but upon closer inspection, the foundation violates all known building codes.

Just asking ....
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 12:46:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 12:23:55 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
"When did the most complex inanimate grouping of elements clumped together in the precise arrangement forming a supposed working thingy, decide it was alive and realize consciousness and was aware it had to think up the next level of change?

When did abiogenesis occur? Almost 4 billion years ago. There was no "decision" to be alive.


When do atoms, amino acids, proteins, start consciousnesses?

This is a loaded question as it presumes that there is some distinct, discrete point in time in which consciousness comes into being. I don't think there is such a point.


What would be the minimum requirement for the most complex inanimate thing to achieve awareness, let alone conscience planning?

See, here you go again. You are putting consciousness under constraints which probably don't apply. I certainly don't believe they apply, and I'm not aware of these constraints being demonstrated as existing. I don't think consciousness comes in discrete quanta in which we can say, "X conscions (the ficticious name I just game up for the singular unit of consciousness which doesn't actually exist) are made up the following A, B, C, chemicals, minimally."

Before you can ask these questions, you need to consider whether or not they are appropriate given this context.


How did the most complex inanimate thing know it had to change? Did it reason and think to itself? Did it know it was the first of it's kind? Did it know where it was?

It didn't. No. No. And No.


And when thus 'said' stuff begin to 'think' about changing itself at the molecular and or cellular level?

Never. Living organisms don't do that.


How come so-called simple cells, aren't?

They are, relatively speaking.


How come evolutionist scientists cannot make a viable so-called simple cell from scratch? (not taking from existing cells parts and pieces into putting together some 'Frankenstein' cell)

Because we are not yet aware of all of the variables that need to be in place to allow protocells to arise out of non-cellular material. Though we are constantly making strides in this area.

Before getting into that, I'll note that the wording of your question seems to conflate evolution and abiogenesis, which are separate and distinct subjects. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life came about, just what happened to it after it was already here.

Experiments and discoveries related to abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.wired.com...

Those are what I already know and found via cursory research. I'm sure there are plenty more. However, the biased nature in which you've stated your question makes me skeptical of the degree to which you are actually seeking factual information on the subject, so I'm discinlined to do in-depth research to answer them. If you are, we can discuss this further.


Since no one knows authoritatively, why is evolution taught as fact when its very foundation can't be proven, without human interference? (With human interference that proves intelligence controlling and researching an outcome, not mindless, non-involvement from any sort of Intelligent Designer.)

Evolution does not depend on, nor is based on, abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution. The foundation of evolution is the fact that living organisms replicate and alter their genetic code when doing so, thus resulting in different probabilities for successful replication in the future. It is taught as a fact because of the overwhelming mountains of evidence in its favor which, again, has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care how life got here, be it aliens, god, primordial soup, primordial sandwich, panspermia or what-have-you.

Again:

Evolution =/= abiogenesis

They are two separate and distinct subjects that do not rely or depend on each other. Please acknowledge this fact. If you do not, this discussion if over.


I have set up the evolutionists own parameters, using their thoughts and reasonings to see if their make sense to themselves.

If you believe in evolution, you should be able to competently handle these EASY logical and reasoned out honest questions.

Why? Because these are scientific based questions.

Using evolutionist's reasoning and thought patterns and belief, "it just happened", how is that explanation scientific?

"Once upon a time, it just happened...", Is that really a scientific reason?

Is just saying it happened is supposed to be The Scientific Explanation?

Science currently doesn't have, nor claim to have, a working model of abiogenesis. We have several hypotheses, but don't yet know which is actually the case. We're working on it. Regardless, we do know it happened, because life wasn't always around. It wasn't here, then it was. So abiogenesis had to have happened. This isn't even in dispute.


This would be considered the foundation of evolution. Wouldn't it?

No. No it would not.


Wouldn't that logic and reason and belief be likened to having a large Skyscraper with no sound/solid foundation? It looks good from a distance, but upon closer inspection, the foundation violates all known building codes.

Just asking ....

If you have the bricks, it doesn't matter who gave them to you in order to build a house.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 2:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Draftermans replies were mostly on the mark, but ill add some stuff.
At 7/13/2012 12:23:55 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
When do atoms, amino acids, proteins, start consciousnesses?
When they form together to produce a brain that is capable of interpreting the reality around them.
What would be the minimum requirement for the most complex inanimate thing to achieve awareness, let alone conscience planning?

A clump of nerves that are capable of discerning its surroundings by recieiving information from sensory output.

How come so-called simple cells, aren't?
Is a computer, more complex than a single cell? In a way, yes, and in a way, no. A single cell cannot do 10,000,000 calculations in a fraction of a second. A single cell cannot render, blend, blur, or sharpen a picture. A single cell cannot communicate with another single cell from a thousand miles away, in a matter of seconds. Yet all this can be done by a computer.

Since no one knows authoritatively, why is evolution taught as fact when its very foundation can't be proven, without human interference? (With human interference that proves intelligence controlling and researching an outcome, not mindless, non-involvement from any sort of Intelligent Designer.)

I dont understand.

Why would any knowledge that comes out of authority, be necessarily correct?

Furthermore, by "its very foundation", what are you reffering to exactly? Also, what do you mean by "Without human interference"?

I have set up the evolutionists own parameters, using their thoughts and reasonings to see if their make sense to themselves.

Although some of your questions dont make sense to me, the arguments and evidence makes sense to me.

Using evolutionist's reasoning and thought patterns and belief, "it just happened", how is that explanation scientific?

Well, no, its not that it "Just happened". Its called nature, the laws of physics. All of this is following the laws of physics and nature.

You wouldnt say that Water, H2O, "Just happened" to have formed after putting Hydrogen and oxygen into a box and applied energy. No, H2O formed because the chemical properties, the laws of physics and nature, has produced this.

Wouldn't that logic and reason and belief be likened to having a large Skyscraper with no sound/solid foundation? It looks good from a distance, but upon closer inspection, the foundation violates all known building codes.

Just asking ....

I still dont unerstand what you mean by "Solid foundation". Are you saying that the fact that Evolution "Just happened" is the foundation for evolution? I always considered change over time, the foundation for evolution.
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 5:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
LOL

Evolution even from a scientific analysis means from nothing, something comes to be. Right? Can I get an "AMEN Brother" on that?!

Therefore, logically if something comes to be, then you cannot easily dismiss the existence/involvement of planning, sequencing, formulation, experimentation, all descriptive words that have 'intelligence' built into it's meaning.

Evolutionist should be able to describe things simply, without using such words that demands the rightful understanding and meaning inherently applied of existence tied to the logical implications of 'thought' or 'intelligence'.

Don't use thinking words, that strongly implies a living being with a consciousness, don't use them at all to prove your 'mindless', 'it just happened', 'blind' occurrence, theory.
That's using the evolutionist parameters of belief, so stick to them religiously. Prove your belief.

All research paper use them(intelligence words) to describe the process by which the researcher/scientist observe and record what they see under any controlled experiment that they put into motion.

They can't seem to get away from words that ascribe, "control processes of how things come into existence and intelligence words."

Evolution, in the purest sense means no consciousnesses, no self awareness, no planning, no remembering the last form of existence in order to evolve to the next viable step in life, because you can't scientifically prove that a complex inanimate combination of elements figured out it was alive. Impossible. Absurd.
While at the same time, evolutionists say there can't be 'intelligence' involved also.

Evolutionist must prove to the whole class and STICK to the the evolutionary theory(means guessing or prove your faith) of blind chance in an inhospitable and contaminated uncontrolled atmosphere with the Sun's ultraviolet rays saturating the surface of the planet earth, that life "just happened."

Scientific? Really? Doesn't that just goes back to, 'because I said so,' or 'once upon time', again?

So, some "primordial soup" de jour(I don't eat that kind of soup) of atoms that 'just happen' to become atoms for no mathematical reason at all, amino acids that 'just happen' to form at the correct combination of atoms by itself when again implies 'thinking' on the part of the atoms, proteins which would constitute the higher form of being than just being an amino acids, but should have NO thoughts about changing into a more complex form of one that it has never experienced or dreamed about, elements which are found in living organisms in their make up, just happened?

Really?

When does the thing knows it has to change in order to adapt, when evolution doesn't allow for 'thought' in the first place?
When does the design change itself?
When it knows it's alive?
Does it know it's alive when it's not supposed to have thought?

Evolutionist still haven't answered the question. The basis of your whole belief system, your religion, which it is.

Evolutions says, from nothing alive came something alive. How?

How?

I am using your own reasonings and thought process against your belief.
If it is truth, it will be able to stand on it's own.

When did the most complex inanimate thing decide it was alive?

Computers are not alive. Made by people.
External god-like beings from the point of view of a computer, IF, it were alive.
But in either way, WE made computers. -Scientific Fact.
It can be proven over and over.
Established reality.
Truth.
It stands on it's own.

Here's one: In order to change, you gotta take note of your present situation and cause the needed implementations in order to achieve the next better outcome.

Right?

Where is the flaw in that logic?

Only with an awareness of intelligence and consciousness to understand that any change will happen; barring any unforeseen occurrence that could happen like, dying.

For evolution to work, it needs to acknowledge an intelligence behind the orderliness of life itself, but then it still wouldn't work.

Evolution is 'mindless' to comprehend.
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 5:51:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 5:39:01 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
LOL

Evolution even from a scientific analysis means from nothing, something comes to be. Right? Can I get an "AMEN Brother" on that?!

Therefore, logically if something comes to be, then you cannot easily dismiss the existence/involvement of planning, sequencing, formulation, experimentation, all descriptive words that have 'intelligence' built into it's meaning.

Evolutionist should be able to describe things simply, without using such words that demands the rightful understanding and meaning inherently applied of existence tied to the logical implications of 'thought' or 'intelligence'.

Don't use thinking words, that strongly implies a living being with a consciousness, don't use them at all to prove your 'mindless', 'it just happened', 'blind' occurrence, theory.
That's using the evolutionist parameters of belief, so stick to them religiously. Prove your belief.

All research paper use them(intelligence words) to describe the process by which the researcher/scientist observe and record what they see under any controlled experiment that they put into motion.

They can't seem to get away from words that ascribe, "control processes of how things come into existence and intelligence words."

Evolution, in the purest sense means no consciousnesses, no self awareness, no planning, no remembering the last form of existence in order to evolve to the next viable step in life, because you can't scientifically prove that a complex inanimate combination of elements figured out it was alive. Impossible. Absurd.
While at the same time, evolutionists say there can't be 'intelligence' involved also.

Evolutionist must prove to the whole class and STICK to the the evolutionary theory(means guessing or prove your faith) of blind chance in an inhospitable and contaminated uncontrolled atmosphere with the Sun's ultraviolet rays saturating the surface of the planet earth, that life "just happened."

Scientific? Really? Doesn't that just goes back to, 'because I said so,' or 'once upon time', again?

So, some "primordial soup" de jour(I don't eat that kind of soup) of atoms that 'just happen' to become atoms for no mathematical reason at all, amino acids that 'just happen' to form at the correct combination of atoms by itself when again implies 'thinking' on the part of the atoms, proteins which would constitute the higher form of being than just being an amino acids, but should have NO thoughts about changing into a more complex form of one that it has never experienced or dreamed about, elements which are found in living organisms in their make up, just happened?

Really?

When does the thing knows it has to change in order to adapt, when evolution doesn't allow for 'thought' in the first place?
When does the design change itself?
When it knows it's alive?
Does it know it's alive when it's not supposed to have thought?

Evolutionist still haven't answered the question. The basis of your whole belief system, your religion, which it is.

Evolutions says, from nothing alive came something alive. How?

How?

I am using your own reasonings and thought process against your belief.
If it is truth, it will be able to stand on it's own.

When did the most complex inanimate thing decide it was alive?

Computers are not alive. Made by people.
External god-like beings from the point of view of a computer, IF, it were alive.
But in either way, WE made computers. -Scientific Fact.
It can be proven over and over.
Established reality.
Truth.
It stands on it's own.

Here's one: In order to change, you gotta take note of your present situation and cause the needed implementations in order to achieve the next better outcome.

Right?

Where is the flaw in that logic?

Only with an awareness of intelligence and consciousness to understand that any change will happen; barring any unforeseen occurrence that could happen like, dying.

For evolution to work, it needs to acknowledge an intelligence behind the orderliness of life itself, but then it still wouldn't work.

Evolution is 'mindless' to comprehend.

THe Fool: I don't know doesn't lead to God.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 7:28:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 5:39:01 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
LOL

Evolution even from a scientific analysis means from nothing, something comes to be. Right? Can I get an "AMEN Brother" on that?!

No. Evolution from a scientific analysis means change within successive generations of a given population.

I.e. It requires living organisms to act upon, in order to work.

Are living organisms nothing? No? Then no amen for you.

Therefore, logically if something comes to be, then you cannot easily dismiss the existence/involvement of planning, sequencing, formulation, experimentation, all descriptive words that have 'intelligence' built into it's meaning.

Evolutionist should be able to describe things simply, without using such words that demands the rightful understanding and meaning inherently applied of existence tied to the logical implications of 'thought' or 'intelligence'.

Don't use thinking words, that strongly implies a living being with a consciousness, don't use them at all to prove your 'mindless', 'it just happened', 'blind' occurrence, theory.
That's using the evolutionist parameters of belief, so stick to them religiously. Prove your belief.

All research paper use them(intelligence words) to describe the process by which the researcher/scientist observe and record what they see under any controlled experiment that they put into motion.

They can't seem to get away from words that ascribe, "control processes of how things come into existence and intelligence words."

Evolution, in the purest sense means no consciousnesses, no self awareness, no planning, no remembering the last form of existence in order to evolve to the next viable step in life, because you can't scientifically prove that a complex inanimate combination of elements figured out it was alive. Impossible. Absurd.
While at the same time, evolutionists say there can't be 'intelligence' involved also.

What do you mean by "Intelligent" words?

Evolutionist must prove to the whole class and STICK to the the evolutionary theory(means guessing or prove your faith) of blind chance in an inhospitable and contaminated uncontrolled atmosphere with the Sun's ultraviolet rays saturating the surface of the planet earth, that life "just happened."

I told you, it didnt "Just happen". You chose not to read it, and still claimed that it "Just happened". Thanks for being intellectually lazy and dishonest. I guess we know why you are a creationist.

Scientific? Really? Doesn't that just goes back to, 'because I said so,' or 'once upon time', again?

No, it goes back to "Because the evidence tells us so".

So, some "primordial soup" de jour(I don't eat that kind of soup) of atoms that 'just happen' to become atoms for no mathematical reason at all, amino acids that 'just happen' to form at the correct combination of atoms by itself when again implies 'thinking' on the part of the atoms, proteins which would constitute the higher form of being than just being an amino acids, but should have NO thoughts about changing into a more complex form of one that it has never experienced or dreamed about, elements which are found in living organisms in their make up, just happened?

Really?

No, again, you didnt read draftermans response. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

When does the thing knows it has to change in order to adapt, when evolution doesn't allow for 'thought' in the first place?
It doesnt "Know". Adaption isnt a choice.
When does the design change itself?
When a mutation occurs.
When it knows it's alive?
No.
Does it know it's alive when it's not supposed to have thought?
No.

Evolutionist still haven't answered the question. The basis of your whole belief system, your religion, which it is.

I just answered it.

Evolutions says, from nothing alive came something alive. How?

Thats not what evolution says. Again, read Draftermans response.

I am using your own reasonings and thought process against your belief.
If it is truth, it will be able to stand on it's own.

When did the most complex inanimate thing decide it was alive?

Computers are not alive. Made by people.
External god-like beings from the point of view of a computer, IF, it were alive.
But in either way, WE made computers. -Scientific Fact.
It can be proven over and over.
Established reality.
Truth.
It stands on it's own.

For someone who claims to be using our reasoning, and asking for answers, you dont seem to read any of the answers we provide.

Here's one: In order to change, you gotta take note of your present situation and cause the needed implementations in order to achieve the next better outcome.

Right?

Where is the flaw in that logic?

Here it is.

Change does not require intelligence or sentience. Hydrogen and Oxygen can change into water. Doesnt mean either molecules need to be sentient, need to take note of their present situation, in order to become Water.

Only with an awareness of intelligence and consciousness to understand that any change will happen; barring any unforeseen occurrence that could happen like, dying.

For evolution to work, it needs to acknowledge an intelligence behind the orderliness of life itself, but then it still wouldn't work.

Evolution is 'mindless' to comprehend.

For someone who claims to be using our reasoning, and asking for answers, you dont seem to read any of the answers we provide. Maybe you should try reading the answers we provide, before you claim that no evolutionist has answered any of your questions.

I.e., your arguments fail. Nice try though.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 8:16:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok. I see the point-by-point response isn't working. You are either unwilling or unable to process that amount of information at the same time. So let's try a different approach. I'll take the first point you make, or first question you ask, and answer that, and only that.

We will address that point until resolution. By resolution I mean we either agree, and move on, or we come to some fundamental impasse, in which case: discussion over.

At 7/13/2012 5:39:01 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
LOL

Evolution even from a scientific analysis means from nothing, something comes to be. Right? Can I get an "AMEN Brother" on that?!

No. Evolution does not mean something from nothing.
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 7:43:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I want to thank you guys for at least engaging me on this topic.

Here's something to else think about?

Most science courses focus on the adaptation and survival of life-forms instead of on the more central question of the very origin of life. You may have noted that attempts to explain where life came from are usually presented in generalizations such as: ‘Over millions of years, molecules in collision somehow produced life.' Yet, is that really satisfying?

It would mean that in the presence of energy from the sun, lightning, or volcanoes, some lifeless matter moved, became organized, and eventually started living—all of this without directed assistance. What a huge leap that would have been! From nonliving matter to living! Could it have occurred that way?

Many people recall Pasteur's work in solving problems related to fermentation and to infectious disease. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life-forms could arise by themselves. As you may have read, Pasteur demonstrated that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination.

In 1864 he announced: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." That statement remains true. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter.

How then could life come to be on earth? Modern efforts to answer that question might be dated to the 1920's, to the work of Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparin. He and other scientists since then have offered something like the script of a three-act drama that depicts what is claimed to have occurred on the stage of planet Earth.

The first act portrays earth's elements, or raw materials, being transformed into groups of molecules. Then comes the jump to large molecules. And the last act of this drama presents the leap to the first living cell. But did it really happen that way?

Fundamental to that drama is explaining that earth's early atmosphere was much different from what it is today. One theory assumes that free oxygen was virtually absent and that the elements nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon formed ammonia and methane. The concept is that when lightning and ultraviolet light struck an atmosphere of these gases and water vapor, sugars and amino acids developed. Bear in mind, though, that this is theory.

According to this theoretical drama, such molecular forms washed into the oceans or other bodies of water. Over time, sugars, acids, and other compounds concentrated into a broth of "prebiotic soup" where amino acids, for instance, joined to become proteins. Extending this theoretical progression, other compounds called nucleotides formed chains and became a nucleic acid, such as DNA.

All of this supposedly set the stage for the final act of the molecular drama.
One might depict this last act, which is undocumented, as a love story. Protein molecules and DNA molecules happen to meet, recognize each other, and embrace. Then, just before the curtain rings down, the first living cell is born.

If you were following this drama, you might wonder, ‘Is this real life or fiction? Could life on earth really have originated in this way?'

Here's a fact in science that questions, even cancels, above line of thought:
Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed.


So how would evolution continue when the amino acids would be destroyed?

Where is the flaw in this logic?

How Much Chance for Chance?

"Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man," said Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, speaking about the origin of life. Is chance, though, a rational explanation for the cause of life?

What is chance? Some think in terms of a mathematical probability, such as the chance involved in flipping a coin. However, that is not how many scientists use "chance" regarding the origin of life. The vague word "chance" is used as a substitute for a more precise word such as "cause," especially when the cause is not known.

"To personify ‘chance' as if we were talking about a causal agent," notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, "is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept." Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: "By calling the unknown cause ‘chance' for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause' has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.'"

Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, for one, used this chance-equals-cause line of reasoning. "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution," he wrote. "Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance." Note he says: ‘BY chance.' Monod does what many others do—he elevates chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.

In fact, dictionaries show that "chance" is "the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings." Thus, if one speaks about life coming about by chance, he is saying that it came about by a causal power that is not known. Could it be that some are virtually spelling "Chance" with a capital letter—in effect saying, Creator?

Where is the flawed illogical reasoning, by asking simple scientific clear questions about, How did it start?
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 8:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's another line of reasoning...

Classic but Questionable

Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth's primordial atmosphere was "reducing." That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.' How solid was Miller's presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: "These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found."—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: "Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it."—Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller's assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."

Why, then, do many still hold that earth's early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, "laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen" and because compounds such as amino acids "are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen."

Is this not circular reasoning?

The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

There is another telling detail:

If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?


So, again, where is the flaw in the reasoning?

Who's flaws of logic, guessing, and making up 'fantastical bed-time stories' is being exposed?

How did the most inanimate thing after forming "Knew" it had to survive, adapt, make chances and "knew" it had to rely on the improbability of 'chance' in order to 'evolve'?

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. It is stupidity rather than courage to refuse to recognize danger when it is close upon you."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"When you have eliminated the impossible[whatever doesn't analytically make sense],
whatever remains[evidence in your face, backed by peer review],
however improbable[mind changing paradigms that are factual],
must be the truth[TRUTH is Bias].
It is stupidity[obstinate arrogance] rather than courage[reasoned intelligence] to refuse to recognize danger[destruction of a belief] when it is close upon you[yes, what you belief is personal, but truth doesn't care]."
-- Altered by lowly Knologist-Prime, at your service.
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 8:18:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would like to propose that there is another way of looking at the theory of evolution Knologist, one that is consistent with, and complimentary to, Christianity..

First, lets recognize that the "mechanism" Darwin proposed is a tautology at best. Survival of the fittest really only says that in hindsight, we see that the survivors survived. That is certainly no threat to faith, any faith that is threatened by that is a weak faith.

So what was Darwin's real accomplishment?

At a point in time when Science was at its peak of materialistic and deterministic hubris, Darwin applied the scientific method to life...and here is what he found.

1) That life was contingent. Contingent upon the rest of creation, its growth and development was a mysterious interplay between nature and nurture, between the individual and the environment, between the part and the whole. He proclaimed all of life to be a unity and stated that in time and space we are all interconnected to each other and to everything.

2) That life was probabilistic, consequently, it was not deterministic. Darwinian evolution has no predictive quality, it's half a scientific theory, that's why it was referred to as natural history rather than science by Darwin. His theory stated that life is open ended, with infinite possibility, and it's history shows endless variety.

3) That all of life is one life. He demonstrated that all life is interconnected; all life is related to each other and to the rest of the world. In time, he demonstrated that all life had descended (ascended would have been a better word) from one initial instance of life, in effect, all life is one life. He did not explain away the mystery of life, to date, science has not even touched upon the mystery of life.

I just don't understand what all the contrived conflict is about. Please don't give me that he provided design without a designer. First of all, he didn't, second of all we are talking about a transcendent God, objective proofs are not possible and in fact, are considered to be a form of idolatry, in that they focus on the concept of God rather than the experience of God, they "objectify God", and God is not an object. There are no objective proofs of the existence of God and there can't be, so this does not hold up as an argument against the concept of evolution.

Doesn't the Bible say that our faith is a ministry of reconciliation, rather than contriving conflict, perhaps you are supposed to work on reconciling your faith with the facts of science. It isn't hard to do, and maybe it is mandated even.

Darwin, by applying the scientific method, rigorously and in a comprehensive way, to life, determined that life was contingent, probabilistic, and constitutes a unity. In essence, he put science to Genesis, in no way contradicting it in word or in spirit. He correlated the facts of science to the overriding image provided by theology.

This was at the peak of Science's deterministic and materialistic arrogance, and in one fell swoop he turned science around, he changed the direction of Science's journey so to speak. Somewhere along the line, the prodigal son of Science had diverged and now, with centuries of new knowledge and experiences under its belt, it has turned back around and begun a journey down a path that would some day intersect and converge with the original path.

This idea that evolution and faith are somehow in conflict is a sacred cow that just doesn't exist. Perhaps you can recognize that the prodigal son of Science has finally come back home, perhaps it's time to slaughter the fatted calf of contrived conflict and celebrate.

The opposing idea of a trickster God that is deceptive would do more harm to Christianity than the idea of evolution could ever do. Without representing a deceptive God that would make us intelligent and inquiring and then place us in a universe that merely gives the appearance of great age, can you explain what the problem with this theory is?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 8:33:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Knologist,

We haven't engaged you on this topic. We can't, because you won't engage us. All you are doing is posting nonsense, waiting for people to reply, then posting more nonsense without taking into account the responses.

It is dishonest, stupid, and ignorant. Until you stop, there is no point in continuing to respond to you.
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 10:44:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 8:33:19 AM, drafterman wrote:
Knologist,

We haven't engaged you on this topic. We can't, because you won't engage us. All you are doing is posting nonsense, waiting for people to reply, then posting more nonsense without taking into account the responses.

It is dishonest, stupid, and ignorant. Until you stop, there is no point in continuing to respond to you.

Well I see you didn't read my last 2 posts, that even those documented scientists and researchers of High caliber mucky-muckness, couldn't answer the question of, 'when does the inanimate object knows it has to evolve in order to stay alive' either, form their own investigations. How did it start?

Do you still deny that 'at some point'[a term evolutionists use when they want to just say so] 'consciousnesses' of an inanimate thing has to take place in order to know what it's current state of being is, and then plan to the next level of life in order to survive?

Isn't that what evolutionists' believe? Atoms, molecules, amino acids, proteins, soupy-stuff, unstable atmosphere, lighting, oxygen, carbon dioxide, all coming together at the precise moment with no order what so ever, all these inanimate things, produced a life form that just happened and it couldn't decide to change to the next level of brainless evolution? At some point, 'intelligence' must be present of the life form. Right? It stands to reason.

Why is it then High caliber mucky-muck scientists and researchers even TODAY cannot duplicate such a simple way of making a life form? We are so advanced scientifically and technologically, and yet evolution cannot be proven.

How is that, not a proper use of logic and reason when evolutionists talk about change?

Have you asked that question to any mucky-muck professor?
I have, typically they avoid that question and resort to insulting the questioner.
Is that a scientific way to respond to an honest, reasoned, out and logical inquiry?

Don't feel bad, since evolutionists cannot answer the question, you're are in good company.

I acknowledge that we all have personal beliefs, at times we must defend what we believe to see where we are in our own growth.

With respects, nothing personal. Just asking.
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 11:34:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your right. I havent read those posts. And I won't because you aren't acknowledging the responses. You've been told at least three times that evolution has nothing to do with the start of life from nonlife, but you refuse to acknowledge this. I reduced this conversation to it's simplest form - a single point of contention - and you can't even address that.

It's clear that you're not interested in conversation, you just want to mindlessly spout this garbage without dealing with the responses.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 11:37:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
With regards to your most recent post, you're just regurgitating your questions from the OP, which I've already answered. So you demonstrate your unwillingness to read and your inability to learn.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 1:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/14/2012 10:44:33 AM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Well I see you didn't read my last 2 posts, that even those documented scientists and researchers of High caliber mucky-muckness, couldn't answer the question of, 'when does the inanimate object knows it has to evolve in order to stay alive' either, form their own investigations. How did it start?

We already answered your questions. Stop lying.
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 9:50:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most patient dudes,

I have read your responses, and your answers came down to this, "WE[pro-evolution people] don't know."

However, when you consider the complexities of a water bacterium, so-called, simple life form, when did it 'know' it had to 'eat' other things in order to survive?

How did it's so-called predecessor which had to be of inferior assemblance[staying within the parameters of the evolution theory], know it had to pass on that awareness to 'eat' to the next more advanced stage?

If you say DNA, how did the so-called simple water bacterium produce something new into its organism from an inferior state of being[repeat the process to it's most base form and then go forward], to the more advanced model?

How did it know to evolution DNA, or that it needed it?

Now if you say instinct, doesn't that word means programmed[which always has a programmer as it's originator. No program has ever existed without the Programer], nothing operates by itself, but is governed by established laws of physics and principle for what things are supposed to do[No order come from chaos].

Instinct, which is 'consciousnesses', the demonstration of some sort of awareness of what it has to do, had to be present in the change and growth of even the past forms of the so-called simple water bacterium, at some point. My point is it had to be there from the beginning.

Now if you say Nature, you ave just personified Nature as the Cause for the bacterium's success. Nature [god-like, advanced alien] now is the external force with 'intelligence' that directed the origins of the so-called simple cell water bacterium's predecessors into becoming programmed with instinct enough to know where 'it' understands, knows 'it's' deficiencies and with the need the 'knowledge' have to evolve/change into making a new thing needed or a slightly more advanced version of its self or something completely different. Without the experience of how to do it. Not logical for saying it just happened.

When a evolutionist just says, "so it developed such-n-such, because it needed to do such-n-such in order to survive," the sheer fact of that statement I and many other people have heard over and over again, from the many evolutionary pro documentaries presented, from their own words, implies 'intelligence'. Does it not?

Look up those types of words, conveyance of thoughts, and descriptions in their presentations, and they consistently repeat it, clearly and authoritatively. Even in their published papers. They ascribe 'thought' to where no 'thoughts' should be, according to the evolution theory.

Based on their own 'teachings' on the evolutionary process , logical by reversing the process back to the origins of a so-called simple cell water bacterium, the evolutionist educated statements, "... so it had to develop such-n-such in order to survive, so it needed a such-n-such, so it jut did it..."

When did the most formulated complex inanimate 'mindless'/'brain dead' grouping of proteins, amino acids, molecules, elements from the Periodic Table and atoms of things, in order to evolve or to come to life, 'know' it was alive, and to repeat itself 'mindlessly' so as to advance the so-called non-external intelligent interference of evolutionist's own personification of, because 'it just happened' by Nature, itself?

Just saying 'it happened' is not scientific, nor is brow beating others.

To make Something from nothing, nothing happens.
To make Something from something, something happens.
For Matter to exist from emptiness, is emptiness and null.
For Matter to exist from matter, is a matter of fact.
For Science to be factual, results must come from facts.[Anything that can be demonstrated over and over again from Peer Review, and in different times and places in the universe]
When a declaration about an unproven process comes from a scientist, its just a theory. Theories are never facts, they are personal, leaps of faith, guesses.

Is this not so?

Thank you for your indulgence.
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:15:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 9:50:57 AM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Most patient dudes,

I have read your responses, and your answers came down to this, "WE[pro-evolution people] don't know."

No.

Our answer is this:

"Abiogenesis, the beginning of life, has nothing to do with evolution, and therefore being a "Pro-evolutionist" has nothing to do with this."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 9:50:57 AM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
How did it know to evolution DNA, or that it needed it?


Again, it didnt "Know" because DNA isnt sentient. Stop lying, we have already answered this half a dozen of times for you.

Do you understand what the word "Know" means?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 6:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only reason anyone belives in evolution is because they were taught to by anothe individual. An individual can not prove to themselves wheather or not evolution is factual or not. You just have to take the word of someone else who was also taught the same thing. Sounds good on paper, is it factual who the hell knows. Certainly no one on this site. Everyone here is just regurgitating what someone else said. No one here is in any position to comment on eveolution other than to just post the words of another person and hope you will belive it because they do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 8:54:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 6:18:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
The only reason anyone belives in evolution is because they were taught to by anothe individual.

What, including Darwin?

An individual can not prove to themselves wheather or not evolution is factual or not.

Yes they can.

You just have to take the word of someone else who was also taught the same thing.

No you don't.

Sounds good on paper, is it factual who the hell knows. Certainly no one on this site. Everyone here is just regurgitating what someone else said. No one here is in any position to comment on eveolution other than to just post the words of another person and hope you will belive it because they do.

And what value are you adding?
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:14:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most patient dudes,

Thanks for your patience as expressed toward me and others who question the evolution theory.

My questions are simple and logical and reasonable as to; who, what, where, when, how and why, life started, which does go back farther to before the 'singularity theory'[How did it come to be or does evolutionist's just 'say', its always been there, when a singularity is an object of physical stuff, since all things in the universe is in it] or the 'Big Bang theory'[what is the catalyst of its denotation or did it fart or who pressed the trigger].

But, still the question(s) are in harmony directly found in the template of 'evolution'.
Life from lifelessness. How?

So my simple inquiry is very valid.

It's no insult to those who want to believe in it, evolution, but you cannot say it's a fact.
Consensus of any 'theory', does not make it a fact.
Because it has not been accurately answered soundly.


Isn't science or scientific truths, built on the accuracy of all scientific disciplines, based on definite principles applied to said truth and can be easily repeated by the same processes that always results in soundly, firmly, unshakable change, able and capable to refute any other theory being tried and compared against it?

I know I have formed a very observant question that requires science of all disciplines to answer.

From the movie Expelled. No Intelligence Required.

Can anyone refute these excerpts of Ben Stein conversing with Richard Dawkins[Atheist and evolutionist] as being bias or one-sided?

The question of how life got started.

Excerpt 1.
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.

Richard Dawkins gets paid for teaching this as fact? Really? An outside influence of aliens? God-like intelligence from the view of a booger that came to life?

How am I being ignorant or disrespectful by examining his own belief from his own thoughts, by his own words? Who sounds more ignorant and confused about just throwing up a bunch of words to sound knowledgeable?

Excerpt 2.
Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.

Logical breakdown of line of answers to questions:

Claim 1:"We[people with common belief] know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life." Expressed as a definite statement of fact. Why? Because he 'said so'. So logically I will accept his statement. So by his answer, he is relating a fact that must be accepted. He also states the condition for a happening in the right period of time, that a specific timing must take place for change to occur; no life form to exist to a life form existing. He did not answer the event scientifically with precise accuracy. He is presenting his argument as fact.

Question: "And what was that?" Meaning, OK, you have made your statement as a matter of fact. I will accept the fact you have stated your position. Now explain to me and the audience, how you got this fact, that you are so sure of the means of your investigative skills by all your academic credentials and expertise.

Claim 2: "It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule." Expressed with a definite air of confidence, in what he absolutely knows to be correct in every way. He knows how the origins of this self replicating molecule; it's make up, how it formed, the unscripted recipe of its coming together from inanimate elements, how it replicated itself without prior information before it became a self replicating molecule, or for that matter whatever it was. Plus he knew it was the first because, again he 'just said so.' Presented as fact.

Response and question: "Right, and how did that happen?" A positive acknowledgement toward Dawkins of what he clearly stated as fact. Due to his academic credentials, his expertise and he gets paid for what he believes and teaches, I am taking him at his word because he wouldn't deceive anyone wanting to engage in rational conversation and an interchange of ideas. Followed up by, tell me more of how you got to have such solid faith in knowing what you know, because of your hard work by achieving your academic credentials, by practicing your expertise and getting paid for you belief by authoring many books on the subject. I wanna know clearly how you came to that conclusion as fact.

Response given because of his factual claim(s): "I've told you, we don't know."
I am confused? Based on your own words, thoughts, and belief that you so emphatically, seriously, passionately, brain-i-aclly spewed out as fact. You admit you do not know!? Wha..?! I can just look back at you previous answers you made with an air of definitive confidence exuding from your authoritative presence and commanding appearance, that you said you know what you are talking about, because your are a smarty pants. You said so!

Shocked and amazed reply to smarty pants: "So you have no idea how it started."
But I thought you were 'all that' in your field of expertise? Say that it isn't so! How could you say something so scholarly while not knowing what you are talking about, and you get paid for understanding nothing at all?!

PWNED: "No, no. Nor has anyone."
[GASP] By his own belief he spewed out what he definitely believed to be facts of a theory to the question, 'How did life start?' He authoritatively said so!
He was her-rumphing his words as, 'this is how it is'!
But he contradicts himself and lied to himself and to those watching as to knowing what he was taking about.

So when I said my words,"Don't worry. You are in good company", it was in harmony with my understanding the difference between what is a fact verses a theory, when applied to the question of 'how life started from the stage of inanimate thingies coming to life', it is in the context of following the evolution parameters accurately, the way 'it is taught' but exposing it's non-scientific explanations.

From nothing comes nothing.

And this brief excerpt from Expelled, shows my conclusive argument/ view, which is more logical than what the experts have said.

Your humble whipping boy...
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:37:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 1:14:39 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Most patient dudes,

STFU and GTFO.

I am no longer responding to your posts unless it, itself, is a response to one of mine and you actually address what I've written.

Now go away.
Knologist_Prime
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:06:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 1:37:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:14:39 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Most patient dudes,

STFU and GTFO.

I am no longer responding to your posts unless it, itself, is a response to one of mine and you actually address what I've written.

Now go away.

Thank you for showing the whole class who you are from the inside. I appreciate how inclusive you are in considering other peoples thoughts which you claim to be ignorant when compared to your so-called superior knowledge of things. The theory(s)[ever changing ever guessing- FACT] in which you hold near and dear to your heart cannot with definitive authority, answer. Nor can any high and mighty mucky-muck scientist of the evolutionary bend, who are paid to answer, they too cannot answer.

Thank you for debasing yourself publicly and applying your intolerant belief system when addressing me or others that don't agree with you. I am warmed by how your belief system of dealing with others is consistent with your evolutionary mindset. I accept that you believe that way and I am happy for you. I encourage you to practice it wholeheartedly!

Monkeys and apes and single celled critters would have acted just like you did, according to evolution, right?! I am impressed by the advanced ways evolution has evolved you in mindlessly dealing with other humans[Which opens up another scientific question about, what was the right combination of elements enough for grasping the concept of interaction with community for group survival and mutual benefits]. You can' t get upset by my praising you, by my acknowledgement of your using the evolution belief into your life and displaying it toward others!

Good job! Keep it up!
First Amendment: Freedom for beliefs! I will support your right to you belief!

I wonder when evolution taught mindless animals along the chain of the evolution process, manners?[Scientific question again keeps popping up] It must have skipped some groups or independents among the species.[a mindless observation, which in itself is an oxymoronic thing to muse, but I digress. Another scientific inquiry]

I guess I should say, one theory[anonymous source establishes authenticity by evolution rules] suggested it. Now, because that I said it's a theory, and applying the rules of evolution thought, to my statement, it MUST therefore be, a FACT.
Oh my non-god! I just made a fact, without any solid data what-so-ever!
Hey! Look what I evolved from mindless replicating or I don't know re-sequencing!

Maybe there is something here to be exploited for personal gain with this evolution mindset. I can a least tell others, based on my unproven theory that I just put out there, that they are ignorant and they need to do unmentionable things to themselves!

Wow! I am evolving with arrogance and intolerance and closed mindedness to others ideas, just as evolutionist practice themselves, which I never had before! I didn't know how much enjoyment I can have using the evolution theory in my life to be superior to others and just with my telling them, they are poo-poo heads, because the evolution theory applied in my life authorizes me to do so!

Hey, I just made progress!

Thanks again!

For the sheer pleasure and logic displayed on this one topic, I did make you respond.

Your, "I will not respond theory," was proven WRONG, absolutely and 100% contrary based on the repeated evidence from your own posts after presenting your theory of non-response, contained in these posts, to my "you will respond FACT."

From something, to something, will something happen. -Immutable Fact of life and as repeatedly demonstrated in all scientific disciplines.
Truth, is bias." - Knologist-Prime
"Words, means, things." - Knologist-Prime
"The Rules of Grammar in any Language, MUST be obeyed." - Knologist-Prime
"Artifacts are FACTS." - Knologist-Prime
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:32:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:06:22 AM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:37:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:14:39 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Most patient dudes,

STFU and GTFO.

I am no longer responding to your posts unless it, itself, is a response to one of mine and you actually address what I've written.

Now go away.

Thank you for showing the whole class who you are from the inside.

As what? Someone who won't tolerate your nonsense? You didn't respond to anything anyone else said and just kept repeating yourself. Why should I, or anyone else, put up with that?

I appreciate how inclusive you are in considering other peoples thoughts which you claim to be ignorant when compared to your so-called superior knowledge of things. The theory(s)[ever changing ever guessing- FACT] in which you hold near and dear to your heart cannot with definitive authority, answer. Nor can any high and mighty mucky-muck scientist of the evolutionary bend, who are paid to answer, they too cannot answer.

Your questions were answered. You ignored those answers.


Thank you for debasing yourself publicly and applying your intolerant belief system when addressing me or others that don't agree with you. I am warmed by how your belief system of dealing with others is consistent with your evolutionary mindset. I accept that you believe that way and I am happy for you. I encourage you to practice it wholeheartedly!

This is nonsense. I haven't applied any "intolerant belief system" on you. And it's not about disagreement, it's about the fact that me, and others, answered your questions several times over and you ignored us and just repeated yourself. If you aren't willing to actually engage in conversation, then what's the point to take you seriously? None.


Monkeys and apes and single celled critters would have acted just like you did, according to evolution, right?!

No.

I am impressed by the advanced ways evolution has evolved you in mindlessly dealing with other humans[Which opens up another scientific question about, what was the right combination of elements enough for grasping the concept of interaction with community for group survival and mutual benefits]. You can' t get upset by my praising you, by my acknowledgement of your using the evolution belief into your life and displaying it toward others!

Except you aren't praising me. When you aren't explicitly insulting me, your "compliments" are merely backhanded ones couched in sarcasm. I suspect that this was your goal all along. To spout nonsensical and ignorant gibberish about evolution and abiogenesis (which are two different topics, which you fail to acknowledge) until people get fed up with you, then use this as an attempt to secure some sort of moral or intellectual victory.

The joke is, that shit doesn't work anymore. No one with a single ounce of integrity is going to be fooled by this weak and old as dust tactic and anyone with less than an ounce of an integrity is not really someone we're interested in convincing anyway.


Good job! Keep it up!
First Amendment: Freedom for beliefs! I will support your right to you belief!

That's not what the First Amendment is about. You fail politics in addition to biology.


I wonder when evolution taught mindless animals along the chain of the evolution process, manners?[Scientific question again keeps popping up] It must have skipped some groups or independents among the species.[a mindless observation, which in itself is an oxymoronic thing to muse, but I digress. Another scientific inquiry]

No it isn't. It isn't a scientific inquiry. Your statements and questions not scientific at all. The only thing you've done is shown that you know next to knowthing about science in general, let alone biology specifically. You apparently don't even know what a theory is!


I guess I should say, one theory[anonymous source establishes authenticity by evolution rules] suggested it. Now, because that I said it's a theory, and applying the rules of evolution thought, to my statement, it MUST therefore be, a FACT.
Oh my non-god! I just made a fact, without any solid data what-so-ever!
Hey! Look what I evolved from mindless replicating or I don't know re-sequencing!

This is nonsensical gibberish. Please rephrase.


Maybe there is something here to be exploited for personal gain with this evolution mindset. I can a least tell others, based on my unproven theory that I just put out there, that they are ignorant and they need to do unmentionable things to themselves!

Now you're rambling.


Wow! I am evolving with arrogance and intolerance and closed mindedness to others ideas, just as evolutionist practice themselves, which I never had before! I didn't know how much enjoyment I can have using the evolution theory in my life to be superior to others and just with my telling them, they are poo-poo heads, because the evolution theory applied in my life authorizes me to do so!

You're off the rails now.


Hey, I just made progress!

Thanks again!

For the sheer pleasure and logic displayed on this one topic, I did make you respond.

Well, no, you didn't make me respond. I responded of my own volition.


Your, "I will not respond theory," was proven WRONG, absolutely and 100% contrary based on the repeated evidence from your own posts after presenting your theory of non-response, contained in these posts, to my "you will respond FACT."

You haven't responded to anything I said. The progression in this thread has been like this:

1. You post nonsense.
2. Someone corrects you.
3. You ignore them, then repost your nonsense without taking into consideration their response.
4. Repeat ad nauseum.


From something, to something, will something happen. -Immutable Fact of life and as repeatedly demonstrated in all scientific disciplines.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:51:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it just me or has there been a recent booming of incoherent and uninformed preachers operating under the guise of discussion?
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:51:23 AM, caveat wrote:
Is it just me or has there been a recent booming of incoherent and uninformed preachers operating under the guise of discussion?

Didn't you hear, it's Incoherent and Uninformed Preacher season.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:06:22 AM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:37:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:14:39 PM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Most patient dudes,

STFU and GTFO.

I am no longer responding to your posts unless it, itself, is a response to one of mine and you actually address what I've written.

Now go away.

Thank you for showing the whole class who you are from the inside. I appreciate how inclusive you are in considering other peoples thoughts which you claim to be ignorant when compared to your so-called superior knowledge of things. The theory(s)[ever changing ever guessing- FACT] in which you hold near and dear to your heart cannot with definitive authority, answer. Nor can any high and mighty mucky-muck scientist of the evolutionary bend, who are paid to answer, they too cannot answer.

Thank you for debasing yourself publicly and applying your intolerant belief system when addressing me or others that don't agree with you. I am warmed by how your belief system of dealing with others is consistent with your evolutionary mindset. I accept that you believe that way and I am happy for you. I encourage you to practice it wholeheartedly!

Monkeys and apes and single celled critters would have acted just like you did, according to evolution, right?! I am impressed by the advanced ways evolution has evolved you in mindlessly dealing with other humans[Which opens up another scientific question about, what was the right combination of elements enough for grasping the concept of interaction with community for group survival and mutual benefits]. You can' t get upset by my praising you, by my acknowledgement of your using the evolution belief into your life and displaying it toward others!

Good job! Keep it up!
First Amendment: Freedom for beliefs! I will support your right to you belief!

I wonder when evolution taught mindless animals along the chain of the evolution process, manners?[Scientific question again keeps popping up] It must have skipped some groups or independents among the species.[a mindless observation, which in itself is an oxymoronic thing to muse, but I digress. Another scientific inquiry]

I guess I should say, one theory[anonymous source establishes authenticity by evolution rules] suggested it. Now, because that I said it's a theory, and applying the rules of evolution thought, to my statement, it MUST therefore be, a FACT.
Oh my non-god! I just made a fact, without any solid data what-so-ever!
Hey! Look what I evolved from mindless replicating or I don't know re-sequencing!

Maybe there is something here to be exploited for personal gain with this evolution mindset. I can a least tell others, based on my unproven theory that I just put out there, that they are ignorant and they need to do unmentionable things to themselves!

Wow! I am evolving with arrogance and intolerance and closed mindedness to others ideas, just as evolutionist practice themselves, which I never had before! I didn't know how much enjoyment I can have using the evolution theory in my life to be superior to others and just with my telling them, they are poo-poo heads, because the evolution theory applied in my life authorizes me to do so!

Hey, I just made progress!

Thanks again!

For the sheer pleasure and logic displayed on this one topic, I did make you respond.

Your, "I will not respond theory," was proven WRONG, absolutely and 100% contrary based on the repeated evidence from your own posts after presenting your theory of non-response, contained in these posts, to my "you will respond FACT."

From something, to something, will something happen. -Immutable Fact of life and as repeatedly demonstrated in all scientific disciplines.

I have never seen someone so thoroughly trash their own intellectual reputation within so few posts as a member of DDO.

This must be some sort of record, Knologist.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
About chance: which is more likely: that molecules form from existing atoms and begin to reproduce, and then evolve into minds, or that our of NOTHING a fully formed, sentient mind capable of forming a universe comes, without any steps in between nothing and a mind?
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:13:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:33:30 PM, seraine wrote:
About chance: which is more likely: that molecules form from existing atoms and begin to reproduce, and then evolve into minds, or that our of NOTHING a fully formed, sentient mind capable of forming a universe comes, without any steps in between nothing and a mind?

Methinks that is not fully mutually exclusive--to posit that a development where the line between the material and the immaterial exist in friction and that such was forced by this "fully formed, sentient mind" are diametrically opposite and require one choice over another. :-)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau