Evolution

[hoots7]

Peregrine,

You claim to be a future engineer but don’t know what a PE is?

I quote you “I'm two years from a degree in aerospace engineering” and “What is this "PE" you refer to? I've never heard of that degree”.

P.E. Professional Engineer, Mechanical Engineering field, is that simple enough for you?

Some of the projects I’ve worked on that I can share.

LPD17

DDG51

 

As far as the other things you write, regarding religion (religious terms) I have posted an official apology about it several times but you continue to bring it up.

Your true heart is wide open for all to see, why are you so angry?

 

I don’t know what kind of proof would satisfy you, I have tried to invoke logic even used your own analogies for you to better understand, but it’s not sinking in.

 

You have accused me of evading your questions but if you are honest you would have to admit you have evaded my question also. Which is this: How did it all start?

You said that “you don't even realize that "how did it all start" has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.”

Are you stating that evolution can not explain how it all started (Carl Sagon would be ashamed of you)?

 

How it all started is very important, it’s the beginning, you’re 22 years old, I shouldn’t have to explain this, it should be obvious to you.

 

I will give you some conformation you crave and need, you have done a good job with bird DNA and fossil records.

Good boy Peregrine, good boy. But if you have no beginning than your middle or even your end is nothing.

It’s like building a lavish mason on a dinky set of stilts, you got a great house but it’s going to fall.

That’s why how did it all start is important.

[Peregrine]

Peregrine,

You claim to be a future engineer but don’t know what a PE is?

I quote you “I'm two years from a degree in aerospace engineering” and “What is this "PE" you refer to? I've never heard of that degree”.

P.E. Professional Engineer, Mechanical Engineering field, is that simple enough for you?

 

That makes it much clearer. I've never seen the "PE" abreviation, I've always seen engineering degrees/licenses listed as their specific field.

 

Though honestly, I'm kind of disappointed. With that kind of degree, you should know better than some of the stuff you're posting here.

 

As far as the other things you write, regarding religion (religious terms) I have posted an official apology about it several times but you continue to bring it up.

 

No, you continue to claim that I started it, when anyone who can read can just look back a few posts and see that it was you. It isn't an apology if you say "sorry, but you are still wrong". Apologize for lying and accusing me of something I didn't do, don't say another word on the subject, and I'll drop it.

 

Your true heart is wide open for all to see, a why are you so angry?

 

Because yelling at people is fun. Do you actually have a point with this besides trolling?

I don’t know what kind of proof would satisfy you, I have tried to invoke logic even used your own analogies for you to better understand, but it’s not sinking in.

 

ANY factual argument backed by empircal evidence. All you are doing is saying "you're angry, so you must be wrong" as if that's a legitimate argument. It's not, and it's getting really annoying. Either make a point, or go away.

 

The best you've done here is your argument about geographic evidence for a global flood. While the example you tried to use was wrong, and you still haven't posted the other evidence you claim to have, at least it attempted to make some kind of factual point that could be proved or disproved.

 

You have accused me of evading your questions but if you are honest you would have to admit you have evaded my question also. Which is this: How did it all start?

You said that “you don't even realize that "how did it all start" has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.”

Are you stating that evolution can not explain how it all started (Carl Sagon would be ashamed of you)?

 

How it all started is very important, it’s the beginning, you’re 22 years old, I shouldn’t have to explain this, it should be obvious to you.

 

"How it all started" is a different theory. The Theory of Evolution explains how life evolved once life existed. Other theories attempt to explain how life itself (and the universe, with other theories) started.

 

Good boy Peregrine, good boy. But if you have no beginning than your middle or even your end is nothing.

It’s like building a lavish mason on a dinky set of stilts, you got a great house but it’s going to fall.

That’s why how did it all start is important.

 

See above. The Theory of Evolution deals with populations of replicators changing over time due to cumulative selection. By the time the Theory of Evolution is relevant, (primitive) life already exists. It isn't an unsupported middle, since we have clear evidence that those primitive forms existed, and that's all we need for the theory to be valid. The exact mechanisms by which those primitive forms developed are irrelevant. As far as the Theory of Evolution is concerned, any process (whether it involves lightning strikes in organic compounds or the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating them from an ocean of sauce) that leads to that end result will do the job.

 

That is NOT to say that the origin of life is irrelevant in general. It's a very important subject, and as far as science as a whole is concerned, we have to be a lot stricter. But the subject for discussion is evolution, arguing about these other theories doesn't do anything to weaken the Theory of Evolution.

[hoots7]

Peregrine you have made it very convenient for yourself man, we don’t talk about the beginning just the middle & the end is basically what you are saying right?

[Peregrine]

Peregrine you have made it very convenient for yourself man, we don’t talk about the beginning just the middle & the end is basically what you are saying right?

 

The debate is about evolution. Feel free to make a thread about the origin of life if you want to discuss it. But if you continue to insist on talking about the beginning, there are only two options:

 

1) You are dishonestly attempting to attack the Theory of Evolution with arguments that don't actually apply to it. Since most people don't understand the details of the theory and what it says and doesn't say, you can score points with the uninformed people in the audience.

 

2) You honestly don't understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says. If you did, you would realize that "the beginning" is not part of it. What you're talking about is the equivalent of saying that because the law "F=M*A" doesn't include the beginning step of defining what mass is, it's wrong.

 

 

I'll say it again, just to be clear: the Theory of Evolution (as defined by the scientists responsible for it) deals with what happens to replicating life once it forms. How that life gets to a point where evolution applies is completely irrelevant to the theory. Attacking theories on the initial origin of life does absolutely nothing to undermine the Theory of Evolution, since the fact that primitive life forms (whatever their source) did exist is essentially unarguable. Even if every single current theory on the origin of primitive life was shown to be false in every single detail, the Theory of Evolution would stand un-damaged.

 

Now stop trying to hijack the debate.

[hoots7]

OK Peregrine since we don’t discuss the beginning let me turn a disadvantage into an advantage and make this resolution.

 

Resolve:

That the study of evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator.

 

I take the affirmative and I assume you will take the negative.

I will be the gentleman and let you begin.

[Peregrine]

OK Peregrine since we don’t discuss the beginning let me turn a disadvantage into an advantage and make this resolution.

 

Resolve:

That the study of evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator.

 

Are you ****ing illiterate? Do you not see the "religious debates are banned" thread pinned at the top of this forum? Do you not see the clear statement "DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGION" in the first post of this thread? Have you somehow missed the fact that a moderator has directly said to stop discussing religion, since it is against the forum rules?

 

Since you clearly seem to miss this fact: a creator is a religious concept, and this is clearly against forum rules. While I might normally be perfectly happy to argue the subject, I will not do so in a public thread until I see a moderator approve the debate.

 

 

And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from strawmanning my position. The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator, in favor or against. Even if I had permission from Dark0ne himself, I wouldn't take your debate, since you're strawmanning me into a position I do not hold. While I do have a position on the overall question of a creator (one which, as stated above, I will not be debating in a public thread until a moderator says otherwise), it is based on entirely different theories and evidence. The fact that you continue to make these false claims about what the Theory of Evolution does and does not say really makes me wonder about your honesty.

 

Now once again: STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD. If you want to discuss evolution, make a falsifiable argument supported with empirical evidence. If you want to discuss various other scientific theories, make a new thread for them. If you want to discuss religion, either convince the moderators to change the rules, or take it somewhere else.

[hoots7]

OK Peregrine since we don’t discuss the beginning let me turn a disadvantage into an advantage and make this resolution.

 

Resolve:

That the study of evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator.

 

Are you ****ing illiterate? Do you not see the "religious debates are banned" thread pinned at the top of this forum? Do you not see the clear statement "DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGION" in the first post of this thread? Have you somehow missed the fact that a moderator has directly said to stop discussing religion, since it is against the forum rules?

 

Since you clearly seem to miss this fact: a creator is a religious concept, and this is clearly against forum rules. While I might normally be perfectly happy to argue the subject, I will not do so in a public thread until I see a moderator approve the debate.

 

 

And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from strawmanning my position. The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator, in favor or against. Even if I had permission from Dark0ne himself, I wouldn't take your debate, since you're strawmanning me into a position I do not hold. While I do have a position on the overall question of a creator (one which, as stated above, I will not be debating in a public thread until a moderator says otherwise), it is based on entirely different theories and evidence. The fact that you continue to make these false claims about what the Theory of Evolution does and does not say really makes me wonder about your honesty.

 

Now once again: STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD. If you want to discuss evolution, make a falsifiable argument supported with empirical evidence. If you want to discuss various other scientific theories, make a new thread for them. If you want to discuss religion, either convince the moderators to change the rules, or take it somewhere else.

 

Why do you have to keep making personal insults to me?

Personal insults are only sign of a weak case.

I have done nothing to you but try to encourage and give you a medium for a real debate?

 

Believing in a creator is not talking about religion.

I made (& plan not to make) no mention of who or what it is, that would be religion.

You said your self that evolution did not pertain to the question how did it all start.

So if we are not burdened with the task of answering that question like you also said we can take beginning stances and not have to support them.

I quote you “The exact mechanisms by which those primitive forms developed are irrelevant. As far as the Theory of Evolution is concerned, any process (whether it involves lightning strikes in organic compounds or the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating them from an ocean of sauce) that leads to that end result will do the job.”

Peregrine these are your words, not mine, I’m just trying to follow your definition of what evolution is.

 

We have already discussed Albert Einstein and both agreed that he was not what most people would call religious but he believed in a creator.

What’s the problem?

You said you wanted a debate; I’m trying to give you a real debate.

Again you are making things more convenient for yourself.

Where is the class of ideas? You’ve destroyed all room for an apposition that is no debate.

What do you plan on talking about the number of limbs a fossil has?

[Peregrine]

Why do you have to keep making personal insults to me?

Personal insults are only sign of a weak case.

 

No, personal insults are a sign of an angry person. Saying that personal insults are a sign of a weak case is a textbook ad hominem. With your claimed degree, I would expect you to know this.

I have done nothing to you but try to encourage and give you a medium for a real debate?

 

A debate that is against the forum rules. If it wasn't, I would be happy to debate it (in another thread, since it's off-topic here), but like it or not (and I don't) religion is off-limits. I'm not suicidal enough to provoke the wrath of the admins by openly defying that rule, especially since it's one I've already earned a lot of trouble for violating.

 

Believing in a creator is not talking about religion.

I made (& plan not to make) no mention of who or what it is, that would be religion.

 

Fine. Get a moderator to approve the discussion and I'll join in. I doubt you will though, they will consider it a religious debate.

 

Besides, you've already made it clear with your earlier statements that you're talking about christianity. The fact that you say "that book" instead of "the bible" doesn't change anything.

 

We have already discussed Albert Einstein and both agreed that he was not what most people would call religious but he believed in a creator.

What’s the problem?

 

And did you miss the fact that Switch, a moderator, said to stop discussing it because it was against the rules?

 

And Einstein did NOT believe in a creator. Did you even read the quotes I posted? Einstein's "god" was the natural beauty and complexity of the universe, not a human-like creator in the traditional sense.

You said you wanted a debate; I’m trying to give you a real debate.

Again you are making things more convenient for yourself.

Where is the class of ideas? You’ve destroyed all room for an apposition that is no debate.

What do you plan on talking about the number of limbs a fossil has?

 

Fine, then you agree with me that the Theory of Evolution is true (since that "class of ideas" leaves no room for debate with you) exactly as stated. Then this thread is not for you. Some people, however (SickleYield being one of them), not only believe that the Theory of Evolution is false, but that there is empirical evidence that it is false. The challenge is to them.

 

If that doesn't apply to you, feel free to leave. I don't know why you bothered posting in the first place if you don't actually disagree with my position.

 

And if you feel like debating other scientific theories (the things you are talking about are addressed by scientific theories, just not the Theory of Evolution) and can do so without breaking the no-religion rule, feel free to make another thread for it. I'll be happy to debate your new subject where it is actually relevant and appropriate.

[hoots7]

Why do you have to keep making personal insults to me?

Personal insults are only sign of a weak case.

 

No, personal insults are a sign of an angry person. Saying that personal insults are a sign of a weak case is a textbook ad hominem. With your claimed degree, I would expect you to know this.

I have done nothing to you but try to encourage and give you a medium for a real debate?

 

A debate that is against the forum rules. If it wasn't, I would be happy to debate it (in another thread, since it's off-topic here), but like it or not (and I don't) religion is off-limits. I'm not suicidal enough to provoke the wrath of the admins by openly defying that rule, especially since it's one I've already earned a lot of trouble for violating.

 

Believing in a creator is not talking about religion.

I made (& plan not to make) no mention of who or what it is, that would be religion.

 

Fine. Get a moderator to approve the discussion and I'll join in. I doubt you will though, they will consider it a religious debate.

 

Besides, you've already made it clear with your earlier statements that you're talking about christianity. The fact that you say "that book" instead of "the bible" doesn't change anything.

 

We have already discussed Albert Einstein and both agreed that he was not what most people would call religious but he believed in a creator.

What’s the problem?

 

And did you miss the fact that Switch, a moderator, said to stop discussing it because it was against the rules?

 

And Einstein did NOT believe in a creator. Did you even read the quotes I posted? Einstein's "god" was the natural beauty and complexity of the universe, not a human-like creator in the traditional sense.

You said you wanted a debate; I’m trying to give you a real debate.

Again you are making things more convenient for yourself.

Where is the class of ideas? You’ve destroyed all room for an apposition that is no debate.

What do you plan on talking about the number of limbs a fossil has?

 

Fine, then you agree with me that the Theory of Evolution is true (since that "class of ideas" leaves no room for debate with you) exactly as stated. Then this thread is not for you. Some people, however (SickleYield being one of them), not only believe that the Theory of Evolution is false, but that there is empirical evidence that it is false. The challenge is to them.

 

If that doesn't apply to you, feel free to leave. I don't know why you bothered posting in the first place if you don't actually disagree with my position.

 

And if you feel like debating other scientific theories (the things you are talking about are addressed by scientific theories, just not the Theory of Evolution) and can do so without breaking the no-religion rule, feel free to make another thread for it. I'll be happy to debate your new subject where it is actually relevant and appropriate.

No Peregrine I am not attacking you personally, you are attacking me, I am not discrediting your message because of your anger or delivery (hominem) but it’s not needed, show some self control & apologize to me.

Will it make you feel better if I start cursing at you? Sorry not going to give you the pleasure, I’m not that childish.

Your professor may have taught you one thing but later experience will have you agreeing with me about your anger problem.

 

(I later edited my post to include this while you were posting & I don’t know if you read it the first time)

You said your self that evolution did not pertain to the question how did it all start.

So if we are not burdened with the task of answering that question like you also said we can take beginning stances and not have to support them.

I quote you “The exact mechanisms by which those primitive forms developed are irrelevant. As far as the Theory of Evolution is concerned, any process (whether it involves lightning strikes in organic compounds or the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating them from an ocean of sauce) that leads to that end result will do the job.”

Peregrine these are your words, not mine, I’m just trying to follow your definition of what evolution is.

 

Good night Peregrine & I really do mean this, try to cool off, you may have a stroke or something.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Aw man, lots of things happen when you go away for a week or so.......

 

(kicks hoots7 into a black hole)

 

GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

Now, on with the real debate.......ummm.......

I remember Peregrine saying I was wrong about asexually reproducing creatures being immune to evolution...let's go with that. I remember reading that viruses have a way of sharing DNA with each other, and that's how they survived antibiotics backs in the 1950s. Could someone tell me what that's all about?