Evolution

[hoots7]

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?

He did not kick me into a black hole, far from it, if you read the post you can see I evean gave into his unfair terms and he still was unable to have a real debate with me.

Not what you Peregrine minons are doing.

You are discussing the way of evolution, not a debate on if it happed.

[Peregrine]

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.

 

Yet again you lie. Shall we look at your own words?

 

"I believe he is seeing red because he knows he’s wrong either consciously or unconsciously and can’t stand it.

That’s why he keeps breaking the rules (and his own)."

 

Sure sounds like a textbook ad hominem, with you trying to claim that the fact that I'm angry "proves" that I'm wrong.

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.

 

Your "beginning stance" is completely irrelevant. Read what the damn theory actually says and doesn't say. The fact that you keep making these statements proves again and again that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

 

He did not kick me into a black hole, far from it, if you read the post you can see I evean gave into his unfair terms and he still was unable to have a real debate with me.

 

Are you illiterate or something? I was unable to have a real debate with you because the debate you want is against the ****ing FORUM RULES. I will glady argue that (in another thread, since it's not related to the Theory of Evolution), if you can get a moderator to give you permission. Until then, I'm not going to openly defy a rule I've already been in trouble for breaking.

 

You are discussing the way of evolution, not a debate on if it happed.

 

Your point? If you would like to present a falsifiable argument backed by empirical evidence against the Theory of Evolution, feel free to do so. But the fact that you keep talking about the origin of life just proves you don't even understand what the theory says.

 

 

==============================================

 

 

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?

 

I think you're a bit confused. Antibiotics are to treat bacterial infections, they're useless against viruses. But in either case, drug resistance is just a simple case of natural selection. The bacteria that don't have a useful mutation are killed and don't reproduce. Meanwhile if even a tiny minority has a mutation that gives improved resistance to the drug, the fact that all of its non-mutated competition has just been killed off means that the gene will quickly dominate the population. End result: your drug is now far less useful.

[cyronarxes]

I ask you to rebuff these scientific views from venomfangx in his 6 part proof of creationalism.

 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

I am not taking sides. However, I wold like you to explain this evidence.

[Abramul]

I do remember that bacteria have a way of sharing DNA with each other though.

Yep.

 

Hoots, if you really want a debate on the origin of life, go ahead and make a new topic. Be amusing to see how long it lasts...

Just make sure to specify that religion-based arguments are prohibited.

[hoots7]

I ask you to rebuff these scientific views from venomfangx in his 6 part proof of creationalism.

 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

I am not taking sides. However, I wold like you to explain this evidence.

Very interesting, haven’t watched them all yet.

According to Part 1, Peregrine is preaching (yes preaching, he is making his own religion and calling it science) number 5 a form of Macro evolution.

He openly admits he and his form of evolution makes no explanation of how life started and doesn’t have to.

(We have a lot of frogs following the toad here.)

 

This did bring up this question I had forgotten about.

How old do you think the earth is (4.5 billion years)?

 

Marcus Wolfe & Abramul, at least you can write something without sounding like a rabid dog, I give you credit for that.

[ninja_lord666]

In response to Part 1: There is no evidence. The guy is simply saying that since there is no evidence of when or how things all started, God did it. However, there is no evidence of that either. He's just replacing one myth with another. Except that evolution isn't a myth. The problem with these pro creationists is that they expect that evolution will happen in huge very noticeable steps, like a chimp suddenly giving birth to a human. That doesn't happen. That guy said that the big bang theory couldn't have happened because something can't come from nothing. If that's so, then how did God do it? If all there was was God, then how could he create everything? Did he cut off his arm and turn it into Earth? God did the same thing that the Big Bang did: create something from nothing. Except that the Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory states the the universe erupted from a dense, hot state. There was something there.

 

I haven't watched the other parts yet, and I'm not sure I want to. That guy's attitude really grates on my nerves. His ignorance is baffling. He's completely blind to his own stupidity and false evidence. If only I knew where he lived...

 

 

Edit: I've watched about half of the second one, and I just reached the part were he spent all of two seconds proving chemical evolution is impossible because we can't do it. That's where you get into fusion; it's what powers stars. A hydrogen atom fuses with another hydrogen atom to create a helium atom. Of course we haven't single handedly observed it because fusion is incredibly difficult, and we haven't even mastered fission yet. It's also very dangerous. The sun is 13,600,000 kelvins at it's core. That will melt or burn pretty much anything on Earth. We need some way of containing that energy before we can fuse.

[hoots7]

In response to Part 1: There is no evidence. The guy is simply saying that since there is no evidence of when or how things all started, God did it. However, there is no evidence of that either. He's just replacing one myth with another. Except that evolution isn't a myth. The problem with these pro creationists is that they expect that evolution will happen in huge very noticeable steps, like a chimp suddenly giving birth to a human. That doesn't happen. That guy said that the big bang theory couldn't have happened because something can't come from nothing. If that's so, then how did God do it? If all there was was God, then how could he create everything? Did he cut off his arm and turn it into Earth? God did the same thing that the Big Bang did: create something from nothing. Except that the Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory states the the universe erupted from a dense, hot state. There was something there.

 

I haven't watched the other parts yet, and I'm not sure I want to. That guy's attitude really grates on my nerves. His ignorance is baffling. He's completely blind to his own stupidity and false evidence. If only I knew where he lived...

 

Hey FYI please don't use the G word Peregrine will get mad.

If you watch the other ones your question is answered.

Bottom line is both are religions, (you have the right to believe in what ever you want but don’t call it science) & take faith.

From the video:

Science is:

Things we can observe.

Things we can test.

Things we can repeat.

Therefore macro evolution is not science.

[ninja_lord666]

There are two sciences: pure science and applied science. Pure science is the study of everything, and applied science is taking what we know and using it. We don't have to be able to reproduce it, because some things can't be reproduced. We can't make a solar eclipse, yet no one can deny that it's real. We can make models, but it's not the real thing. If you don't know, science isn't all about the proven laws. Theories are science to. For example, are you going to say that the Theory of Relativity isn't science? That Albert Einstein spent all those years of observation and testing to come up with nothing? The Theory of Relativity is science, and the Theory of Evolution is science. Until science proves otherwise, evolution is science. Religion can't prove science wrong, because there is no proof to back religion, but there is proof to back science.

[hoots7]

There are two sciences: pure science and applied science. Pure science is the study of everything, and applied science is taking what we know and using it. We don't have to be able to reproduce it, because some things can't be reproduced. We can't make a solar eclipse, yet no one can deny that it's real. We can make models, but it's not the real thing. If you don't know, science isn't all about the proven laws. Theories are science to. For example, are you going to say that the Theory of Relativity isn't science? That Albert Einstein spent all those years of observation and testing to come up with nothing? The Theory of Relativity is science, and the Theory of Evolution is science. Until science proves otherwise, evolution is science. Religion can't prove science wrong, because there is no proof to back religion, but there is proof to back science.

I don't really think we disagree that much here, it’s semantics that is the problem.

A theory is a belief; a religion is a belief also.

You can say that the theory of evolution has some proof or evidence but then again most believers of whatever religion you choose to look at will tell you exactly the same thing & present to you what they feel is proof.

 

My definition of science is what you call “pure science”.

My definition of religion is anything else.

It’s as simple as that.

[Switch]

Marcus' earlier post (about hoots7 butting out) removed, trolling - if it was tongue in cheek it was still off-topic. sparkymo's post also removed, off-topic spam (see the rules).

 

Let's keep the whole creationism thing to a minimum - it's still religion really.