Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

There are Two Religions in conflict.

That of the Founders, the Judeo-Christian faith.
The Bible is its foundation. And that of Democrats, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, Fascists.....Militant Secularism. Lacking self-awareness, the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives ridicule religion as superstition......but kneel to their false religion, Militant Secularism.
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…

No, there are Lying Religious Litteralist Creationcysts like you,
and then there's...
The Science of Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE, while God/s have NUN/NONE.

`

 

[abu afak]

... Where did the very first living cell come from? So far with all your lengthy posts you still have No answer.

That's Correct!
And Neither do you!
And Darwin (THE OP TOPIC) only deals the Evidence for life's subsequent evolution, NOT Abiogenesis.

And does not logically Justify Your Constant/Fallacious God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy inference.

"We don't know/Know Yet" is the most rational answer.
No need to create a new Fire, Lightening, or Fertility god for what we don't know/know yet.

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")​

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...


Leo123, is a FRAUD who can never answer me, just reposts the same idiotic OFF Topic challenge/god inference.
`

 

[abu afak]

PoliticalChic said:

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.

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


AGAIN (11, 12, 13?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

""1. Evolution is only a theory It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification,
one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
[......]
`

Have a Nice Page.
`

 

[Leo123]

I told you five times already, you're asking the wrong question.

I even showed you what the right question is, and a big chunk of the answer.

You're in over your head. You should quit.

Life is a continuum. Yes, life creates life dummy. That's what evolution is all about.

There was no life before the first life you know damn well what I am saying, stop acting stupid. Oh I see, unless I ask the 'right' question I am wrong? What a completely idiotic, arrogant statement. Seems YOU are the one in over your head as you can't explain where the first life came from but, I understand, you think life always was. Where's the proof?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Horseshit

I can always tell when a poster knows they have lost the arguement: vulgarity.


Gain some equanimity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's called science.





The Bible account is not necessarily wrong.

As long as you don't take it literally.

Both Testaments warn against the literal interpretation.

Stuff like "God said"... that word "said" is very anthropomorphic.

I might be wrong, but I don't think God speaks English.

But much of it has been taken literally.....by science.
In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation Homo sapiens).”




Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

 

[Leo123]

I can always tell when a poster knows they have lost the arguement: vulgarity.


Gain some equanimity.

Yeah, very surprising that I am told I'm asking the wrong question, am a 'dumbass' etc. when I post a question he can't answer, etc. All the while no discussion about how life came about. Pretty simple question to which I get pages and pages of biological references 'seasoned' with insults.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, very surprising that I am told I'm asking the wrong question, am a 'dumbass' etc. when I post a question he can't answer, etc. All the while no discussion about how life came about. Pretty simple question to which I get pages and pages of biological references 'seasoned' with insults.

The gentleman stated that he is a professional scientist.

Seems he feels obligated to defend even the indefensible aspects.


He should learn from the first Republican President:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854)

 

[Leo123]

The gentleman stated that he is a professional scientist.

Seems he feels obligated to defend even the indefensible aspects.


He should learn from the first Republican President:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854)

Apparently invoking a Creator is really triggering for some people. The same ones that believe the 'continuum' is the Creator.

 

[scruffy]

Yeah, very surprising that I am told I'm asking the wrong question, am a 'dumbass' etc. when I post a question he can't answer, etc.

Ignoring your silliness does not equate with being unable to answer.

You're the one that called me a liar, dumbass.

All the while no discussion about how life came about. Pretty simple question to which I get pages and pages of biological references 'seasoned' with insults.

You deserve insults. You're being a pest.

Admit it, you're in over your head and you can't handle the subject matter.

You're even using words you don't understand. "Always was"... WTF is that? I never said that, those are your words.

Give up. Faith obviously serves you better than science. Be honest about your faith, otherwise your faith is weak.

 

[scruffy]

Apparently invoking a Creator is really triggering for some people. The same ones that believe the 'continuum' is the Creator.

You're the one bestowing attributes on a God you don't understand.

Me, I'm comfortable with my faith. I'll tell you straight up, this part is faith and that part is science.

But you never asked. You're trying to mix faith and science, and it doesn't work.

You act like there's some kind of conflict. There isn't. If you perceive one, it's of your own making.

 

[Leo123]

You're the one bestowing attributes on a God you don't understand.

Me, I'm comfortable with my faith. I'll tell you straight up, this part is faith and that part is science.

But you never asked. You're trying to mix faith and science, and it doesn't work.

You act like there's some kind of conflict. There isn't. If you perceive one, it's of your own making.

I never mentioned God I said Creator. You are claiming the 'continuum' is science but it is a belief as well. Face it you got triggered by a word.

 

[scruffy]

I never mentioned God I said Creator. You are claiming the 'continuum' is science but it is a belief as well.

A belief with evidence.

A belief that can be experimentally tested.

You seem to be confused. About science and other things.

Face it you got triggered by a word.

I don't get triggered.

I've been very patient with you in this thread.

You seem to think you can wrangle some kind of confession out of me, and you can't. There's nothing to confess. I showed you the science, and that's all there is to it.

You keep saying "evolution can't explain origins, and no one ever said it could. Neither Darwin nor anyone in this thread ever said that. Yet you insist on beating a dead horse. For what purpose?

All I'm hearing from you is "yeah but" over and over again. You keep asking about the "first cell", and any competent evolutionist will tell you there's no such thing. There's stuff that came before cells, and stuff that came after cells. You're creating something in your own mind. Science isn't going to prove your imagination.

 

[Leo123]

A belief with evidence.

A belief that can be experimentally tested.

You seem to be confused. About science and other things.


I don't get triggered.

I've been very patient with you in this thread.

You seem to think you can wrangle some kind of confession out of me, and you can't. There's nothing to confess. I showed you the science, and that's all there is to it.

You keep saying "evolution can't explain origins, and no one ever said it could. Neither Darwin nor anyone in this thread ever said that. Yet you insist on beating a dead horse. For what purpose?

All I'm hearing from you is "yeah but" over and over again. You keep asking about the "first cell", and any competent evolutionist will tell you there's no such thing. There's stuff that came before cells, and stuff that came after cells. You're creating something in your own mind. Science isn't going to prove your imagination.

The first LIVING cell. You know, what all your ‘stuff’ made.

 

[scruffy]

The first LIVING cell. You know, what all your ‘stuff’ made.

See? You're stuck on stupid. Do you somehow think there were dead cells before living ones? I don't think you can even define what the word "life" means.

 

[Leo123]

See? You're stuck on stupid. Do you somehow think there were dead cells before living ones? I don't think you can even define what the word "life" means.

NO! There were no dead cells, how could there be? I think it’s you who are stuck on stupid. A living cell is life, ‘dumbass.’

 

[scruffy]

NO! There were no dead cells, how could there be?

See how easy that was?

You just rightly concluded that life is a continuum.

Your subconscious is smarter than your conscious

I think it’s you who are stuck on stupid. A living cell is life, ‘dumbass.’

And green is green, and pink is pink.

So define "life" for us. What is it?

 

[Leo123]

See how easy that was?

You just rightly concluded that life is a continuum.

Your subconscious is smarter than your conscious



And green is green, and pink is pink.

So define "life" for us. What is it?

Life is a living cell. Not ‘stuff.’

 

[scruffy]

Life is a living cell. Not ‘stuff.’

That's your definition?

Life is a living cell?



A living cell is made of the same stuff the universe is. Photons, electrons, quarks...

There's nothing else there. No magic.

Just a bunch of water and a few other molecules.

So what makes life different?

 

[Leo123]

That's your definition?

Life is a living cell?



A living cell is made of the same stuff the universe is. Photons, electrons, quarks...

There's nothing else there. No magic.

Just a bunch of water and a few other molecules.

So what makes life different?

So, throw all that stuff together and make a living cell.