10 facts evolutionists don't want you to know

apathist

Science

16 Aug '17 01:48

FreakyKBH
Unknown Territories
Joined
05 Dec '05
Moves
20408
17 Aug '17 13:04
Originally posted by @humy
Despite the insistence by those drunk on knowledge-lust...

so you hate people wanting and trying to know things, such as the world being round and not flat like your insist it is.
Clearly you don't want people to know the truth but rather be stupid and ignorant. Without people wanting and trying to know things (what you call "drunk on know ...[text shortened]... ot stand people knowing things against your beliefs, such as the Earth being round and not flat.
And one of the topics you choose to use as an example of science at work is exactly my complaint with respect to how "science" is applied.
If a thing is a thing, no matter what angle one approaches, the view will be consistent, will fit.
If the world is a globe, it will follow mathematical principles related to a sphere.
If it does not follow those principles, it cannot be as stated.
Super, super, super simple.
And yet lost on you!
FabianFnas
Joined
11 Nov '05
Moves
43938
17 Aug '17 16:34
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Do you realise just how far off track you need to go in order to make it appear I've gone off track?
Yes, I do. Was it worth it? Did you learn anything?
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
17 Aug '17 16:45
Originally posted by @freakykbh
And one of the topics you choose to use as an example of science at work is exactly my complaint with respect to how "science" is applied.
If a thing is a thing, no matter what angle one approaches, the view will be consistent, will fit.
If the world is a globe, it will follow mathematical principles related to a sphere.
If it does not follow those principles, it cannot be as stated.
Super, super, super simple.
And yet lost on you!
I think F has me on ignore so ask him this: Why is it we can measure the difference in weight of an object on the equator vs on north or south pole? How is that going to happen on a flat planet?
lemon lime
itiswhatitis
oLd ScHoOl
Joined
31 May '13
Moves
5577
17 Aug '17 17:421 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouse
No 'selection' but trillions of little chemical 'experiments', random reactions that proceeded to make more and more complex chemicals that led to life, that is the prevailing science answer. And the feeling is once cells started, a lot of different cells developed at the same time and then selection took place weeding out the weakest.

But evolution as ...[text shortened]... r it is already here. None of your mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.
But evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition

Okay, so as far as evolutionists are concerned how life began (by definition) is of no concern to them...?

The reason I'm not buying into this line of bull is because of strenuous objections from evolutionists whenever someone suggests life was first created by an intelligent designer. If evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis, then why all the push back from evolutionists? It seems you want to have it both ways. If abiogenesis presents a problem for evolution you claim it has nothing to do with evolution. But the moment someone suggests the first living things could have been created by a superior intelligence you all scream bloody murder and rail against 'goddidits'.

So what am I supposed to believe? Am I supposed to believe evolutionists who have nothing to say about how life began can magically morph into beings who do have something to say about it? The rules of engagement you make for yourselves is very fluid and can change in your favor whenever you wish. And the rules you expect those you disagree with to abide by are very narrow and unyielding.

But evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition, they follow the changes of life after it is already here. None of your mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.

Define mealy mouthed
lemon lime
itiswhatitis
oLd ScHoOl
Joined
31 May '13
Moves
5577
17 Aug '17 18:00
Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Yes, I do. Was it worth it? Did you learn anything?
YouTube
lemon lime
itiswhatitis
oLd ScHoOl
Joined
31 May '13
Moves
5577
17 Aug '17 18:12
Originally posted by @humy
what about it?
Reveal Hidden Content
panspermia
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
17 Aug '17 18:14
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[hidden]panspermia[/hidden]
You mean you put your sperm in a PAN? What temperature?
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
17 Aug '17 18:21
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]But evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition

Okay, so as far as evolutionists are concerned how life began (by definition) is of no concern to them...?

The reason I'm not buying into this line of bull is because of strenuous objections from evolutionists whenever someon ...[text shortened]... mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.[/b]

Define mealy mouthed[/b]
Mealy mouth, your posts. Evolutionists WANT to know how life got here but that is a discipline not in their kit bag. They leave that to cosmologists and all your screaming and writhing around won't change that. It matters little to evolution science how life got here. If you want to believe a human shaped god with a big white beard did it, fine, till we actually figure it out, you have a case. I just think science will win that one in the end, leaving creationists nothing but the quick reversion back to faith and maybe stop crying about evolution science not realy caring how life started. It is in fact the science of changes AFTER life is here, how it got here is moot, they don't care if it IS from a god or THE god whatever you want to call it. You have just as hard a time proving a god didit as cosmologists right now figuring out how life started. At least for now, you are on equal footing.
FabianFnas
Joined
11 Nov '05
Moves
43938
17 Aug '17 18:32
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[youtube][/youtube]
So you are still an ignorant in the subject... 😞
humy
Joined
06 Mar '12
Moves
642
17 Aug '17 19:221 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[hidden]panspermia[/hidden]
you mean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

what does that have to do with definition of new species, or, what exactly?
wildgrass
Joined
20 Oct '06
Moves
9549
17 Aug '17 23:121 edit
Ignorant questions:

1. Has anyone on this thread yet explained why abiogenesis or panspermia are antithetical to religious dogma?

2. Why do scientific concepts seem more threatening to Christianity than, for example, mormonism or scientology?

The reason why science doesn't like religious terms is because they're typically unprovable and un-hinged from empirical evidence. Science isn't a religion, nor can it replace religion. It's simply a method for studying the natural world. Why isn't that enough to remove the supposed threat of science to religion? Isn't there another forum for the religious musings?
lemon lime
itiswhatitis
oLd ScHoOl
Joined
31 May '13
Moves
5577
18 Aug '17 00:27
Oh good grief, I forgot how literal minded some of you are.
Panspermia has nothing to do with speciation. I just tossed that out there as a nonsensical answer to a nonsensical response...

humy brought up the discovery of a new species which evidently came about through speciation. It shouldn't it be necessary for me to explain the Speciation link to people who (by their own account) are not ignorant.
FreakyKBH
Unknown Territories
Joined
05 Dec '05
Moves
20408
18 Aug '17 01:19
Originally posted by @wildgrass
Ignorant questions:

1. Has anyone on this thread yet explained why abiogenesis or panspermia are antithetical to religious dogma?

2. Why do scientific concepts seem more threatening to Christianity than, for example, mormonism or scientology?

The reason why science doesn't like religious terms is because they're typically unprovable and un-hinged ...[text shortened]... the supposed threat of science to religion? Isn't there another forum for the religious musings?
The ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies.
And it really doesn't work all that hard, either, since, you know: truth.

Don't need a lot of help with that corner man.
wildgrass
Joined
20 Oct '06
Moves
9549
18 Aug '17 04:48
Originally posted by @freakykbh
The ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies.
And it really doesn't work all that hard, either, since, you know: truth.

Don't need a lot of help with that corner man.
cool. Sort of like the old adage "The ONLY thing is the tree hid the stop sign and the fish ate my hard truth."

How old are you? My toddler has better answers than whatever this is. What is the corner? What don't you need help with?
humy
Joined
06 Mar '12
Moves
642
18 Aug '17 06:263 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbh
The ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies.
such as the 'lie' that the Earth is round and not flat; got that.
I guess round Earth must be just stupid evil atheistic lying-science-based anti-Christianity propaganda to confuse Christians into turning against Jesus.

To all other Christians here;

Do you all agree with him that the ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies, such as the lie that the Earth is round and not flat etc?

Science Forum

10 facts evolutionists don't want you to know