Originally posted by UllrI'm not closed minded and I have studied evolution all my life. I'm not a scientist by any means but as time goes by, which evolutionist will not agree, the theory of evolution is getting farther and farther from fact.
"But the digging that evolutionist do will never find what they are looking for because it does not exist. "
Same question that I've asked Robbie. How can you know this for sure?
"The first and formost reason is no such thing as evolution started life on this planet."
Well I would agree with you that we don't know what started this universe nor life o ...[text shortened]... 100% proven fact neither is it 100% disproven. So why are you so close minded about it?
As more has been learned about DNA and molecules, etc, it has gotten more and more doubtful that any chance of evolution randomly starting life is just impossible.
Man has gotten smart over the decades but as intelligent as he's become, he could never produce anything resembling life, so how could this impossible feat just happen in a pond of scum?
Again check out the 7 series videos on youtube I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Originally posted by Ullryes Ullr the best we can hope for is a proper evaluation of these things with our own minds, thus your opinion is equally as valid as mine or Nilssons or anyone else for that matter. I think there is growing dissent over the details of the theory, but it appears to me to be like the emperors new clothes! anyhow peace to you, i gonna taste some of my favourite beer, Innis and Gunn - blonde, hand crafted lightly oaked beer, with just some subtle hints of vanilla, id send you one but it dont travel well down the fibre optics!
Fair enough. I agree with you. My opinion is worth about the same as yours.
Although my opinion is simply that the theory of evolution is possible not 100% indisputable fact.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI really like Innis and Gunn. A unique beer for sure. As for me I'm enjoying my own homebrew tonight. An IPA with fresh leaf hops and some nice British pale malts. Proof that the gods (ooops ... or God) exist(s) and care about us. Peace.
yes Ullr the best we can hope for is a proper evaluation of these things with our own minds, thus your opinion is equally as valid as mine or Nilssons or anyone else for that matter. I think there is growing dissent over the details of the theory, but it appears to me to be like the emperors new clothes! anyhow peace to you, i gonna taste some of m ...[text shortened]... ust some subtle hints of vanilla, id send you one but it dont travel well down the fibre optics!
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by galveston75Well, I don't think that evolution started life. To be totally honest I don't know what did. That's one of the great mysteries. However, I lean towards evolution being one of the ingenious characteristics of life on this planet that is old beyond our imagination.
I'm not closed minded and I have studied evolution all my life. I'm not a scientist by any means but as time goes by, which evolutionist will not agree, the theory of evolution is getting farther and farther from fact.
As more has been learned about DNA and molecules, etc, it has gotten more and more doubtful that any chance of evolution randomly start ...[text shortened]... of scum?
Again check out the 7 series videos on youtube I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
as yet you have not explained why the analogy is faulty, you have merely stated that it is although your statement seems certainly contradictory. The whole point of the analogy which you seem to be missing, is that only thorough the course of events can the truth be grasped at. if an argument is faulty it shall be revealed, as in a chess game, as ev ...[text shortened]... know from platonic philosophy, anything that rests on an assumption, is on shaky ground indeed!
as yet you have not explained why the analogy is faulty, you have merely stated that it is although your statement seems certainly contradictory. The whole point of the analogy which you seem to be missing, is that only thorough the course of events can the truth be grasped at. if an argument is faulty it shall be revealed, as in a chess game, as even you yourself now seem to be admitting, while denying the analogy, although the point was very clearly made. i myself denied advocating any type of stance on the very basis that you now seek to discredit the analogy, that it is empty rhetoric and results in arguments over semantics, that to simply speak of definitions, is empty in itself. Are you really certain that you are disagreeing, for it seems to me that you are at once giving credence to the ideas contained in the analogy and denying them at the same time.
I gave you reasons why I consider your analogy faulty. If you think defining terms is 'empty', I think it's better to drop this. It hardly has any bearing on what I questioned you about anyway.
the argument with regard to the lack of fossil evidence can hardly be dismissed, as the whole basis of your stance rests upon the assumption, that there were transitory beings, and as we know from platonic philosophy, anything that rests on an assumption, is on shaky ground indeed!
My point is that suggesting that it is somehow 'strange' that early hominids didn't develop writing is absurd. I didn't refer to the fossil record to support my claim, but to material culture. That is not the same. I claim that the question about the development of writing is only relevant to modern man, not to its predecessors. If you have reasons to believe otherwise, I sure would like to hear them.
then perhaps you missed the point, that Matt made, that humans had the capacity to write, apparently for tens of thousands of years, but oddly enough, never exercised that capacity, are we also to assume the same with regard to speech, the exercise of conscience, an appreciation for arts and music, which oddly enough, seem only to have developed in the last five thousand years, for the first forty five one can only wonder what they were doing? perhaps they started to hum while picking berries and gathering fruits?
your reasons were both contradictory and thus untenable.
that you insist that there was such a 'being' as early and late hominids, in itself, practically admits, your insistence that humans have evolved, and thus, we are at perfect liberty to question the evidence for this, one of which, is the fossil record. if you do not like, or do not see the significance of this, then i myself cannot make it any more simple.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethen perhaps you missed the point, that Matt made, that humans had the capacity to write, apparently for tens of thousands of years, but oddly enough, never exercised that capacity, are we also to assume the same with regard to speech, the exercise of conscience, an appreciation for arts and music, which oddly enough, seem only to have developed in the last five thousand years, for the first forty five one can only wonder what they were doing? perhaps they started to hum while picking berries and gathering fruits?
then perhaps you missed the point, that Matt made, that humans had the capacity to write, apparently for tens of thousands of years, but oddly enough, never exercised that capacity, are we also to assume the same with regard to speech, the exercise of conscience, an appreciation for arts and music, which oddly enough, seem only to have developed in t ...[text shortened]... ot like, or do not see the significance of this, then i myself cannot make it any more simple.
Again a lot of misinformed, absurd assumptions. First of all, you were talking about 'millions' of years. That gross overestimation is what I questioned you about.
Also, archealogical finds make it clear that humans engaged in abstract thinking and symbolic behavior well before 5000 years ago. So you are wrong when you say things like arts and music only developed the last 5000 years.
your reasons were both contradictory and thus untenable.
Well, no, IMO.
that you insist that there was such a 'being' as early and late hominids, in itself, practically admits, your insistence that humans have evolved, and thus, we are at perfect liberty to question the evidence for this, one of which, is the fossil record. if you do not like, or do not see the significance of this, then i myself cannot make it any more simple.
No. You argued that it is strange that man didn't develop writing for 'millions [of years] by some estimates'. I argued that for millions years, man wasn't around to develop writing, because it's highly probable that only modern man had the capacity to develop writing. While I do think that modern man evolved from other hominids, it really has no bearing on my point, unless you would like to argue that those earlier hominids did have the capacity to develop writing, or if you'd like to argue that there are evolutionists that claim that earlier hominids had that capacity. If you can not see this, then I myself cannot make it any more simple.
Again a lot of misinformed, absurd assumptions. First of all, you were talking about 'millions' of years. That gross overestimation is what I questioned you about.
noteworthy is your insistence that you were referring to modern man when it suited, and now you are not content, but when the idea of ancient man is approached, you are content to dismiss the lack of fossil evidence. why is that the case? are you prepared, based on the fossil evidence, to publicly admit that your insistence is built on a premise, the evidence scant at the every least, the methods used speculative and that what is accepted today, may be overturned tomorrow?
Also, archealogical finds make it clear that humans engaged in abstract thinking and symbolic behavior well before 5000 years ago. So you are wrong when you say things like arts and music only developed the last 5000 years.
secondly i never stated that these traits developed as recently as five thousand years, nor did i infer that this should be the case, i was mocking your stance, perhaps you missed the tone? I was merely intrigued as to why writing was not found prior to this period, considering that it has been established that humans had indeed the capacity to write for many thousands of years? i was perfectly satisfied with Matts answer, although it does seem strange that it should occur so recently. you asked if i thought it was an evolutionary trait, i stated i did not know?
ok now that you have proffered your opinion, why did music and appreciation for the arts develop, for it is certainly superfluous to survival? does the theory that you advocate have an answer?
why did humans develop a conscience and a sense of justice?
why do humans thrive on the capacity to love, to extend and feel that their affections are reciprocated, if we are naturally inclined to competitive behaviour and striving to overcome others
you have stated that early hominids, only had this capacity, therefore , even by your estimations, they must have developed as recently as fifty thousand years, a comparably short period, in comparison to the stream of events. are we to believe that this is the case? that for an unspecified amount of time, perhaps millions of years, humans were brutes and only as recently as fifty thousand years, developed these traits, and only as recently as five thousand years, managed to write things down?
Originally posted by galveston75Well you need to do a bit more studying, hopefully from better sources, as you seem to be quite seriously misinformed about a number of key points regarding evolution.
I'm not closed minded and I have studied evolution all my life.
1. You seem to think that life knows where it is going and evolves based on future environments not current ones. You obviously see the problem with this and incorrectly blame evolutionary theory (which doesn't make the claim in the first place).
2. You believe there is some invisible barrier to the natural changes that take place in species that somehow restricts them to our man made categories. (eg your comments regarding iguana's).
3. You believe that life should evolve according to your dictates eg if you demand that a pig grow wings then it should do so with all haste or you will declare evolution false.
Let me help you out a little with one of the key points you raised when you started the thread. How do wings evolve?
One common scenario is environments where minor gliding ability is beneficial. This is the case in rain-forests with very tall trees. Any animal that makes a habit of jumping from tree to tree gains benefits if it can jump further or even glide a little on its jumps. As a result many animals in rain-forests have evolved the ability to glide. This includes snakes, frogs, rats, spiders, lizards, ants, possums, and others.
If their gliding ability provides enough benefit, it gets better and better and eventually evolves into full flight. At no point however does any creature plan for flight, nor does evolution plan for flight.
Originally posted by galveston75Evolution is the process by which life changes and adapts, it never has been a theory attributed to how life started. That still remains an intriguing and unexplained question. For someone who has 'studied evolution all my life', you have demonstrated a clear inability to recognise what the theory of evolution claims to do. I suggest you change your reading material.
I'm not closed minded and I have studied evolution all my life. I'm not a scientist by any means but as time goes by, which evolutionist will not agree, the theory of evolution is getting farther and farther from fact.
As more has been learned about DNA and molecules, etc, it has gotten more and more doubtful that any chance of evolution randomly start ...[text shortened]... of scum?
Again check out the 7 series videos on youtube I mentioned earlier in this thread.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
noteworthy is your insistence that you were referring to modern man when it suited, and now you are not content, but when the idea of ancient man is approached, you are content to dismiss the lack of fossil evidence. why is that the case?
Noteworthy are your insinuations that I refer to modern man because it suits me, while it is something I explicitely stated from the start of my involvement in this thread. Let me repeat what my point is, maybe you'll grasp it this time. You claimed that it was surprising that man didn't develop writing for millions of years by some estimates. My point remains that this is absurd, because I claim that it is only reasonable to expect the development of writing with modern man. Do you stick with your claim that it is suprising that for "millions of years by some estimations" man didn't develop writing? If so, what estimations are you talking about?
are you prepared, based on the fossil evidence, to publicly admit that your insistence is built on a premise, the evidence scant at the every least, the methods used speculative and that what is accepted today, may be overturned tomorrow?
No. Your description of paleontology is a parody. Also, could you clarify what you mean by "my insistence"? I don't think you have yet understood what my point is, exactly.
secondly i never stated that these traits developed as recently as five thousand years, nor did i infer that this should be the case, i was mocking your stance, perhaps you missed the tone?
Yes, I probably missed your tone. You seem misinformed enough to make such an absurd claim.
I was merely intrigued as to why writing was not found prior to this period, considering that it has been established that humans had indeed the capacity to write for many thousands of years? i was perfectly satisfied with Matts answer, although it does seem strange that it should occur so recently. you asked if i thought it was an evolutionary trait, i stated i did not know?
ok now that you have proffered your opinion, why did music and appreciation for the arts develop, for it is certainly superfluous to survival? does the theory that you advocate have an answer?
why did humans develop a conscience and a sense of justice?
why do humans thrive on the capacity to love, to extend and feel that their affections are reciprocated, if we are naturally inclined to competitive behaviour and striving to overcome others
you have stated that early hominids, only had this capacity, therefore , even by your estimations, they must have developed as recently as fifty thousand years, a comparably short period, in comparison to the stream of events. are we to believe that this is the case? that for an unspecified amount of time, perhaps millions of years, humans were brutes and only as recently as fifty thousand years, developed these traits, and only as recently as five thousand years, managed to write things down?
These are all points I haven't touched upon yet. And it is useless to talk upon these points before you define what you mean 'humans'. I don't consider hominids to be humans. Do you? Or, if you dispute the fact that there are other hominids, how long do you think humans are around? You keep attacking other peoples positions, but what is your own?
Originally posted by Jintrothankyou, there now seems nothing here of any substance whatsoever that may merit a response. i asked a question in sincerity, of which Matthew answered at least in part, of which i was satisfied, the rest is pure and utter rhetoric. The stance remains the same, the fossil record, as it stands does not substantiate Darwinian evolutionary theory, the evidence for so called 'transitory beings', is scant in the extreme, thus i shall continue to assert, that your belief system is built on a supposition, full of postulation and dogma and is unscientific as a consequence. All other discussions of modern man, ancient, simian of hominids is futile until this glaring inconsistency is addressed. Please do not repeat everything i have stated, i am perfectly capable of understanding what i have written.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]
noteworthy is your insistence that you were referring to modern man when it suited, and now you are not content, but when the idea of ancient man is approached, you are content to dismiss the lack of fossil evidence. why is that the case?
Noteworthy are your insinuations that I refer to modern man b humans are around? You keep attacking other peoples positions, but what is your own?[/b]
Originally posted by Proper Knobthis is a pure and utter technicality for it amounts to one and the same thing, a materialistic viewpoint of life, attributed to unintelligent causes!
Evolution is the process by which life changes and adapts, it never has been a theory attributed to how life started. That still remains an intriguing and unexplained question. For someone who has 'studied evolution all my life', you have demonstrated a clear inability to recognise what the theory of evolution claims to do. I suggest you change your reading material.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLOL. Talk about rethoric. You only seem to be capable of repeating the general misguided and unscientific critique of evolution that's repeated on every creationist website. You refuse to tell me your position on the point I adressed, you refuse to tell exactly what you mean when you use certain vague terms, you fail to determine which particular element of evolutionary theory is relevant for certain claims, and which are not. Thank you for demonstrating you have no clue what you are talking about.
thankyou, there now seems nothing here of any substance whatsoever that may merit a response. i asked a question in sincerity, of which Matthew answered at least in part, of which i was satisfied, the rest is pure and utter rhetoric. The stance remains the same, the fossil record, as it stands does not substantiate Darwinian evolutionary theory, th ...[text shortened]... repeat everything i have stated, i am perfectly capable of understanding what i have written.
Originally posted by Jintrothank you, when your opinion reflects or in any way becomes synonymous with truth, then you may have recourse to tell others what they understand and what they do not, as it stands, you have demonstrated, without doubt, that this is a theory masquerading as science and as soon as one prods around its basis, what we get is, 'you dont understand anything', all hail the God of science! Perhaps you would like to list the 'apparent web sites', that i have visited, or is that another unfounded and unsubstantiated claim that you people are fond of making!
LOL. Talk about rethoric. You only seem to be capable of repeating the general misguided and unscientific critique of evolution that's repeated on every creationist website. You refuse to tell me your position on the point I adressed, you refuse to tell exactly what you mean when you use certain vague terms, you fail to determine which particular element of ...[text shortened]... ms, and which are not. Thank you for demonstrating you have no clue what you are talking about.