Originally posted by sonhouseThe same science establishment that has dishonestly presented that life has come about by random chance has carried the ball over and into how the 8.400.000 species of life came about.
Why do you insist on evolution theory having something to do with origins of life? Science has shown life having started on Earth several times but that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not seek to find the origin of life. Evolution deals with what happens to life forms after they start. You are on a one track mind game here.
You need to do ...[text shortened]... ords and more words. It gets old hearing and reading all that BS that comes out of your typing.
The persons carrying the ball for evolution carry the ball for random chance.
Every computer generated science program that we see on TV that rams down our throat how life crawled out of a muddy puddle ......also go on to tell us in the same program how that life evolved into the species culminating in man from that muddy puddle and lightning bolt.
You cannot separate the two because they go hand in hand.
To accept random chance and evolution is to be thoroughly dishonest.
But getting that elusive science degree and P.H.d is enough for most persons to throw truth out the window and prostitute themselves at the alter of dishonest science.
99.99 % of persons getting their degree in science has not seen any evidence for evolution but blindly accept the text books they are given.
Science is not the authority it never was and never will be unless it becomes honest.
To be an advocate of evolution and random chance is to be thoroughly dishonest.....or very unintelligent or deaf dumb and blind.
The Vedas have been with mankind from the beginning of creation and before.......but because of dishonesty persons of science have no interest in its teachings because it will lead them to a Creator and a Creator would mean they are not supreme themselves and would have to pass the crown of supremacy to God.
This they cannot do and therefore remain dishonest.
I have no respect for dishonest science .
I have great respect for honest science.
6 edits
Originally posted by DasaDishonest science being that which even vaguely looks like it attacks your dogma, so-called honest science being those that have no bearing on your dogma, like photonics or sports medicine or computer chips.
The same science establishment that has dishonestly presented that life has come about by random chance has carried the ball over and into how the 8.400.000 species of life came about.
The persons carrying the ball for evolution carry the ball for random chance.
Every computer generated science program that we see on TV that rams down our throat how life ...[text shortened]... honest.
I have no respect for dishonest science .
I have great respect for honest science.
"The persons carrying the ball for evolution carry the ball for random chance".
You still insist on evolution and the origins of life to be the same science. Again, repeat after me: Evolution and origins of life are two separate subjects.
Also, there are a number of competing theories as to the origins of life, which evidence shows to have independently developed several times over the course of millions of years early on.
There is no one theory driving down people's throats. Nobody is putting a religious-like fervor over any one of the theories, some say mud, some say ice, some say clay. If you don't like to hear about life origin science, don't watch it. You have a clear bias and hatred for these sciences. You really should wake up and smell the roses, chill out, have a beer, smoke a joint, eat a frog or something. Clearly you need to get off this treadmill monkey you are now on.
One more thing that is completely clear: information traffic is one way with you, out from your treadmill brain, nothing coming back. You don't dare actually listen and try to see what we are all about, you are a one way one trick pony.
Here is a link to a new development in the scientific quest for the origin of life:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110809144517.htm
Read it and give me an analysis based on rational thinking this time, rather than your long winded diatribes.
Again, notice the science involved: Molecular biology. These are people who do not have any credence with the evolutionary biologists, because this is a valid but separate science. Try to get that thought embedded in your brain. Try to remember who to rail at.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe evolution trail for lets say a elephant according to the evolution theory started with a one cell thingo....... which IS the beginning of life and origins.
Dishonest science being that which even vaguely looks like it attacks your dogma, so-called honest science being those that have no bearing on your dogma, like photonics or sports medicine or computer chips.
"The persons carrying the ball for evolution carry the ball for random chance".
You still insist on evolution and the origins of life to be the ...[text shortened]... e science. Try to get that thought embedded in your brain. Try to remember who to rail at.
You wouldn't be saying that all of the 8.400.000 species came out of the same (one and only) one cell thingo in that muddy puddle.
You would be suggesting that a one cell thingo was destined to become an elephant and another but different one cell thingo is destined to become a whale......and so on.
So if each species has started at the one cell thingo stage then we are talking about origins.
You cannot say that there was a one cell thingo and it evolved into an elephant without telling us how that one cell thingo came into existence...... that's fudging the facts and not scientific.
It means that you have fabricated a story all ready to fire off (evolution)....... but have not been able to fabricate the beginning of that story.
Originally posted by DasaThis is what Wikipedia says today about "Forbidden Archeology":
After he book Forbidden Archaeology was reviewed all the dishonest critics came out one by one to comment. And one by one in another book called "Forbidden Archaeology The Impact" their criticism was annihilated very methodically and academically leaving them in an embarrassing situation.
Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor); and for cherry picking outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th centuries) that supports the authors' position, while ignoring or ridiculing more recent information that refutes or challenges their claims. Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that Cremo's "specimens no longer exist" and called his work pseudoscience.
Doesn't look like the criticism has been annihilated. Seems pretty clear to me...
Originally posted by CalJustIs wiki your authority?
This is what Wikipedia says today about "Forbidden Archeology":
Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor); and for cherry picking outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th centuries) that supports the authors' position, while ...[text shortened]... oesn't look like the criticism has been [i] annihilated. Seems pretty clear to me...
There are thousands of critics out there in defence of evolution and they are all dishonest.
Dishonest because they present life came from non-life................and then they say this life expanded into 8.400.000 species of life, elephants tigers, rabbits, birds and all without cause, intelligence, plan or purpose.............just random chance.
This is thoroughy dishonest.
All the scientists in the world cannot make one little ant even though they have all the material ingredients................and the little ants are making other little ants all the time without any laboratories.
There is one ingredient they do no have to make their little ant.
The soul.
Originally posted by DasaIf your going to cut and paste someone elses work put the link in yeah?!
There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins' arguments. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. Many of those who cite Dawkins' book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every ...[text shortened]... al!
There is no evolutionary answer to the origin of information in living things.
http://creation.com/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-the-blind-watchmaker
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DasaFor those of us who ARE scientifically literate...
There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins' arguments. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. Many of those who cite Dawkins' book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every ...[text shortened]... al!
There is no evolutionary answer to the origin of information in living things.
There are glaring holes in your (and Hoyle's) logic.
Take a coin, and toss it 200 times, taking note of the order of heads and tails as you go.
The probability of the particular sequence of heads and tails you just achieved is
(assuming a perfectly balanced coin) approximately 1 in 1.6E60.
Toss it enough times and you will have a sequence with a probability of occurring of
greater than your stated 1 in 1E40,000.
The reason you managed to create a sequence that unlikely is that it was one of a vast
set of possible sequences and random chance caused that one to occur this time.
Now with coin tosses there are no disallowed sequences.
But just because there are definitely combinations of organic molecules that wouldn't
be viable life forms, does not mean there is only one viable combination,
which is what you are implying.
The odds you were blindly quoting require that their is only one viable possible first
life form, and then calculating the odds of it forming by random chance.
This is a straw man argument.
There are many many possible first life forms, (indeed you assume the first life form
is cellular, this is not even likely, let alone necessarily, the case) and the odds of life
forming are the chances of one of the possibilities happening,
not the one you have cherry picked out of all the possibilities.
However this still has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Evolution. Which is, as has
been stated many times here, the explanation for how you get from simple life forms,
to all the life forms you see around you today.
Evolution says nothing about how life came into being in the first place.
What you are talking about is Abiogenesis, wiki link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Now you have stated many times that you can't form living matter from non living matter,
which shows a certain failure to comprehend organic chemistry but never mind.
The reason you give (apart from swallowing Hoyle's flawed maths whole) is that life needs
spirit breathed into it to change it from non-living to living matter.
As there is no evidence for the existence of spirit or of souls, and currently no way of testing
for such things, they are a matter of religious faith, and not a matter of science.
Thus your arguments against Abiogenesis are religious and dogmatic in nature.
You are biased by your religious beliefs into trying to discredit Evolution and Abiogenesis.
This is why your views are not scientific, you have a preformed opinion on what the answer
is and you try to twist or discard all evidence to suite it.
Rather than searching for evidence and then forming hypotheses to try to explain it and
then testing those hypotheses with further evidence.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere is evidence of spirit but dishonest science does not apply the necessary program to experience this.
For those of us who ARE scientifically literate...
There are glaring holes in your (and Hoyle's) logic.
Take a coin, and toss it 200 times, taking note of the order of heads and tails as you go.
The probability of the particular sequence of heads and tails you just achieved is
(assuming a perfectly balanced coin) approximately 1 in 1.6E60.
Toss ...[text shortened]... ng hypotheses to try to explain it and
then testing those hypotheses with further evidence.
Instead they look through a microscope hoping to discover this soul but this is not the way.
There are many things we do not see with these eyes but we accept their reality.
Science being dishonest does not apply this understanding to the soul saying we cannot see it so it it is not there......this is dishonest.
Material apparatus cannot detect spiritual substance.
The soul is detected by purified mind and heart.
To purify the mind and heart the person must apply themselves to spiritual living.
No scientist will ever submit themselves to spiritual living so they are biased...... and dishonest for not performing the experiment.
They haven,t performed the experiment and conclude the soul is not real........this is dishonest science.
The experiment starts with the subject (lets say you) your mind and heart.
Then the subject performs the experiment (lives the spiritual life).......but not Christianity because it is not true religion but instead follow true spiritual living described in the Veda.
Then the subject notes the consciousness being raised.
Spiritual living is required to continue and then the consciousness is raised even further.
When the consciousness is raised to a certain point then the reality of the soul is reached and you see the soul with your internal eyes which have been spiritualized.
This is the way to see the soul and not by looking through a microscope.
Originally posted by DasaIs this your debate style, to answer his post with a switch to a completely different subject? Did you bother to go to the link I provided? Do you maybe now understand evolution and origin of life is not the same subject? Do you realize single cell life was not the first life on earth? Single cells have relics of earlier forms inside them.
There is evidence of spirit but dishonest science does not apply the necessary program to experience this.
Instead they look through a microscope hoping to discover this soul but this is not the way.
There are many things we do not see with these eyes but we accept their reality.
Science being dishonest does not apply this understanding to the soul say ...[text shortened]... been spiritualized.
This is the way to see the soul and not by looking through a microscope.
Originally posted by sonhouseOf course evolution and origins are different subjects but they are still tied together because you cannot come into explaining evolution without explaining how that particular species began...............in trying to explain evolution without a beginning is nonsense and foolishness.
Is this your debate style, to answer his post with a switch to a completely different subject? Did you bother to go to the link I provided? Do you maybe now understand evolution and origin of life is not the same subject? Do you realize single cell life was not the first life on earth? Single cells have relics of earlier forms inside them.
You are explaining how a tiger became a tiger without the beginning........the one cell thingo which was destined to become the tiger was just there and started evolving......not good enough.
Originally posted by googlefudge
For those of us who ARE scientifically literate...
There are glaring holes in your (and Hoyle's) logic.
Take a coin, and toss it 200 times, taking note of the order of heads and tails as you go.
The probability of the particular sequence of heads and tails you just achieved is
(assuming a perfectly balanced coin) approximately 1 in 1.6E60.
Toss ...[text shortened]... ng hypotheses to try to explain it and
then testing those hypotheses with further evidence.
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/dna-discovered-in-meteorites/?hpt=hp_c1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_mLbEiAxU
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. If prebiotic material came from meteorites and asteroids and comets, the randomness argument you so love to bandy about comes to nothing because it would be continually seeded with the stuff of life before life begins, the prebiotic molecules leading to RNA and such, already there in the early history of Earth.
Science 1, Creationists 0.
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's a bunch of hogwash from dishonest people. This is no different
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/dna-discovered-in-meteorites/?hpt=hp_c1
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. If prebiotic material came from meteorites and asteroids and comets, the randomness argument you so love to bandy about comes to nothing because it would be continually seeded with the stuff of life before life begins, the prebiotic mole ...[text shortened]... ing to RNA and such, already there in the early history of Earth.
Science 1, Creationists 0.
from all the other meteorites and no proof again that the DNA came from
anywhere else than the earth.
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you have a problem with cognition? Did you see anything in the article that said DNA was in those meteorites? It said the PRECURSORS of DNA were found there not DNA or RNA. That puts to rest the randomness argument where life couldn't possibly have started because of all the 10 to the 30000 steps needed or whatever creationists come up with. Precursors to DNA means you are already way up the scale and would not require these molecules to have undergone that transformation, it was already given a kick start by the material transported to Earth by those same meteorites.
That's a bunch of hogwash from dishonest people. This is no different
from all the other meteorites and no proof again that the DNA came from
anywhere else than the earth.