- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Evolution is a fact
I am quoting Frogstomp, one of the main spokespersons of Evolution on RHP.
refer to:http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=24263&page=22
Are there any other evolutionists out there with a bit of sense, who would care to correct him?
Originally posted by dj2beckerDescent with modification is an empirical fact. Thus evolution is a fact.
I told you earlier on that this is the only strategy you can employ when you are stumped.
You just proved me right.
You need to distinguish between evolution and the "theory of evolution." It's analogous to distinguishing between gravity and "gravitational theory."
Originally posted by dj2beckerEvolution is a fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. It's as simple as that.
[b]Evolution is a fact
I am quoting Frogstomp, one of the main spokespersons of Evolution on RHP.
refer to:http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=24263&page=22
Are there any other evolutionists out there with a bit of sense, who would care to correct him?[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettYou are wrong! Evolution is not a fact. Have you not read these forums and witnessed that there are indeed individuals who do not evolve from their mythic-literal thinking or from levels of faith and spiritulaity that are closely alligned with Santa Claus. I look forward to your retraction.
Evolution is a fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. It's as simple as that.
Originally posted by kirksey957Do you see all the fossilized remains of trilobites and such in the ancient rock strata? Dj2becker's remains will be in one of those strata one of these days, as the fundamentalists' inability to evolve dooms them to extinction.
You are wrong! Evolution is not a fact. Have you not read these forums and witnessed that there are indeed individuals who do not evolve from their mythic-literal thinking or from levels of faith and spiritulaity that are closely alligned with Santa Claus. I look forward to your retraction.
Originally posted by dj2beckerArre you gonna cry now?
I told you earlier on that this is the only strategy you can employ when you are stumped.
You just proved me right.
This is the fire you started. with you punk additude.
and attempts to flood my post with a paste job among your other diversional tactics.
this is my original post that set you off in a tizzy like a little girl.
What sense does it make to view one test tube and say it will be near impossible , when the size of the original system was the entire planet?
I've said life from non-life is a certainty, period.
For you to maintain that life didn't start in it's constituent matter, is actually absurd.
The theoretics of whether a particular experiment will produce the desired results have zero weigh for obvious reasons , The original system :
1) didn't have to produce a particular outcome
2) had ALL the possible materials available
3) had every form of EMR available
4) was extremely dynamic
5) was the entire planet
Put all that in a test tube and give is a about a billion years and........ or better still quantify the entire system and punch those numbers into your calculations (either Probability or Information theories or both) and then see how the numbers look.
But I'm not going to do it for you since I can see intuitively we are dealing with numbers so large that it guarantees the outcome is certainty.
2nd edit
Oh , and I forgot this,,, We already HAVE the outcome of the original system , WE are part of it.
Originally posted by telerionDescent with modification is an empirical fact. Thus evolution is a fact.
Descent with modification is an empirical fact. Thus evolution is a fact.
You need to distinguish between evolution and the "theory of evolution." It's analogous to distinguishing between gravity and "gravitational theory."
Ask any goat breeder....
I regard "debating" evolution with someone like dj2becker, as roughly akin to "debating" someone who believes the Earth is flat; no amount of scientific evidence will suffice. Indeed, he rejects the very basis of science: the premise that natural phenomena should be explained by natural causes. As his peculiar views on Scripture require that the story in Genesis be an actual event, true in every detail and for some reason occurring only a few thousand years ago AND he believes he is required to believe this by God, arguing with him on this matter is utterly senseless: NO EVIDENCE POSSIBLE could ever convince him otherwise. He is being disingenous by his cutting and pasting of "creation scientists"; he is not interested in reasoned debate but is instead doing a form of prosletizing. The National Academy of Sciences has this to say about the whole, sad attempt to replace the teaching of science with the teaching of a perverse version of Scripture in its place:
The tremendous success of science in explaining natural phenomena and fostering technological innovation arises from its focus on explanations that can be inferred from confirmable data. Scientists seek to relate one natural phenomenon to another and to recognize the causes and effects of phenomena. In this way, they have developed explanations for the changing of the seasons, the movements of the sun and stars, the structure of matter, the shaping of mountains and valleys, the changes in the positions of continents over time, the history of life on Earth, and many other natural occurrences. By the same means, scientists have also deciphered which substances in our environment are harmful to humans and which are not, developed cures for diseases, and generated the knowledge needed to produce innumerable labor-saving devices.
The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on Earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of Earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html
'Nuff said.
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy do you post links that make you look bad?
[b]Evolution is a fact
I am quoting Frogstomp, one of the main spokespersons of Evolution on RHP.
refer to:http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=24263&page=22
Are there any other evolutionists out there with a bit of sense, who would care to correct him?[/b]
Evolution is here to stay, nobody is fooled by your fantasy-stance except the brainwashed.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, that's all well and good no1, but have you ever heard Dr. Dino debate?
The National Academy of Sciences has this to say about the whole, sad attempt to replace the teaching of science with the teaching of a perverse version of Scripture in its place:
The tremendous success of science in explaining natural phenomena and fostering technological innovation arises from its focus on explanations that can be inferred from con ...[text shortened]... evolution."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html
'Nuff said.
😴