User Tag List


Members banned from this thread: SomeCallMeTim


Page 20 of 45 FirstFirst ... 1013141516171819202122232425262730 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 443

Thread: The Science of Evolution

  1. #191
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    The Sage of Main Street's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
    Posts
    769
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked: 80
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Sled Dog View Post
    ALL discussions of "Intelligent Design" are RELIGIOUS discussions.

    Who designed the Designer?

    Hmmm?

    Whereas, contrary to the never ending bullshit you put out about you UCD strawman and everything else you say, the theory of the evolution of species by the process of natural selection IS a correctly formatted and falsifiable core theory if the science of biology.

    The incessant garbage you spew about "Intelligent Design" is NEVER postulated as a falsifiable scientific statement.

    Saying "imaginary invisible immaterial and unmeasurable sky pixies directed the formation of life" is not a scientific position and provides no means of refutatation.

    On the other hand, saying "there are no imaginary invisible unmeasurable sky pixies" is a theory easily refuted.

    Why have you never produced any evidence of your imaginary invisible unmeasurable buddies?
    You Are What You Think

    How about design by the life-form's own intelligence? Both mandatory false choices are passive, the religious one about being nothing until some Supreme Being creates us, and the Darwinian one about being some helpless receptable formed by inanimate physical forces. In other words, evolutionists believe that nature is supernatural, which is a contradiction.
    Starting with the Kennedys, the born rich have hated and feared all other White people.

  2. #192
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,605
    Thanks
    7,810
    Thanked: 21,124
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sage of Main Street View Post
    You Are What You Think

    How about design by the life-form's own intelligence? Both mandatory false choices are passive, the religious one about being nothing until some Supreme Being creates us, and the Darwinian one about being some helpless receptable formed by inanimate physical forces. In other words, evolutionists believe that nature is supernatural, which is a contradiction.
    What are you suggesting? We create ourselves? We think ourselves into existence?

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    The Sage of Main Street (02-13-2019)

  4. #193
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 67.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    45,065
    Thanks
    9,105
    Thanked: 30,026
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474887
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    Deflections and personal smears are not appropriate in a scientific thread. Evidence, not assertions, religious statements, or stirring up the phony 'Christians vs Atheists!' flame war rhetoric only expose the lack of evidence for universal common descent, and expose its followers as True Believers, not scientific minded people.

    The Progressive Way is to trash, heckle, and disrupt threads like this, so no intelligent discussion can take place. That has been the destiny of most threads on origins for many years now. Some new members requested a revisit of this subject, so why not go for it? Are you that afraid to defend your beliefs, SCIENTIFICALLY? You must use leftist tactics to squash open debate?
    Would you care to explain why you never contribute anything to the intelligent discussion?
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

    1 out of 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    = 1/4,194,304
    = "Heads, Always Heads, Heads Every Time"
    = "Rodents Cheating"

  5. #194
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 67.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    45,065
    Thanks
    9,105
    Thanked: 30,026
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474887
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    In Rom. 8:7 it is plainly and clearly stated that the natural mind of human beings is hostile against God. Scientific atheism is certainly that, and the theory of evolution is but a consequence of it.

    This natural hostility is generally passive, rather than intentionally malicious. To many people, when God is mentioned, they become embarrased and try to direct the subject towards another path that they are more comfortable with. Most people are not aware of their own hostile attitude.

    But some are. And scientific atheism is willful, wide open and arrogantly proud of it, hostility.

    The Bible does NOT state anywhere the age of the earth or the universe. Genesis 1:1 is what God created "IN the Beginning." God created Spirits (Angels) prior to the heavens and the earth. Read Job 38:1-7. How could the Angels (sons of God) shout for joy at the creation IF they were not created first? But, Lucifer and his angels rebelled, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. As a result, the earth was brought to the condition which is briefly described in Gen. 1:2.

    God then created the light, and the evening and the morning became the first day. God is restoring what Satan had ruined. Read II Pet. 2:4-6, Jude 6-7, Isa.14:12-15 and Ezek.28:12-17. IF one is interested in what the Bible does say.

    The only people "mixed up" are atheists.
    Then Romans is clearly wrong. Humans have a HUGE urge to lie to themselves, and ALL of the world's religions are born from this deceitful urge.
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

    1 out of 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    = 1/4,194,304
    = "Heads, Always Heads, Heads Every Time"
    = "Rodents Cheating"

  6. #195
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 67.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    45,065
    Thanks
    9,105
    Thanked: 30,026
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474887
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Some people don't deal in evidence.

    You haven't noticed that?

    I was looking forward to talking about the science of evolution. I did my best. That was what this thread was supposed to be about.

    Now we have a bunch of religious Fanatics who want to denigrate the science because of the MISTAKEN (erroneous, inaccurate, deluded) belief that is somehow contradicts their religion.

    Then we have the most horrible abuse of logic, you know, because liberals abuse science therefore all of science is invalid.

    All these arguments are non-starters, ultimately I just have to ignore them. If someone is an ostrich head in the sand type, the best thing to do is just walk away. They are like Psychopaths, they do not respond to negative reinforcement. If you tell them how full of shit they are, it just makes them dig in harder.

    They're a lot like liberals that way.
    Every thread on this topic attracts the religious lunatics who not only can't understand the topic, but don't want to.

    They feel personally threatened by what they view as an attack on their beliefs.

    As for me, I don't disagree that the branching of a species happens ultimately on the molecular level, but IMHO those DNA strands granting the organism the superior survival chacteristic can't be passed on as a demonstrated advantage until the organism reaches sexual maturity and can pass that trait to his descendants.

    If the trait isn't expressed in a way that is advantageous to survival, then it is going to be mixed randomly through the population.

    And Darwin is describing how natural selection sorts out those traits.

    I've seen what you said about zygote development, read about the frog experiments in high school. So fetal development is where the rubber hits the road in the chemical development workd, but none of that matters if the chemistry doesn't produce an organism that can survive.

    I can't wait to see how the human race is biologically altered by the elimination of vast swathes of infants whose mothers lack the traits of motherhood. Of course, nobody alive will see that...

    ...but China does gave a little problem with too many males and not enough females, doesn't it?
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

    1 out of 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    = 1/4,194,304
    = "Heads, Always Heads, Heads Every Time"
    = "Rodents Cheating"

  7. #196
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassRecommendation Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 67.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    45,065
    Thanks
    9,105
    Thanked: 30,026
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474887
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sage of Main Street View Post
    You Are What You Think

    How about design by the life-form's own intelligence? Both mandatory false choices are passive, the religious one about being nothing until some Supreme Being creates us, and the Darwinian one about being some helpless receptable formed by inanimate physical forces. In other words, evolutionists believe that nature is supernatural, which is a contradiction.
    ?

    So Lucy the australopithicine thought up Einstein?

    There either is a Magic Sky Pixie, or there is not.

    There's no middle there.

    If there is a MSP, She either directly created EVERYTHING, or She established the system and pushed it into motion and them watches the show

    You people refuse to accept the latter option, which is the naturalistic view of the world after the Push, but you people are too damned ashamed to openly state your preference for the first.

    But then you people come in and attempt to divert the discussion away from the reality.
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

    1 out of 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2

    = 1/4,194,304
    = "Heads, Always Heads, Heads Every Time"
    = "Rodents Cheating"

  8. #197
    Banned Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 91.0%

    BabyBoomer+'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked: 879
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    I feel like a broken record, but these are not scientific, evidence based replies defending the theory and belief of universal common descent. They are ad hominem replies, that are fallacies, used when a poster has no facts or arguments, and tries to divert attention from that by insulting or demeaning their opponenit is the typical response from hysterical progressives, AND rabid evolutionists who believe very strongly, but don't know why.

    If you just want to insult me, personally, take it to the mosh pit, in case somebody actually wants to discuss the science. Please don't thread shit all over this thread, and ruin it like so many in the past..

    I tried to discuss science with you. I provided proof. Instead of then trying to show my evidence was wrong, talking it point by point with counterproof, you resorted to ridiculing the evidence, without providing any counter proof. You just waved it away, with a couple of emoticons, and called it guesswork, despite it being peer reviewed science.
    You then patronised me.

    Id love to have a rational scientific discussion with you, but in two or three every short exchanges you have demonstrated that you cannot criticise intelligently scientific proof, ie by providing scientifically tested counter evidence its wrong. In fact its worse, you dismiss decades old research, reviewed and tested by countless other scientists for its truth and validity, and wave it away as 'guesswork'. Clearly it it isnt. Clearly, what you are doing is trying to avoid evidence that you cant counter, and it is the same debating tactics used by scurrilous politicans, as well as political extremeists. Another tactic you use is deflection, the 'whataboutism' of marxists and communists.

    One cannot have a reasonable conversation with you. Your attitude to evidence that contradicts your views is to treat it with contemp, or to patronise the messenger. You do not engage in reasonable debate. It is the same problem with all religious fanatics, be they islam or christian, or be they climate change worshippers (another relegious belief posing as 'science' )
    Last edited by BabyBoomer+; 02-12-2019 at 03:39 AM.

  9. #198
    V.I.P. Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Overall activity: 12.0%

    OldSchool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    5,497
    Thanks
    5,187
    Thanked: 4,942
    Rep Power
    21474845
    Quote Originally Posted by BabyBoomer+ View Post
    I tried to discuss science with you. I provided proof. Instead of then trying t oshow my evidenc e was wrong, yo uresorted to ridculking the evidence, without providing any counter proff. You just waved it away, with a coupel of emoticons, and called it guesswork, despiteit being poeer reviewed science.
    You then patronised me.

    Id love to have a rational scientific discussion with you, but in two of thre every short exchanges you have demonstrated that you cannot criticise intelligently scientific proof, ie provide scientifically tested counter evidence its wrong. Infact its worse, you dismiss decades old research, reviewed and tested byt countless other scientists for ist truth and validity, and wave it away as 'guesswork'. Clearly it it isnt. Clearly, what you ar edoing is trying to avoid evidence that you cant counter, it is the same debating tactics used by scurrilous politicans, as well as political extremeists. Any tactic you use is deflection, the 'whataboutism' of marxists and communists.

    One cannot have a reasonable conversation with you. Your attitude to evidence that contradicts your views is to treat it with contemp, or to patronise the messenger. You do not engage in reasonable debate. It is the same problem with all religious fanatics, be they islam or christian, or be they climate change worshippers (another relegious belief posing as 'science' )

    I'm pretty sure this isn't your first rodeo, as the saying goes.

    I don't expect you to recognize and understand my 'faith'.

    Having faith is just one of those of things that happens for some of us. We, or at least I, understand that as humans in this world with all it's "4D world surface on a 26 dimensional brane" (your words) are limited in our perspective.

    My meaning is that just because something can be made to seem true, it doesn't mean it is true.
    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

    Abraham Lincoln

  10. #199
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    22,605
    Thanks
    7,810
    Thanked: 21,124
    Rep Power
    21474864
    Quote Originally Posted by BabyBoomer+ View Post
    I tried to discuss science with you. I provided proof. Instead of then trying to show my evidence was wrong, talking it point by point with counterproof, you resorted to ridiculing the evidence, without providing any counter proof. You just waved it away, with a couple of emoticons, and called it guesswork, despite it being peer reviewed science.
    You then patronised me.

    Id love to have a rational scientific discussion with you, but in two or three every short exchanges you have demonstrated that you cannot criticise intelligently scientific proof, ie by providing scientifically tested counter evidence its wrong. In fact its worse, you dismiss decades old research, reviewed and tested by countless other scientists for its truth and validity, and wave it away as 'guesswork'. Clearly it it isnt. Clearly, what you are doing is trying to avoid evidence that you cant counter, and it is the same debating tactics used by scurrilous politicans, as well as political extremeists. Another tactic you use is deflection, the 'whataboutism' of marxists and communists.

    One cannot have a reasonable conversation with you. Your attitude to evidence that contradicts your views is to treat it with contemp, or to patronise the messenger. You do not engage in reasonable debate. It is the same problem with all religious fanatics, be they islam or christian, or be they climate change worshippers (another relegious belief posing as 'science' )
    The ad hominem accusation is weak.

    At some point, you need to take responsibility for the words you put into print.

    They're your words, own them. Take responsibility for them. If you say stupid stuff, you can expect people to jump on you.

    And if you tell flat-out lies, you can expect people to jump on you hard. The statement that there is no evidence for evolution is a flat out lie. If you state it you're just being ignorant, and if you state it multiple times you're just being stupid.

    There is more evidence for the theory of biological evolution than any other scientific model. The only other scientific model which has been even remotely as successful, is the standard model for physics. And both of the aforementioned theories are now growing into much better models, more complete, more detailed, and more comprehensive.

    It is very sad to see people who feel threatened by scientific models. Unfortunately, when people are threatened they tend to lash out, and we see a lot of that.

    The same people who cannot tolerate the theory of evolution, are the same people who will vote against funding for scientific research. Which includes things like new medicines to cure diseases, and spaceships to take us farther out into the universe.

    Therefore, I speak to these people from a political standpoint. Their ideas are politically dangerous. They are costly, not in terms of money but in other ways. In the Middle Ages religious prejudiced resulted in people being burned at the stake, and drowned in buckets of water, and things like that. Tortured, even - because of a perception of being threatened by the truth.

  11. #200
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    SocialTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranOverdrive
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    12,825
    Thanks
    14,461
    Thanked: 8,968
    Blog Entries
    10
    Rep Power
    21474855
    So, my request for following the topic, presenting SCIENTIFIC and RATIONAL arguments to support the theory of common descent are ignored, for the proven tactics of deflection, hysteria, mocking and ridicule.

    The True Believers show that they are impotent, when it comes to science, and can only flood the thread with ridicule and mocking, proving, once again, that common descent is a RELIGIOUS OPINION, with no scientific basis. The True Believers cannot defend their beliefs with logical civility, but attack their enemies with jihadist zeal.

    This is why a scientific debate cannot take place anymore. The hecklers and disrupters use antifa tactics, to PREVENT any rational, scientific discussion from taking place.

    Pointing this out only enrages them, and they will continue with a flood of irrational, fallacious hysteria.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to usfan For This Useful Post:

    The Sage of Main Street (02-13-2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •