God does exist... (page 33)

rem

Hooberus,

>>rem, do you really think that given a choice between believing that life:

>> * evolved from nothing to multiple modern forms within 300 million years (with no known possible mechanism) or
>> * accepting creation

>>that evolutionists would truly consider evolution to be falsified ?

>>I think that they would still continue to embrace the fact of evolution.

Yes I do believe rational people would consider evolution falsified and would either come up with another falsifiable naturalistic theory (that probably could no longer be called Evolution since that implies *change*) or simply say "I don't know" because of lack of evidence. Again, the difference between Evolution and Origins is huge. Stop muddying the water.

Please don't presume that everyone is as intellectually dishonest as yourself.

rem

rem

Funkyderek,

This isn't even a debate. A debate, in my mind, is when both sides are educated on the issues they are discussing. As we've seen by Love_Truth and Hooberus, they don't even have the slightest idea of what they are discussing. They simply don't understand evolution. They are debating a strawman of evolution that they were taught by their preacher-man.

Their use of quotes taken out of context is extremely intellectually dishonest and lazy. They make a mockery of their beliefs by trying to attack something they don't understand with outright lies.

rem

rem

Love Truth,

It's amazing you don't see the irony of using your online handle and then posting lies as evidence. Quotes out of context are the best that anti-evolutionists such as yourself can do. Not very scientific, nor intellectually honest.

The rest of Gould's quote would go on to say that Natural Selection works on the mutations to cause evolutionary change. True, mutations on their own are not the cause, but they are an integral part. (Did you notice the Watchtoweresque elipsis in the quote? Telling.)

Why should I even go through the time to refute any of your posts when it's clear you resort to lying?

I expect more from an adult. And an apology for wasting my time.

rem

Love_Truth

Derek,

Thanks for proving my point that evolutionists confuse order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex.

Again, we now discuss this in terms of information?. Break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you don?t simply get a smaller protein, rather you lose the function completely. This is the equivalent of saying that the crystal has low information content that is simply repeated, while the protein molecule can?t be constructed simply by repetition, because there is no chemical tendency for amino acids to align in specific ways during polymerization. Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved (2002).

Apparently, you,and the website you referred to, missed those points:

Living organisms use exactly the same principle to grow. (WRONG, ordered vs complex) Extremely well characterized examples include (Because they have a designer, a blueprint):

binding of nucleotides to DNA (in the presence of a DNA polymerase) to replicate DNA,
the binding of proteins to DNA to turn on or off genes,
nucleotide incorporation during RNA transcription by RNA polymerase,
amino acids and tRNAs binding to tRNA synthetases,
ribosomes binding to mRNA,
tRNA binding to mRNA on the ribosome,
the folding of the resulting peptide into a protein,
binding of proteins to each other to make larger complexes such as DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and the ribosome.

That is, every known biochemical function involves this entropy decrease principle. (Not the point, as I already pointed out, this confuses order and complexity.) Thousands of papers have been written on the subject.

Yours is the typical evolutionist's argument: It's a fact because I say it's a fact, which proves it's a fact".

Your argument is circular, empty, and unfounded.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

P.S.- So you disagree with Theodosius Dobzhansky on the general meaning of evolution, then? ?Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Abaddon

Loves_Truth, claiming god is was and always will be IS special pleading, it?s got nothing to do with whether you say we can or whether we like saying it. It is a fact, and it is one that you seem to realise is ?part and parcel of most Religion?s beliefs?. We had already established you are a Christian and that I am an atheist, although I believe I trotted out the old one about asantaists being a strange term of reference for people who don?t believe in santa, as well as I?m not too happy defining myself that way. But go ahead; I don?t regard it as an insult.

I also don?t know why you?re saying people cannot prove there is no god; endless repetition of established facts that no one is contending is pointless. You round of your first paragraph of replies without actually having replied to any of the issues I raised, or without defending any of the refuted assertions you have made.

You continue with this pattern in the second paragraph.

Just to make sure we have got things clear, you have said you can prove god exists. Yet each ?proof? of god turns out to either be an assertion or to use some misunderstanding of science ? not a difference of opinion, but an actual misunderstanding.

I and rem have gone through these. Now, normally in a discussion, if someone presents information they assert is true, and this is not accepted by those they present it to, the persons the information is presented to is refute or rebut the information, or at least try to.

That?s what me and rem did.

What next happens in a discussion, is rather than rehashing similar claims, you either concede that the information presented is not what they have asserted it to be, or you defend it and show that the rebuttals are unfounded.

Your second paragraph essentially ignores the information presented regarding abiogenesis. You need to show me where the rebuttal you were supplied with (against your assertion that abiogenesis is impossible) is in error, rather than just posting opinions very much like the others.

Other supporters of Creationism have, instead of actually really defending their arguments, just carried on making endless variations of a theme that has already been refuted on that thread.

I actually have to go home now and will look over your post for anything that is not a re-hash of information I?ve previously refuted that you have failed to defend, but I doubt I?ll have time online until Monday.

Have a good weekend.

rem

Love Truth,

>>Thanks for proving my point that evolutionists confuse order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex.

That was not your point. Your point was that Evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Funkyderek destroyed your argument. Now you are moving the goal post.

This is a complete waste of time.

rem

Love_Truth

Rem,

excuse me, but you have done nothing but create the typical circular arguments that are characteristic of everyone Evolutionist who defends their religion- You dismiss other's views as uneducated, and assert that yours are somehow "better". I challenge you to post your educational credentials on the Board, as I have done. Your arguments are shallow and empty, and amount to nothing more than a circular argument.

Typical evolutionist tactic.Too blind to see he's calling the kettle black.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

funkyderek

So you disagree with Theodosius Dobzhansky on the general meaning of evolution, then?

I don't think so, and if I do, I'm probably wrong. I certainly agree with his statement that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

What, specifically, are you referring to here?

rem

Love Truth,

Your behavior is bordering on troll status here. I have gone through your supposed proofs for god and have shown them to be dishonest or fallacious. You have not behaved as an adult in this thread by responding to specific points, but continue to shotgun pages of irrelevant, misleading, wrong, and downright dishonest information. When you have been called on specific points, you simply ignore it.

I'm more than happy to have a civil discussion, but you have not kept your end of the bargain. If I ever resort to using lies and misquotes in my defense of Evolution, I expect you to call me on it. I will never stoop to the level you and other apologists have on this and many other threads.

Please keep the content down to managable levels so we can thoughtfully discuss it. Copying and Pasting pages and pages of crap is *not* having a discussion. Any 6th grader can do that.

rem

Love_Truth

Abaddon,

No, mine are not misunderstandings of science, your assertions are. Your opinions, and that is all they are, are the tired old opinions of the Church and Religion of Evolutionism. Your statements are faith based, and no more based on scientific principles than are mine. Conclusions differ, evidence remains the same.

I will challenge you to the same I asked of Rem- I have laid my educational credentials and experience on the table- what are yours?

As an Engineer, trained in Physics, Mathematics, Analysis and Critical Thinking, I know what I am talking about. I clearly understand the scientific laws and principles that you obviously ignore, or conveniently wave away, because it destroys your theory. I have had 19 years of additional schooling in various and sundry subjects, what have you?

Cheers,

Love_Truth

P.S.- It's very clear that you and the other evolutionists are pissed because of being exposed as believing in a disproved theory, that of evolution.

God does exist...

Share this