Evolution

[MC]

Evolution doesn't state that life came from nothing. It's impossible to create something out of nothing.

 

[sub]

Here is a good video for those willing to learn =o..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UvuRwFi_iqQ&feature=related

I don't understand how the theory of evolution was "TORN TO PIECES WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" by that video. Three-Fourths of the video addressed a non-issue; that is that life evolved from nothing because of chemical reactions. You can be a creationist as well as a believer in the theory of evolution, so there goes that. In any case, he came to the conclusion that this isn't possible because one experiment didn't have optimal results. Not exactly tearing anything to pieces.

Then he stated that we've found a species of fish that were previously thought to be extinct, and they're similar to the fossils from millions of years ago. Again, this means nothing.

I liked how there was roughly ten people at his talk. Also, when did Youtube become the source for scientific discovery?

 

[Chakra-X]

Here is a good video for those willing to learn =o..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UvuRwFi_iqQ&feature=related

There is more to evolution than "life from non-life". Like our appendixes. When the hell did we need those organs?

 

[sub]

Actually, I read not long ago (2007 I believe) that some scientists now believe the appendix does indeed have a use. It supposedly could serve as a sort of incubation hub or breeding ground for useful bacteria in your body, so that if they get wiped out by something, everything would still be a-ok.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...oes-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277.html

In any case, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with "life from non life".

 

[SailorAlea]

Here is a good video for those willing to learn =o..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UvuRwFi_iqQ&feature=related

Jinx, you do realize that many of your video clips have comments disabled for a reason? So they can't be publically exposed as the quacks they are.

I get that a lot from you. When you're faced with irrefutable proof, you cover your ears and go "Blah blah blah blah, I can't hear you! Watch this youtube video!"

Had you actually read the page I linked to you, you'd know why this guy is a quack. Evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS. It is an explanation of how life evolves once ALREADY existing.

 

[VideoJinx]

Hey sub, thats only part 2.. if your really intereted watch all of it.. I didn't feel like pasting each link.. simply because if you wanted to see all of it you could copy the title and change the number of it.

edit..

It does indeed.. its the so called "beginning" from the Evolutionary perspective.. aka Darwinism..

 

[sub]

Jinx, you're wrong. Darwinism is basically survival of the fittest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Nothing in the theory of evolution deals with how life originally came to be, it's all how existing life changed into other forms of life.

 

[VideoJinx]

Survival of the fittest is another part of the Evolutionary theory(s)..


Let me point out.. that the evolutionary theory explains beings on Earth to evolve within some kind of hierchy..

A simple example would be monkey to man..

The evolutionary theory(s) also try to explain what mammals evolved from and so forth..

If we were to continue this.. we'd end up at the very first cell.. ever made.... and this is where "Evolutionist" try to explain away how the very first one was Randomly created. So.. excuse me IF* i didn't use the correct term used by evolutionists.. but I still believe I'm right when I say how the first cell came to be, is apart of the evolution theory

 

[MC]

That one cell (assuming that it all started with one cell) that started it all had to come from something. It couldn't of appeared out of thin air.

 

[VideoJinx]

Which is why they say it came from non-life... aka "non-living" particles/chemicals

 

[Optimus Prime]

but I still believe I'm right when I say how the first cell came to be, is apart of the evolution theory

Sorry, but you're wrong.

"The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began."

Please stop trying to twist the theory of evolution to fit your agenda.

End thread.

 

[Chakra-X]

Which is why they say it came from non-life... aka "non-living" particles/chemicals

...Isn't a cell made up of non living things? Atoms, compounds,etc. They are not living.

 

[VideoJinx]

I've already clarrified my point.

So.. excuse me IF* i didn't use the correct term used by evolutionists..

lol.. but according to this evolutionist... evolution(period) involves the ORIGIN of our species and all other species..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ln8tM59zZF8

Maybe post a link to your source next time ??

Please stop trying to twist the theory of evolution to fit your agenda.

As for this.... I'm providing my perspective.. and I've twisted nothing.

Edit-----------

Haha.. alright this guy seems to be parallel with my beliefs/logic..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CzaOeLXFq18

 

[Mountain Dewd]

this guy seems to be parallel with my beliefs/logic..

You may have your beliefs, but there is no logic involved.

Surely your time is better spent doing something else?, instead of indulging in the misinformed ramblings of the psuedo-intellectual, and forcing everyone else to endure it while you ignore all reason.

 

[SailorAlea]

Survival of the fittest is another part of the Evolutionary theory(s)..


Let me point out.. that the evolutionary theory explains beings on Earth to evolve within some kind of hierchy..

A simple example would be monkey to man..

The evolutionary theory(s) also try to explain what mammals evolved from and so forth..

If we were to continue this.. we'd end up at the very first cell.. ever made.... and this is where "Evolutionist" try to explain away how the very first one was Randomly created. So.. excuse me IF* i didn't use the correct term used by evolutionists.. but I still believe I'm right when I say how the first cell came to be, is apart of the evolution theory

You are wrong, Jinx. Evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis. If you had done even a tiny amount of research into what evolution actually is--and isn't--you'd know that.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." There is no "evolutionism. Evolution is a theory dealing with how life evolves, not how it came into being.

If you continue down this line, the exact same line you try in every other thread, where you stick your hands in your ears and ignore facts staring you in the face--you'll be pointlessly stagnating this thread, which means you have no place in it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Watched the videos.

Guess what? You're still wrong.

You can't say that evolution isn't true because it fails to explain where life came from, because that's not the point evolution is trying to make.

That's like saying the theory of gravitation is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Well, tough ****, that's not the point of the theory of gravitation either.

 

[VideoJinx]

Right.. look.. you guys/girl are being really childish about this o_o, I've added my perspective and I'm not the one changing this thread... or are my beliefs causing that much of an uproar?

I've done my research and not from a biased opinion @ all... heck..I was persuaded to believe this crap.. but now.. I've came to my own conclusions..and not from videos...

Optimus im not saying evolution is flawed just* because it can't* logically explain where the first cell comes from, but it's also flawed in the theoretical processes it claims to happen, it's flawed in it's lack or absence of evidence.. it's flawed by considering only chance and time to be science.. and it's flawed to consider life as mere fluke, it's flawed in ignoring the abundant evidence of design....

Keep in mind, These are MY beliefs.

And to say they're wrong is to say evolution is right, from where I stand you have no evidence of evolution happening. None,.... inaccurate fossil dating measures, assumptions of a hierchy of evolution., assumptions as to how single cell can "evolve" to become a full body of cells without any "intelligence" present? I could go on.... because I've looked this through pretty thoroughly in my opinion...

Evolutionist
n.
1. One skilled in evolutions.


2. One who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics. Darwin.

If you guys/girl are gonna post stuff like this... :laff: at least address why you believe evolution is the real... and I hope its not simply because its a popular belief that many scientists believe in... and I hope its not based upon uncertainty...

 

[Optimus Prime]

it's flawed in ignoring the abundant evidence of design....

Evidence? Design?

Design is grounded in faith.

Evolution is grounded in observation. And I'm sorry Jinx, but just because you have never observed anything evolve, does not discount evolution either.

This is a typical design argument for life.

Creation: "Evolution doesn't explain where life comes from?"
Evolution: "No."
Creation: "Oh, so can you tell me where life comes from?"
Evolution: "No."
Creation: "THEN IT MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED. THEREFORE, GOD."

Wow Jinx, really convincing evidence.

 

[Chakra-X]

Jinx, are you saying, a million years of ago, everything was exactly the same? Exact same animals, insects, birds, plants, etc?

And what about "adaption", do you believe in animals gaining new traits to survive in their environment?

Right.. look.. you guys/girl are being really childish about this , I've added my perspective and I'm not the one changing this thread... or are my beliefs causing that much of an uproar?

We're not being childish. And we are not in an uproar because your believes are so off the wall. Don't give yourself that much credit . What's pissing us/me off, is HOW you go about denouncing the entire idea of evolution. You use generic or obscure ideas to denounce the entire idea of evolution.

Evolution is not the idea that every change in genetics is always random and purposeless. And how is evolution more unlikely than a superior being creating everything on its own? That's the easy answer. Humans are used to using the supernatural to explain the most complex things.

You're a unique one, Jinx. I'm not one of the members that wants to burn you at the stake, but you have stated you believe in Reptile people, hollow earths, complete world corruption, shadow governments, fake moon landings, and a bunch of other outrageous claims. Yet, when it comes to evolution, where many studies have foolproof evidence, you call it "BS" and "unbelievable".

You can have all your believes you want. Hell, I could believe the Sun is actually a giant light bulb but we just haven't found it yet. I'm still wrong though.

 

[SailorAlea]

Right.. look.. you guys/girl are being really childish about this o_o, I've added my perspective and I'm not the one changing this thread... or are my beliefs causing that much of an uproar?

I've done my research and not from a biased opinion @ all... heck..I was persuaded to believe this crap.. but now.. I've came to my own conclusions..and not from videos...

It has nothing to do with "beliefs." You are not being persecuted for "beliefs." You're making incorrect statements about evolution, and we are responding to them.

Evolution isn't about where life came from. It explains how life evolves over time. You have, several times, insisted that evolution is a theory of abiogenesis, which is wrong.

As Optimus said, this is the same as if you insisted "the theory of gravity is wrong, because it doesn't explain why my jelly sandwich is delicious."

It has nothing to do with it.

but it's also flawed in the theoretical processes it claims to happen, it's flawed in it's lack or absence of evidence.. it's flawed by considering only chance and time to be science.. and it's flawed to consider life as mere fluke, it's flawed in ignoring the abundant evidence of design....

Wrong again. There is ample evidence. The theory of evolution is based on empirical observation, known as scientific facts. The observation that you posted at 11:21AM EST is an empirical observation--a scientific fact. It can be verified through testing.

Evolution, as a theory, is based on numerous empirical observations. It is based on evidence. It is not a "guess." It has no lack of evidence. There is no controversy here--only your ignorance of fact.

You're saying "evolution considers life to be a fluke." WRONG. Evolution makes absolutely NO postulations on the origin of life, or ABIOGENESIS.

Keep in mind, These are MY beliefs.

Yes, and your "belief" is based on scientific ignorance. This isn't something that can be debated. You are unequivocally wrong.

And to say they're wrong is to say evolution is right, from where I stand you have no evidence of evolution happening. None,.... inaccurate fossil dating measures, assumptions of a hierchy of evolution., assumptions as to how single cell can "evolve" to become a full body of cells without any "intelligence" present? I could go on.... because I've looked this through pretty thoroughly in my opinion...

You haven't researched it at all. Evolution is one of the most solid, well-researched scientific theories of all-time.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html

If you guys/girl are gonna post stuff like this... :laff: at least address why you believe evolution is the real... and I hope its not simply because its a popular belief that many scientists believe in... and I hope its not based upon uncertainty...

It is "real," because we've directly observed natural selection, documented the evolution of bacteria becoming resistant to pharmaceuticals, the fossil record supports the increasing complexity of life, the overwhelming evidence of DNA similarity--the list goes on, and on and on.

The things we base our opinions on aren't based on blog posts and youtube videos. It's called an education. I highly recommend them. Especially in the area of proper research.