DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Alter2Ego, May 6, 2012.

  1. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
    Four of those questions are related to evolution, as follows.

    1. Where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life so that evolution could then proceed--before humans eventually "evolved" from whatever slime came out of the ocean?

    2. According to delusional scientists in the pro-evolution camp, life started in the ocean. Richard Dawkins dreamed up a scenario that sounds like something from Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars combined. (See my post #13 on page 2 of this thread.) Is that how it happened?

    6. Who created plants, insects, birds, fishes, and humans (just to mention a few), which are complex life forms. How could complex life forms have evolved from slime that developed by itself in the oceans (or whatever latest theory the pro-evolution scientists dreamed up)?

    8. Evolution theory cannot account for the intelligence of humans and various living creatures. How did intelligent creatures result from what started off as something that was not intelligent (the slime that supposedly came out of the ocean after it came to life by itself, or whatever other mindless creature scientists have invented, the so-called "common ancestor")?

    Abiogenesis is part and parcel with the macroevolution theory. If you rule out an intelligent God who started life—which is that atheists do—you are stuck with explaining how life started. Richard Dawkins and other atheists in the pro-evolution camp tried miserably to create the scenario of how life came from non-life without an intelligent God, and they've all failed miserably. Charles Darwin was driven by abiogenesis thinking when he wrote Origin of Species. He said as much in a letter to one of his friends.



    I take it you're here to help Catenaccio out with the answers to my questions?
     
  2. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to evolution. It doesn't matter where the first life form came from. If it was created by god, fell through a portal from another dimension, or spontaneously appeared after a combination of chemicals came together, none of that has any impact on whether evolution is real or not.

    So you're asking about abiogenesis because you wrongly think it has something to do with evolution. Why are you also asking questions about astrophysics? Is this a thread about evolution, or are you just trying to create a platform from which to espouse creationism?
     
  3. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No offense, but you're not as well-educated as I am. It's not an attack, it's a measurable fact. I don't appreciate your tone. The sources you have CONTRADICT what you want to say and the questions you ask have obvious scientific answers, that when presented to you, you ignore. I mean if there are other educated people here, which there are, they know of those rather prominent scientists who CONTRADICT what you say. Why you cite them? I think you found a quote by them that shows doubt, and you picked it. I find that dishonest.

    Humans have had little if not participation in the natural world around them, I would hope everyone knows that. You pretend as if things in the universe/nature are in order, are in perfection... they're not. So that kind of knocks down half of your questions. If you were educated in these fields, you'd know this. No joke, take a Bio/Physics/Chem 101 class. You'll have your mind blown.

    There is no force or matter that doesn't have a theory that explains it in scientific terms.

    And since the only question I can see by now is #8: Evolution can account for intelligence. Encephalization is a notable trend in evolution. Increasing mass and size.
     
  4. Regens Küchl

    Regens Küchl New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps I can entertain you all with other things that are no less interesting than Alter2Egos doings in other Forums:love_at_first:

    First I wanted to make a new thread : RELIGIOUS INTERNET - FINDS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ALTER2EGO , but then I thought I can as good use this thread already:wiggle:

    50+ Hateful, Stupid, and Ugly Church Signs:hitit:
    http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14997
     
  5. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    ALTER2EGO -to- BURZMALI:
    I wasn't the one who dreamed up the idea of evolution THEORY. Charles Darwin copied the idea from several others that preceded him. By ruling out the Creator and insisting there is no God, atheists cannot now decided to skip pass the initial process that requires how life came from non-life—without an intelligent God—so that "evolution" could thereafter proceed.

    Charles Darwin set down the ground rules when he expressed his abiogenesis thinking in a letter to his friend. Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:

    "...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

    Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that:
    "...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

    In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God.)

    Although Darwin, out of fear of being ridiculed by his contemporaries, did not put this statement in his book Origin of Species, we know that abiogenesis thinking motivated what he wrote by what he said in that letter to Joseph Hooker. You can't come along now in the year 2012 and change the rules set by Mr. Evolution aka Charles Darwin. You and the other atheists will just have to live with whatever Darwin dreamed up.


    If Charles Darwin were alive I would ask him where did the "warm little pond" come from and where did the various "ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc." come from. In other words, did those ingredients just popped up out of nowhere? After all, even the ingredients required an intelligent designer/God. Alas! Dead men tell no tales.
     
  6. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    ALTER2EGO -to- CATENACCIO:
    Besides being evasive and not answering my direct questions, you're also an educated snob. University degrees, unfortunately, play a very small part in one's ability to use logic and simple common sense.

    Anyone that can get up every morning, breath the air and know it won't poison them, eat and enjoy the different flavors of food, have the ability to listen to music and learn to play musical instruments, have the ability to remember the past and dream about the future, have the ability to learn new languages—and I could go on and on with this—any one who can do all that and continue to insist it all happened by accident is not using logic. See what I mean about the shortcomings of university schooling? What good is all that education when it's got you thinking you evolved from slime? It's no wonder that the Bible says the following about people whose only source of wisdom is worldly education:


    "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: 'He catches the wise in their own cunning.' " (1 Corinthians 3:19)

    The fact that you've done everything but answer my questions, after I asked them three separate times, shows intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    I rest my case.
     
  7. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've answered your questions several times now, ask anyone here. You're uneducated, so you admit that. No worries. Just don't attempt to teach me biology or any life science. I spend quite a while studying them.

    Also, I never said it was by accident. Fate, perhaps. And when I say fate, I say it in the 'educated' way. Fate being the convergence of assorted probabilities into a fixed outcome. Go to school, it'd help you.
     
  8. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you don't want to just focus on evolution, that's fine. If you want to rail against the clash between science and religion, fine. Perhaps you should have been more honest with your opening post and thread title, though.
     
  9. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    ALTER2EGO -to- CATENACCIO:
    Really? I admitted that I'm uneducated? When did I do that? I recall saying that people whose only source of knowledge is worldly wisdom are in bad shape. I happen to have worldly knowledge aka a decent education, as well as Biblical knowledge and—get this—the ability to use logic.

    I have demonstrated critical thinking skills by concluding that if it took an intelligent human to create a box of crayons, it most certainly required someone of vast intellect and abilities to have created the complex universe. Meanwhile, EDUCATED YOU continue to insist everything in the natural world just popped up out of nowhere, including the "common ancestor" from which every living thing on this planet supposedly evolved.

    While we're on the subject of education, let me ask you a rhetorical question. When did you ever meet an uneducated person that writes as effectively as I'm doing here? Not only am I using proper grammar, spelling, and syntax, I am presenting arguments that EDUCATED YOU cannot overcome. So you have now lapped your tail and resorted to snobbery and one upmanship by comparing your level of education to mine—as an obvious means of diverting attention from the fact that you've been running from my questions.

    You've given me nothing but evasive responses—which indicates intellectual dishonesty. To top it off, you've now taken the conversation down the wrong path by your petty remarks on education. I'm not interested in any further discussions with you. Your snide remarks, printed in bold red above, just earned you a slot on my "Ignore" list. Anything you post on this website from this point forward will be invisible to me.



    I'm not impressed. Do better!
     
  10. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem a bit arrogant, and no you haven't answered his questions. You rail about him bringing up abiogenesis, but the problem with evolution is that it is tightly woven with abiogenesis. Its called origin of the species, and there can be no origin without everything else being tightly woven with it.
    so, with that out of the way, what is the difference between fate in the "educated" way, and fate in the "uneducated" way?

    From the goo to you via the zoo doesn't really work. Evolution just continues to kick the can down the road.

    Would you say that only uneducated people believe in God? Would you say that only uneducated people do not believe in evolution?
     
  11. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would say that it's not 100%, of course, but largely that way. The more people learn, the less likely they are to believe it. It's NEVER been the other way around.
     
  12. Regens Küchl

    Regens Küchl New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Critical thinking skills ???
    You have no critical thinking skills !
    You are not allowed by the Mob Bosses of your sect, the JEHOVAHS WICKEDNESS, to develop or possess critical thinking skills !
    You are only allowed to parrot everything what your sect Mob Bosses and the Watchtower commands you to parrot !

    While you are trolling dozens of forums . . .

    http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/124828-Alter2Ego-is-trolling-dozens-of-forums

    http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/125339-ALTER2EGO-FORUM-MEMBERSHIPS

    . . . you could at least announce in your threads the sect you emerged from. At last ANGELO was so fair.

    http://www.agileguitarforum.com/showthread.php?tid=19578

    Nice to catch up with you by the way.
     
  13. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL. Wow. Well, that ends this discussion.
     
  14. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so if a doctor, CEO, lawyer, politician believe in God, where does that leave your theory?
     
  15. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many do. But I wouldn't put many of those in the educated category. Some CEOs never went to college, some politicians are Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

    The overwhelming majority of individuals who graduate college, though, are aware the Bible cannot be considered anything more than an allegory. The majority of those with post-graduate education know that the Bible is nothing but fantasy.

    When you understand glucose, when you understand physiology, when you understand physics— there is no room for religion.

    Christianity does not explain anything in the world, science does. Creationism is impossible to support, evolution is widely-supported.
     
  16. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For something to be a fairytale, it sure has a lot of educated people believeing it. Actually the fact that we exist supports God.
     
  17. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People have flocked to religion throughout history to explain what they don't know. Religion predates science in that area. Unfortunate, really.

    Our existence doesn't support the idea of God, it's strong support against the idea... once you know the sciences.
     
  18. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have still yet to create anything out of thin air. We still need matter to create things, and until we can explain how everything got here, God will always be supported.
     
  19. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'thin' air. But things have been created out of the gases surrounding them.

    God never stated he created matter, he said he created the earth. We know that he likely didn't judging by the age he claims it to be. That's the end of that argument.
     
  20. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Colossians 1:16
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.


    John 1:3
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

    What age does God claim it to be?
     
  21. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately, creation of the earth goes along with the creation of man. I don't find that to be a realistic explanation. I don't believe the Earth to be 6000 years old. I find it much older.
     
  22. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm assuming here that you think the Bible states that the earth is 6000 years old, correct?
     
  23. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Bible implies it through the series of events and their relative dating. But that's the least of my objections.

    It claims the Earth was created mere days before Man, that's hilarious, isn't it?
     
  24. elijah

    elijah New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't think there could have been a gap in scripture that could have alluded to an older earth?
     
  25. Catenaccio

    Catenaccio Banned

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If we take it as more of an allegory, then yes, it's possible. But taking away the 'literal' meaning of it hurts many people.
     

Share This Page