Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[AnotherAtheist]

The entire concept of Evolution was derived from racism, so you don't like anyone point that FACT out to you?
This is exactly how I used to respond to atheists when I was a Christian, and couldn't defend my Religious beliefs and their gods that I have sworn to follow unquestionably (on blind faith).

I am truly sorry to see you quit my friend, because I know what it is to hide from the light, I was brought up in a strict Christian Religious sect, where questioning the faith meant showing weakness.
And this BB-Evolution Religion is just another denomination of my old Christian Religion, supported and even created by the same people who created the Christian Religion.

God bless you.

No, it was not. Like everything else you are straw-manning here, this is solely a product of your imagination. That you bought such appalling racism into this thread is solely up to you. Whether you are man enough to admit to it and apologise - that's up to you.

No addition of 'my friend' or 'God bless you' excuses your behaviour here.

 

[klutedavid]

All of that is wrong. For a start ToE has nothing to do with the sub atomic level.

All wrong?

So why should anybody care about string theory?

The big bang theory is the idea that if we go back early enough in the history of the universe—and we can do this, of course, by looking at starlight coming to us from billions of years ago—we will see a very hot and dense period where the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter. And that explosion or hot state left remnants that we can observe today in the microwave background. So we know that that aspect of the theory is true. If we push back even farther, that hotter or denser state becomes even hotter and denser. And if we extrapolate using Einstein's theory of general relativity, we find total disaster. That is, we find a singularity, in which the forces that act on particles become infinitely strong. Things break down completely, and the theory no longer makes sense. Our conclusion is not that the universe doesn't make sense, but that the equations are wrong. They're applicable maybe at later times, but they're not applicable at the beginning of the universe. So we desperately need something like string theory appears to be—a theory that is consistent. (David Gross shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics)

If you have an issue with what David Gross said, then take it up with him.

String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions of fundamental physics. String theory has been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. (wikipedia)

The theory of relativity has it's own problems.

 

[klutedavid]

That's right. the population evolves, but each individual pretty much stays the same its whole life--not quite the same as its parents and not quite the same as its offspring...
the parents give birth to a slightly different offspring, which gives birth in turn to a slightly different offspring and so on, over and over until one day biologists notice that the resultant offspring is so different from its original ancestor that it is convenient to regard it as a new species.

Well the obvious question arises.

Why has the dragonfly not changed in two to three hundred million years?

 

[USincognito]

Calling people "animal" and apes is not nice.

That's an opinion. That humans are animals (no scare quotes needed) and apes is a FACT.

Animals are multicellular.
Animals are heterotrophic, obtaining their energy by consuming energy-releasing food substances.
Animals typically reproduce sexually.
Animals are made up of cells that do not have cell walls.
Animals are capable of motion in some stage of their lives.
Animals are able to respond quickly to external stimuli as a result of nerve cells, muscle or contractile tissue, or both.​

Apes are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.​

How the hell does a gorilla evolve into the illusive, unknown species you guys call "Common Ancestor" then, if they always stay gorillas?

You have been corrected on this by many of us many times now and yet you keep repeating it. Why are you doing that? Are you immune to correction or are you simply trolling?

Again, humans did NOT evolve from gorillas. Humans AND chimpanzees AND gorillas share a common ancestor.

 

[Arius]

Where does evolution say that it's right to discriminate against darker skinned people?
Where does evolution justify lawlessness and support the "Do as Thou Wilt" ideology?
Where does evolution tell people to excuse their actions with "My environment caused/commanded me to do it"?

I just quoted Gaylord Simpson. The human ape is a result of its environment, your mind is the result of your brain which is the 'result' of its environment, you have no real free will, so how could any animal be responsible for their actions, .. how? See, it's the old: "Do as thou wilt" explained through evolution.

I charge you to find me quotes in ANY scientific literature about evolution or in any of Darwin's works that support these claims, or you must retract these claims and say that you lied, like an honest person would.

I have posted non stop on BB-Evolution, quotes to videos, what is it you want? From discrimination to ridiculing Creationists, to claiming evolution yet admitting it never happens, .. what more can I give you?

Also, if you call archaeologists 'grave robbers', what do you call the people who try and find historical figures mentioned in the Bible or any other historical characters? Because if you don't call them grave robbers, then you are a bloody big hypocrite!

If any Creationist Believer goes into graves to look for evidence in the Bible, they don't have the Holy Spirit in them.
What more could the bones of, like for instance King David show me more than what's written about him in the Bible?
Looking for ancient cities is one thing, but specifically looking for skull and bones is another, it's grave robbing all the same.

 

[USincognito]

Oh yes I do, .. and it was bad enough, but do you think making up a Religion that discriminates, belittles, dehumanize like this Evolution Religion will solve racism?

Calling evolution a religion makes people look like they have no idea what they're talking about.

Remember Ota Benga and

Why do lies like this keep getting repeated? Ota Benga was NOT exhibited as some sort of missing link. He was exhibited in an anthropological (as in human societies) exhibit. He was also brought to the U.S. by a missionary.

the hundreds of millions of blacks that have been tortured and killed over the few centuries because of this ideology, this belief system!?

It's hard to remember something that never happened, not for the least of reasons that evolution is neither a ideology nor a belief system.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where does evolution say that it's right to discriminate against darker skinned people?
Where does evolution justify lawlessness and support the "Do as Thou Wilt" ideology?
Where does evolution tell people to excuse their actions with "My environment caused/commanded me to do it"?

I charge you to find me quotes in ANY scientific literature about evolution or in any of Darwin's works that support these claims, or you must retract these claims and say that you lied, like an honest person would.

Also, if you call archaeologists 'grave robbers', what do you call the people who try and find historical figures mentioned in the Bible or any other historical characters? Because if you don't call them grave robbers, then you are a bloody big hypocrite!

He's trolling.

 

[Arius]

This is why I keep coming back to CF.

Did I miss something?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just quoted Gaylord Simpson. The human ape is a result of its environment, your mind is the result of your brain which is the 'result' of its environment, you have no real free will, so how could any animal be responsible for their actions, .. how? See, it's the old: "Do as thou wilt" explained through evolution.



I have posted non stop on BB-Evolution, quotes to videos, what is it you want? From discrimination to ridiculing Creationists, to claiming evolution yet admitting it never happens, .. what more can I give you?



If any Creationist Believer goes into graves to look for evidence in the Bible, they don't have the Holy Spirit in them.
What more could the bones of, like for instance King David show me more than what's written about him in the Bible?
Looking for ancient cities is one thing, but specifically looking for skull and bones is another, it's grave robbing all the same.

Again: Where does evolution say that it's right to discriminate against darker skinned people?
Where does evolution justify lawlessness and support the "Do as Thou Wilt" ideology?
Where does evolution tell people to excuse their actions with "My environment caused/commanded me to do it"?

 

[Arius]

NO IT WASN'T!

"... pants on fire!"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He's trolling.

And yet the admins have done nothing about it. Ridiculous.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"... pants on fire!"

Show me. Or are you the liar here?

 

[Speedwell]

Well the obvious question arises.

Why has the dragonfly not changed in two to three hundred million years?

Who says it has not? Over that time there have come to be some 3000 species of dragonfly.

But even if there had not, all that would mean is that the selection criteria had remained the same for all populations of the ancestral Anisoptera. The random variation I was describing to Arius goes on regardless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It cannot be known whether mathematical axioms are true, that is why they are called axioms.

They're defined as true in the relevant system.

Here is an axiom.

Between any two points there exists a straight line.

This is an imaginary axiom, space time is curved and straight lines do not exist in reality.

It's an axiom that's [defined as] true in Euclidean geometry.

 

[Speedwell]

See, it's the old: "Do as thou wilt" explained through evolution.

My goodness! You can't even get that right. The entire Wiccan Rede reads "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." Not the same thing at all.

 

[Arius]

I think this is why you have been characterised as ignorant.

A gorilla evolving into the common ancestor of what exactly?

The gorilla did not evolve into the common ancestor of gorillas and humans.

I’ve never seen anyone make this mistake in my 15 or so years of debating creos.

Nice try, you are conflating others claims I have pointed out with what I asked?

Now try to explain to us Creationist about this:

Time 0:21 Dawkins points to a "T" on his family photo collage and says; "A common Ancestor there".

Can you tell us what species this "common ancestor" is?

The line goes down, then turns right passing by another "Common Ancestor" on to a gorilla. You can tell me what that other "common ancestor" is also while you're at it, please?

Good luck, and thank you.

 

[klutedavid]

They're defined as true in the relevant system.

It's an axiom that's [defined as] true in Euclidean geometry.

True in Euclidean geometry but not true under the theory of relativity.

 

[klutedavid]

Who says it has not? Over that time there have come to be some 3000 species of dragonfly.

But even if there had not, all that would mean is that the selection criteria had remained the same for all populations of the ancestral Anisoptera. The random variation I was describing to Arius goes on regardless.

The random variation continues but not to the level of species transition.

 

[Arius]

It's funny that, throughout this whole thread, not once has it been shown how the theory of evolution is 'destroying' science.

Throughout this whole OP I have continuously shown how the word 'science' has been used synonymously with Evolution. If anyone doesn't agree with the Carl Sagan

millions and billions and trillions of years ago BB-Evolution fairytales, they are accused of hating science, .. which is used in children's programming, cartoons, school. Slowly but surely the BB-Evolution Religion is destroying the very foundation of science, which is supposed to be about "observing the world around us", .. not making up ridiculous never observed stories out of skull and bones dug up from graves, and looking in heaven and seeing stars, making up fantastic story how it all came from a big explosion and expanding in, .. umm, .. in no one knows, only "Hawking's 70's answering" machine knows what the universe is expanding into? (actually, that answering machine is truly awesome, beats even IBM's Watson. Look how many books it has written about universes beyond our own. I should have kept mine, it would be worth millions.)

 

[klutedavid]

They're defined as true in the relevant system.

It's an axiom that's [defined as] true in Euclidean geometry.

They speculate that the early universe was simply, Electromagnetic radiation and the flux of neutrinos. If that is true what are the estimates of the quantity of radiation, and the number of neutrinos required to expand into two trillion GALAXIES?