Why Evolution is True (2)

[dad]

Where in the theory of evolution does it say that we should kill Jews?

Answer the question.

The theory of evolution is not about overt Satanism. However, when we know the author, and his other materials, we can see that the same spirit is at work. Would it offend you if we referred to you as 'potato kin'?

 

[justlookinla]

Then present facts, not opinions and lies.



My school did, at the university level. I read "Origin of Species" as a freshman as part of my Zoology course. It is still a great example of explaining the emergence of different taxonomic groups in the fossil record, biogeography, and the nested hierarchy, all of which were important themes in my Zoology course.

Was the "Origin of Species" used as a basis for Zoology or were more modern, up-to-date textbooks uses?

Also, theories don't have "truths". Yet another dishonest tactic that you attempt to use.

I've seen it said more than once on this forum (and others too) that science isn't concerned with truth. So, your statement isn't surprising.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is NOT fiction in Darwin's old nonsense?

We could start here:

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
The Origin of Species: Chapter 6
​

Is Darwin telling the truth about the range of eyes found in life, with some having intermediate complexity?

 

[Loudmouth]

Was the "Origin of Species" used as a basis for Zoology or were more modern, up-to-date textbooks uses?

All of the facts that Darwin discussed in Origin of Species were true. None of it was fiction.

I've seen it said more than once on this forum (and others too) that science isn't concerned with truth. So, your statement isn't surprising.

It is not concerned with truth, as you define it.

 

[justlookinla]

All of the facts that Darwin discussed in Origin of Species was false. None of it was fiction.

All false? What? Are you sure you mean to say that?

It is not concerned with truth, as you define it.

I know.

 

[Loudmouth]

The theory of evolution is not about overt Satanism. However, when we know the author, and his other materials, we can see that the same spirit is at work. Would it offend you if we referred to you as 'potato kin'?

I would just wonder why you focused on just that one species group. By the same argument, we are also eagle kind, butterfly kind, and tiger kind. We are intertwined with all of life on Earth, which I find quite inspiring.

I guess that if you are disgusted by the creation, as creationists appear to be, then you don't want to be a part of it.

 

[justlookinla]

All of the facts that Darwin discussed in Origin of Species were true. None of it was fiction.

Oh..ok. Thought it may have been a typo, no problem.

Are you claiming that some of Darwin's facts were not subsequently discarded in favor of new viewpoints?

 

[Loudmouth]

All false? What? Are you sure you mean to say that?

It is corrected above.

I know.

Theories don't make any philosophical claims of truth, or claims of absolute truth. All theories are tentative and potentially falsifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh..ok. Thought it may have been a typo, no problem.

Are you claiming that some of Darwin's facts were not subsequently discarded in favor of new viewpoints?

Facts are never replaced by new viewpoints. Facts are facts.

 

[dad]

We could start here:

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection.​

Problem is, Charlie, that you had no clue what branched from what. Yes there were adaptations after the flood and state change that affected eyes. That is not indicative of some reaching of perfection! You were therefore articulating fables.

In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct,

In any nature change that involved laws and forces, one could see how many creatures would need to adapt in how they process light, and etc. Whatever meaning you read into that change, was you personal belief, which seems to have been more unbelief in the creator.

I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

Supernatural Selection! God eqipped creatures with the ability to adapt, and He was behind the changes that they needed TO adapt TO for the most part!

Is Darwin telling the truth about the range of eyes found in life, with some having intermediate complexity?

The range of eyes is fine. The Satanic insinuations about how and why by so called science is not fine.


I wonder if Darwin was advanced enough to think he was truly related to a grain of rice!?


.

 

[dad]

I would just wonder why you focused on just that one species group. By the same argument, we are also eagle kind, butterfly kind, and tiger kind. We are intertwined with all of life on Earth, which I find quite inspiring.

Thank you for admitting that!! I take that as a tacit admission you truly believe you are related by a common parent to a potato!!!! As Sarah admitted, and KTS sort of also did, you guys believe that flatworms having sex resulted eventually in all of mankind!!

I guess that if you are disgusted by the creation,

Funny when we talk of some godless fable, like worms being your ancestor, or a potato no less, you refer to that as 'creation'!

as creationists appear to be, then you don't want to be a part of it.

We are NOT part of that Satanic lie in any way. WE know God created life and man and the earth. Let's be real clear on that.

.

 

[justlookinla]

Facts are never replaced by new viewpoints. Facts are facts.

The fact is, Darwin's publication isn't used as a basis for teaching evolution in classrooms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you for admitting that!! I take that as a tacit admission you truly believe you are related by a common parent to a potato!!!! As Sarah admitted, and KTS sort of also did, you guys believe that flatworms having sex resulted eventually in all of mankind!!

Are you disgusted by the creation?

Funny when we talk of some godless fable, like worms being your ancestor, or a potato no less, you refer to that as 'creation'!

Funny how you act disgusted at the suggestion of being part of the creation. Why is that?

We are NOT part of that Satanic lie in any way. WE know God created life and man and the earth. Let's be real clear on that.

.

Show that it is a lie. I dare you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is, Darwin's publication isn't used as a basis for teaching evolution in classrooms.

It is, as I already discussed with you.

You also accused Darwin of writing fiction, and yet you can't show us a single piece of fiction from "Origin of Species". Not one bit. Here is the whole book if you want to quote some sections:

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

What do we call people who don't tell the truth?

 

[justlookinla]

It is, as I already discussed with you.

You also accused Darwin of writing fiction, and yet you can't show us a single piece of fiction from "Origin of Species". Not one bit. Here is the whole book if you want to quote some sections:

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

What do we call people who don't tell the truth?

Fiction, error, mistake....

From Chapter 5.....

"Effects of Use and Disuse

From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. "
​

What do we call people who don't tell the truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fiction, error, mistake....

From Chapter 5.....

"Effects of Use and Disuse

From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. "
​

What do we call people who don't tell the truth?

You are not qualified to talk about "the truth". No one has called Darwin's work perfect, especially not anyone on the pro-evolution side. We don't make the mistake that you make with your Bible. Darwin's work is not a holy book. It is not without error. A person can make an error without lying, or not telling the truth.


It would behoove you to learn the difference. People that make honest errors are open to correction. Deluded people (ahem) are not.

 

[justlookinla]

You are not qualified to talk about "the truth". No one has called Darwin's work perfect, especially not anyone on the pro-evolution side. We don't make the mistake that you make with your Bible. Darwin's work is not a holy book. It is not without error. A person can make an error without lying, or not telling the truth.


It would behoove you to learn the difference. People that make honest errors are open to correction. Deluded people (ahem) are not.

LOLOLOLOL!

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOLOLOLOL!

Hopefully you are laughing at yourself.

 

[dad]

Are you disgusted by the creation?

I am thrilled to be made just a little lower than the angels, and created highest creature on earth. I am disgusted at the depths to which some men have fallen, to actually believe that they have shared parentage with the potato!

Show that it is a lie. I dare you.

To know the godless methodology of science falsely so called is not the truth, we simply look to God's word...and the abject failure of devotees of man is coming from the same parentage as the potato crowd to be able to begin to prove their sick and twisted fables.

 

[dad]

You are not qualified to talk about "the truth"...

You are not qualified to tell others what the truth is not or is.