The Theory of Evolution

[Nikolaj]

As you see Nikolaj I'm quicker than you. God of the gaps. I have refered to it earlier. Evidence is the scientific way. The other way is the charlatan's way.
Those professors are not what the scientific community says.

I am not trying to find minor errors in what you write to use them against you Spitfire, i'm pointing out a very important idea you have which is the whole framework of your argument.

Evidence is the scientific way which is exactly my point too, evolutionists has failed to propose proper evidence (based on provable, not unprovable assumptions) to support major area's within it. Interpretation of scientific data is another thing, which is why you need to be able to differentiate between 'best case scenario in support of evolution' and 'the most realistic scenario'.

Which comes back what you said: Those professors are not what the scientific community says.

I would have to say to you it actually is when it comes down to the cold hard facts on important concepts within it, e.g. macro evolution. Your interpretation of what the 'scientific community' says is once again out of context and only applies to certain area's within it. Those scientists are just being rational based on what we have and know from the absolute roots of science, not based on what we think or could have.

I'm off to uni for now Spitfire, i'll be back later tonight bud.

[spitfire]

I am not trying to find minor errors in what you write to use them against you Spitfire, i'm pointing out a very important idea you have which is the whole framework of your argument.

Evidence is the scientific way which is exactly my point too, evolutionists has failed to propose proper evidence (based on provable, not unprovable assumptions) to support major area's within it. Interpretation of scientific data is another thing, which is why you need to be able to differentiate between 'best case scenario in support of evolution' and 'the most realistic scenario'.

Which comes back what you said: Those professors are not what the scientific community says.

I would have to say to you it actually is when it comes down to the cold hard facts on important concepts within it, e.g. macro evolution. Your interpretation of what the 'scientific community' says is once again out of context and only applies to certain area's within it. Those scientists are just being rational based on what we have and know from the absolute roots of science, not based on what we think or could have.

I'm off to uni for now Spitfire, i'll be back later tonight bud.

I think you haven't read thorougly this thread. Macro-evolution is proved through micro-evolution. The definition of life is a man made aspect since it is another form of energy.
Scientists do exactly what those professors don't do. Instead of throwing a god when they can't understand, they should do research. That is exactly what they don't do.

In fact, prior to the 19th century, it was mainly believed that there was a designer behind all these. That was because the accumulation of evidence was just beginning and it was slow and it was a titanic effort at the time to start proving the obvious. It required a lot of work.
Today we are not only certain that evolution is what happened, but evidence keep pilling up, pinpointing the origin of life.

This ID design and god of the gaps approach is very silly today. It's long been proven worthless, as any lazy theory that does not follow the scientific way of working with evidence.

Now, when the death rattle of ID is so obvious, then it is expected to be loud. That's how Philosopher tried to present ID as science. It's because he's hanging from the edge of a 5,5 thousand year old discus, shouting that the moon is closer than Australia, because he sees the moon but not Australia.

Here's what happens when you don't follow the scientific approach and take for granted without evidence what you think is reasonable.

She's a witch! - YouTube

[Nikolaj]

I think you haven't read thorougly this thread. Macro-evolution is proved through micro-evolution. The definition of life is a man made aspect since it is another form of energy.
Scientists do exactly what those professors don't do. Instead of throwing a god when they can't understand, they should do research. That is exactly what they don't do.

In fact, prior to the 19th century, it was mainly believed that there was a designer behind all these. That was because the accumulation of evidence was just beginning and it was slow and it was a titanic effort at the time to start proving the obvious. It required a lot of work.
Today we are not only certain that evolution is what happened, but evidence keep pilling up, pinpointing the origin of life.

This ID design and god of the gaps approach is very silly today. It's long been proven worthless, as any lazy theory that does not follow the scientific way of working with evidence.

Now, when the death rattle of ID is so obvious, then it is expected to be loud. That's how Philosopher tried to present ID as science. It's because he's hanging from the edge of a 5,5 thousand year old discus, shouting that the moon is closer than Australia, because he sees the moon but not Australia.

Here's what happens when you don't follow the scientific approach and take for granted without evidence what you think is reasonable.

See what I mean guys.

When did I ever say something about a divine creator? Like I said earlier and I said it again, this thread is strictly science, specifically about the validity of evolution.

Macro-evolution is proved through micro-evolution............?

Instead of throwing a god when they can't understand, they should do research.

So instead of responding to me with something of the slightest relevance, you give me one line of absolute desperation, and then paragraphs of your bullshit on how apparently i'm resorting to.. God? It's only morons like yourself who think disagreeing with evolution makes you a creationist. Even after I explained how many atheists don't believe in evolution and this accumulative proof is still generally based on unknown assumptions a lot of the time. Who is the one actually resorting to a God in this conversation?

Why am I not surprised though when i'm talking to Spitfire, this is equivalent to trying to discuss the 12 apostles ownership with the degenerative Greeks.

[Philosopher]

Philosopher, I can understand how it hurts your feelings, but given the fact that I am not a scientist, means that I take information from science as they are the only authority on the matter.

So you plagiarizing from http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au..._delusions.htm is an example of you quoting from scientists?

This has nothing to do with the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Unless, of course, one is dull-witted enough to subscribe to the creationuts' Cartoon Theory of Evolution (where everything they don't understand or that threatens their "understanding" of reality is grouped).

Nice try.

[spitfire]

See what I mean guys.

When did I ever say something about a divine creator? Like I said earlier and I said it again, this thread is strictly science, specifically about the validity of evolution.

Macro-evolution is proved through micro-evolution............?

Now you see that is why you haven't read the thread thorougly.
There is no macro-evolution happening. It's micro-evolution all the time. It's small gradual changes. There wasn't an ape and suddenly there was a man. There is no defining moment. You are making me repeat myself.

The problem usually is that people don't comprehend how evolution works entirely.

something of the slightest relevance, you give me one line of absolute desperation, and then paragraphs of your bullshit on how apparently i'm resorting to.. God? It's only morons like yourself who think disagreeing with evolution makes you a creationist. Even after I explained how many atheists don't believe in evolution and this accumulative proof is still generally based on unknown assumptions a lot of the time. Who is the one actually resorting to a God in this conversation?

Why am I not surprised though when i'm talking to Spitfire, this is equivalent to trying to discuss the 12 apostles ownership with the degenerative Greeks.

Your lack of arguments is what makes you use characterizations. I will not follow.
It's not a matter of belief. Science doesn't work that way. It's a matter of evidence.
It's like I said. When scientists don't work their understanding, by resorting to god they fill the gaps in an unscientific way. That's not science, that's creationism in disguise.

[spitfire]

So you plagiarizing from http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au..._delusions.htm is an example of you quoting from scientists?



Nice try.

Plagiarizing? Tell me Philosopher, does it hurt when I use science? I'm asking because your use of intelligent design doesn't make any difference to me or any other.

That intelligent designer of yours is not so intelligent given the faults of design of the body.
And that no scientist doubts, except those who willingly resort to the laziness og god.

Having fun still with not being divided through mutation into multiple cells? You are saying that you haven't been born, in case you don't know.

[Philosopher]

Plagiarizing? Tell me Philosopher, does it hurt when I use science? I'm asking because your use of intelligent design doesn't make any difference to me or any other.

Spitfire, I am not going to continue in circles, per SoM's behest. Just admit to the plagiarism, and move on.

That intelligent designer of yours is not so intelligent given the faults of design of the body.
And that no scientist doubts, except those who willingly resort to the laziness og god.

Having fun still with not being divided through mutation into multiple cells? You are saying that you haven't been born, in case you don't know.

Admit the plagiarism. Admit you copied, word for word, and pasted it as your own answer.

Then we can move on...

[spitfire]

Admit the plagiarism. Admit you copied, word for word, and pasted it as your own answer.

Then we can move on...

No, admit that you are trying to present intelligent design as science. Then we move on.
Copying? I wish I entered the full texts of that link. I only didn't because I pitty you and your moronic attempts.

Do you think that we are going to fall for that? Boy you must be very smart... .

[Philosopher]

No, admit that you are trying to present intelligent design as science. Then we move on.
Copying? I wish I entered the full texts of that link. I only didn't because I pitty you and your moronic attempts.

Do you think that we are going to fall for that? Boy you must be very smart... .

If you haven't noticed, we are no longer debating this issue, as it is going circles. How you can deny that you copied, virtually word for word, from the no answers in genesis website, without credit, and without quotation marks, and presented the words, ideas, and thoughts as your own, is simply incredible.

[spitfire]

If you haven't noticed, we are no longer debating this issue, as it is going circles. How you can deny that you copied, virtually word for word, from the no answers in genesis website, without credit, and without quotation marks, and presented the words, ideas, and thoughts as your own, is simply incredible.

Who presented the idea as theirs? Me? That site has links to perfectly well scientific sites. That is where it draws its answers.

I'm not interested on your assertions Philosopher, I can see that your level of understanding is still evolving. Notify me when you polymerise into something more complex than a singe microbe. Then we can talk.

[Philosopher]

Let's cite another example of plagiarism.

A mutation is any change in the DNA. DNA polymerase does make errors naturally. Some variants will be better than others at living long enough to reproduce. After enough generations, that variant is the only one left.

This post of yours was in relation to the debate of DNA mutations. In your above statement, there was no indication that this was copied, virtually word for word, from http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au..._delusions.htm

Nope - a mutation is any change in the DNA. And not all of them are created by hazardous means - DNA polymerase does make errors naturally. Some variants will be better than others at living long enough to reproduce. After enough generations, that variant is the only one left.

All you did was cut out parts of the above, and left the rest. You even kept the “underline” in “any”.

This is called plagiarism.

You get an “F” grade, for “failure”.

[spitfire]

You get an “F” grade, for “failure”.

Thank you professor.
I don't think I can use your evalution for anything else, other than pointing your pompus idea that you have for yourself.
I'd trade your F for the 5,5 thousand year dinosaur. What do you think Ed?

As I said. I wish I had all the texts of that link quoted. But I pitty you.

[George S.]

In the book of isiah somewhere in there it says the earth as being a round circle.So where are those people who believe in a flat earth?

[Philosopher]

Chapter 2

The Universe Confirms the Bible

by Dr. Jason Lisle

The Earth is Round

The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round.

Another verse that indicates the spherical nature of our planet is Job 26:10. This verse teaches that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness (day and night) is called the “terminator” since the light stops or “terminates” there. Someone standing on the terminator would be experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset; they are going from day to night or from night to day. The terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round.

One of the great delights of observing the moon through a small telescope is to look at its terminator, especially during the first or third quarter phases when the terminator is directly down the middle of the moon. The craters are most easily seen at this boundary since the sun is at a low angle and casts very long shadows there. The moon looks particularly three-dimensional when viewed through a telescope during these phases; it is clear that the moon is a sphere—not a flat disk (see photo below).

For the earth, the terminator occurs not on a cratered rocky surface, but primarily on water (since the earth’s surface is 70 percent water). Job 26:10 suggests a “God’s eye” view of the earth. This biblical passage would be nonsense if the earth were flat, since there would be no true terminator; there is no line to “step over” that separates the day from night on a flat surface. Either it is day everywhere or night everywhere on a hypothetical “flat earth.” However, the earth does indeed have a boundary between light and darkness which is always a circle since the earth is round.

Curiously, many astronomy textbooks credit Pythagoras (c. 570–500 B.C.) with being the first person to assert that the earth is round.1 However, the biblical passages are older than this. Isaiah is generally acknowledged to have been written in the 700s B.C. and Job is thought to have been written around 2000 B.C. The secular astronomers before the time of Pythagoras must have thought the Bible was wrong about its teaching of a round earth, yet the Bible was exactly right. It was the secular science of the day that needed to be corrected.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

[Philosopher]

Chapter 2

The Universe Confirms the Bible

by Dr. Jason Lisle

The Earth Floats In Space

A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7 which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This might evoke an image of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. This verse expresses (in a poetic way) the fact that the earth is unsupported by any other object—something quite unnatural for the ancient writers to imagine. Indeed, the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs on nothing, just as the Bible teaches.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/