The Theory of Evolution

[Philosopher]

Really? We are confused?

Not you Spitfire. We can always count on you to copy and paste information from the web to bring clarity to the subject.

Creationists believe that man was instantaneously created by God, based on an account in a book called the Bible.
Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, the stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.
The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.

You plagiarized the above from rationale wiki:

Creationists believe that man was instantaneously created by God, based on an account in a book called the Bible.

Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, the stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.
The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.
—Science Made Stupid [1985]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism

[spitfire]

So Philosopher what do you think of ths plagiarism (as if I'm doing anything other than the obvious of stating what science says ) from rational wiki?

Do you still think the bible is the best explanation? And do you think that evolution begins with Adam and (St)Eve?

[Philosopher]

So Philosopher what do you think of ths plagiarism (as if I'm doing anything other than the obvious of stating what science says ) from rational wiki?

Do you still think the bible is the best explanation? And do you think that evolution begins with Adam and (St)Eve?

Spitfire, the information you copied and pasted represents the writings of a biblical illiterate. No part of it was even remotely correct.

To those who have eyes to see, the Bible has the signature of God. No other explanation is possible.

[spitfire]

Spitfire, the information you copied and pasted represents the writings of a biblical illiterate. No part of it was even remotely correct.

To those who have eyes to see, the Bible has the signature of God. No other explanation is possible.

Really? The bible has the signature of god? Does he sign autographs too? Except murduring thousands that is.

Well science is illiterate then. As it can't understand the gibberish of what's written in there. I see.

Here's another plagiarism for you to enjoy.

"I speak to them in parables"
—Some guy who didn't know the Bible was meant to be taken literally

[Vangelovski]

Really? The bible has the signature of god? Does he sign autographs too? Except murduring thousands that is.

Now you're accusing someone of whom you don't even believe exists of murdering thousands??? Is that the rational scientist speaking?

[spitfire]

Now you're accusing someone of whom you don't even believe exists of murdering thousands??? Is that the rational scientist speaking?

I don't know. I'd expect you to tell me. If we take your views then there is a goddidit all book which is the word of the goddidit all and it is to be taken literally.

Here's the list.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

Speaking of rationality, don't expect to find the alternative to science. Intelligent design and its foundation (creatonism) are not proposed alternatives.
Science can be an alternative to science only.

[Vangelovski]

Science can be an alternative to science only.

This sentence alone demonstrates how rational your thought is.

The other day, I had this glowing dot on my hand. I couldn't work out what it was, but it must have been a singularity - like the one the universe popped out of - because out of nowhere, it turned into a $100 note. Don't ask me where the singularity came from.

[Phoenix]

This sentence alone demonstrates how rational your thought is.

The other day, I had this glowing dot on my hand. I couldn't work out what it was, but it must have been a singularity - like the one the universe popped out of - because out of nowhere, it turned into a $100 note. Don't ask me where the singularity came from.

I'd say it came straight out of your arse...and that's without a single assumption being made...

BTW, Mr Vangelovski...I was most surprised to see you referencing Lewontin.
I always imagined the Marxist being the natural enemy of the Religious Zealot...I guess even in jungle we have unholy alliances...

[spitfire]

This sentence alone demonstrates how rational your thought is.

The other day, I had this glowing dot on my hand. I couldn't work out what it was, but it must have been a singularity - like the one the universe popped out of - because out of nowhere, it turned into a $100 note. Don't ask me where the singularity came from.

Of course it demonstrates how rational my thought is because you need to use science in order to prove science wrong. But real science not fake science.
Do that with any other suggested proposal that's been thrown around if you can.

See how easy that was?

I can't help you with that glowing dot. It's unscientific to speak of a singularity that came out of nowhere. That would be like describing that fella in the goddidit all book.

Actually you demonstrated again how little you know about what you think you are describing as the scientific view. There were other things happening before that dot. Science explains that as well. It also explains nowhere and nothing.
But you don't want to know about these things 'cause you 'll burn in hell, by the goddidit all book of morons.

[Vangelovski]

Hey Phoenix,

You seem to bounce around all over the place. How about just focusing for once.

Vangelovski,

The interesting thing that I find about science and scientists is their intestinal fortitude to question the very foundations of their 'belief system'...

Do they? Have they questioned naturalism or do they just assume it and then base their interpretations of their observations on the assumption that naturalism is true?

[Vangelovski]

Of course it demonstrates how rational my thought is because you need to use science in order to prove science wrong.

Science justifying itself...much like using 1+1=2 to prove that 1+1=2... or using the word bottle to explain what a bottle is. The method cannot be used to prove itself - that circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.

Btw, lightening struck my backyard the other day. It must have hit some carbon because there is some sort of new life form growing there. Its got what looks like half a brain hanging out one side, part of a heart and some veins in the process of forming. No blood yet. Not sure why natural selection hasn't taken out all of those non-functioning organs yet. What do you think spitfire? Can they last another billion years without natural selection removing those organs before they fully develop and start functioning?

[spitfire]

Vangelovski you are being ridiculous if you can't even imagine how this can happen. And a living proof of how little you understand of science.

Well, I had posted a video called the god delusion somewhere in one of our discussions. Had you had taken the time to watch it you would have seen in there how science can be used to go beyond without a problem reasoning that even science can be proven wrong. Therefore science being the only key to understanding, the only way to knowledge.

That's the beauty of science. You always learn new things.

You see this as a debate between football fans. You are wrong. Whatever gave you the idea that you can debate this? Actually it's a debate between something that exists vs something that doesn't exist.

Furthermore I would have expected you to have the approach of an orthodox rather than the quite obvious evangelical/protestant approach that you demonstrated, which makes you being more ridiculous than you already are.

[spitfire]

Btw, lightening struck my backyard the other day. It must have hit some carbon because there is some sort of new life form growing there. Its got what looks like half a brain hanging out one side, part of a heart and some veins in the process of forming. No blood yet. Not sure why natural selection hasn't taken out all of those non-functioning organs yet. What do you think spitfire? Can they last another billion years without natural selection removing those organs before they fully develop and start functioning?

That's the perfect example of misunderstanding evolution and the origins of life.
Man you should explain physics too. It would be hilarious also.

[Vangelovski]

That's the perfect example of misunderstanding evolution and the origins of life.
Man you should explain physics too. It would be hilarious also.

That's exactly how YOU explained origin of life - carbon and lightening. And going by evolutionary theory, there would have had to be semi-formed organs for billions of years give the supposed minute changes from one generation to the next.

Maybe you're just a really bad representative of naturalism, but I think naturalism is just a ridiculous idea.

Oh yeah, tell us about how the singularity supposedly came out...I've never read anyone try to explain that before (it seems to be just taken on faith) but now you claim there is a story behind it

[Vangelovski]

Here's that $1 million prize offer who all the geniuses on here who claim that naturalism can explain the origin of life. The money is yours, go take it!

Spitfire has outright refused to put forward his "proven" ideas (obviously they're complete bullshit) so you have a chance now Phoenix. Come on "mate", you can do it. See the key questions you need to answer below - given your absolute belief in naturalism, I'm convinced you know something the rest of us don't...

http://www.us.net/life/

• On October 26, 2013 the Governing Board of the Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc. voted to put on hold the Origin of Life Prize Program, and to temporarily suspend the Origin of Life Prize offer. Over the 13 years since The Origin of Life Prize was first announced in NATURE and SCIENCE, no submission has ever made it past the screening judges to higher-level judges. No submission has ever addressed, let alone answered, any of the questions below, for which the Prize offer was instituted. Most of these Prize-offer questions centered on: "How did inanimate, prebiotic nature prescribe or program the first genome?"
  
  Life origin literature continues to circumvent and ignore this problem, if not deliberately sweep it under the rug. The Prize Program did much to raise consciousness and stimulate more consideration of the real problem of life origin - Prescription of future biofunction that was not yet selectable by the environment.
  .
  The Fundamental Questions for Life Origin Research -
  
  How did molecular evolution generate metabolic recipe and instructions using a representational symbol system?
  
  How did prebiotic nature set all of the many configurable switch-settings to integrate so many interdependent circuits?
  
  How did inanimate nature sequence nucleotides to spell instructions to the ribosomes on how to sequence amino acids into correctly folding proteins?
  
  How did nature then code these instructions into Hamming block codes to reduce noise pollution in the Shannon channel?
  
  What programmed the error-detection and error-correcting software that keeps life from quickly deteriorating into non-life?
  
  In short, which of the four known forces of physics organized and prescribed life into existence? Was it gravity? Was it the strong or weak nuclear force? Was it the electromagnetic force? How could any combination of these natural forces or force fields program decision nodes to prescribe future utility?
  
  Why and how would a prebiotic environment value, desire or seek to generate utility?
  Can chance and/or necessity program or prescribe sophisticated biofunction?
  .
  Life is utterly dependent upon the steering of reaction sequences into biochemical pathways and cycles.
  
  Life pursues the goal of staying alive. All known life is cybernetic, meaning controlled. Life's most prominent attribute is programming and tight regulation at every turn. Yet programming, prescription, control and regulation are all formalisms, not mere physicodynamic interactions. The programming of life is what makes life unique [1-3]
  
  Metabolism First models cannot sustain themselves as perpetual motion machines, even in open environments, without heritable formal instructions needed to circumvent locally and temporarily 2nd Law organizational and useful energy deterioration.
  
  Prescription and programming arise only out of Decision Theory, not Stochastic Theory.
  
  How did prebiotic nature program the first decision nodes? Only Choice-Contingent Causation and Control (CCCC) could possibly program a genome and epigenome.
  .
  The peer-reviewed literature below provides valuable background information showing why life-origin theorists struggle to generate a model or theory that addresses any of the most important questions of life origin.
  1. Abel, D.L., Is Life Unique? Life 2012, 2, 106-134 Open access at http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2072/2071/2106.
  2. Johnson, D.E., Programming of Life. Big Mac Publishers: Sylacauga, Alabama, 2010; p 127.
  3. Abel, D.L., The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. LongView Press-Academic: New York, NY, 2011; p 389 pages.