A direction to Evolution?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I just see no logic in the assumption that just because humans can't do something then it can't possibly have happened. If it's too hard (so far) for us to do something that took the forces of nature billions of years to come up with then something beyond nature must have done it. That makes no sense to me. Human arrogance.

[Bernard]

Very primitive views of evolution here. Basic standpoints are pessimistic, whereby life is seen as being able to end. Not. This is nonsense - just like to keep that anthropocentric thing happening by creating the idea we are special. Evolution is an important, intricate aspect of life. Life, existence, by nature is the unending increase of consciousness. There are no limits to which consciousness can increase. Its taking awhile for man to get the gist that we are nothings amid this infinity - not just physically, but as far as awareness goes as well. There are unimaginable conscious beings beyond us, and the earth is one such; like the cells in our body, barely conscious of what they are a part of, so are we barely conscious of what the earth is as a consciousness. Real God is just the intent of infinite living things at play together. Intent is what prevails, is what drives evolution in the infinite direction, and will infinitely do so. Humans have nowhere to go biologically as far as evolution goes. We will be replaced in some other place and time (past or future) by new forms.

Does that mean anything?

There is nothing outside of life. Life has always been and will always be. Life is composed exclusively of living things, and because life is infinite, so too must there be an infinite amount of living things. These are observations of existence according to my most sober and honest observations.

[reasonvemotion]

I have said what I wanted to say in my post.

I am asking you to substantiate your reply. Not to use words like "assume".

Veggie:

It is 'commonly assumed' that the first living cell formed by itself because that is exactly what happened

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have said what I wanted to say in my post.

I am asking you to substantiate your reply. Not to use words like "assume".

Veggie:

It is 'commonly assumed' that the first living cell formed by itself because that is exactly what happened

There is no reason to think otherwise. I suppose a little pink unicorn might have done it as well but it's not very likely.
If someone doesn't accept evolution then it's because they choose not to, not because there isn't proof of it.

[jinx]

vegetariantaxidermy Did you watch that video? Mankind is DYING. MISTAKES are piling up and selection can do NOTHING. 'Evolution' (in the sense of non living matter turning into a genome through natural processes--->every living thing on the planet) is the greatest myth ever. University teachers indoctrinate their students that 'change in allele frequency', speciation, genetic drift any other genetic mechanism by which living things 'change over time' is sufficient to explain the putative origin of all life on earth from a fish. Those mechanisms are NOT sufficient.

[reasonvemotion]

If someone doesn't accept evolution then it's because they choose not to, not because there isn't proof of it.

Show me "the proof", after all did you not say ....this is "an intellectual forum".

All I am asking is for you to give me your proof, which so far you have been unable to do.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If someone doesn't accept evolution then it's because they choose not to, not because there isn't proof of it.

Show me "the proof", after all did you not say ....this is "an intellectual forum".

All I am asking is for you to give me your proof, which so far you have been unable to do.

Proof of what? Evolution? The non-existence of whatever it is you might believe in? The first has ample proof. If the scientific books you must have read on the subject haven't convinced you then nothing I say will either. You are going to continue to believe what you want to believe. As for the second I have no idea what you believe in.

[reasonvemotion]

Proof of evolution

I want to read your proof. How hard is it for you? This is my third request.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Proof of evolution

I want to read your proof. How hard is it for you? This is my third request.

Would you like me to prove the grass is green on here too? It's not exactly the sort of thing that can be 'proven' in a couple of sentences on a blog site. Read up on it if you are interested, but I get the feeling you are probably not. I've argued with creationists until I was blue in the face and frankly I'm sick of it. There is only so much banging of one's head against brick walls that a person can take. I will say this though, if evolution is a great big conspiratorial lie, then chemistry, biology, geology, archaeology, physics....are all one big lie as well.

[reasonvemotion]

There is only so much banging of one's head against brick walls that a person can take

and this is an intellectual forum, so what are you doing here?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is only so much banging of one's head against brick walls that a person can take

and this is an intellectual forum, so what are you doing here?

I said 'supposedly'. It clearly isn't.

[Kuznetzova]

Dating the origin of life to a time of bilions of years ago still doesnt help explain how lfe could start from nonliving matter. So how can scientists assert that life started by a random chance formation of a living organism from nonliving chemicals? Dr John Ashton, Professor of Biomedical Sciences of Victoria University states, "despite more than 50 years research, scientists still do not have a workable viable explanation of how life could start.
We are still near the bottom of the evoluntionary tree - only up to the worms. Not only have scientists not observed any of this new genetic information being generated, but on the basis of probability there is simply not enough time in the supposed four billion years of evolution for all the genetic information required in the genomes of all the millions of different species of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals to evolve as a result of random mutations. If the evolution of simple cell is statistically impossible, the evolution of higher organisms is even more impossible. As University of Rochester biology professor Allen Orr points out "The overwhelming majoriy of random mutations are harmful, that is, they reduce fitness, only a tiny minority are beneficial".

Okay, reasonvemotion -- this was unbelievably rude. If you would like to create a new thread on this forum to talk about the crap that John Ashton says, please do so. I believe your 768 posts sufficiently qualifies you to create new threads at this forum. I had created a very elaborate header for a very controversial topic in philosophy and science. I have included pictures as well. You came along and totally ruined this thread by cluttering it with the latest Intelligent Design advocacy.

So please, by all means, start a new thread about this. I am not trying to censor you or shut your voice down. I am simply stating that your replies in this thread are not appreciated and they are not appropriate. I would be glad to discuss John Ashton with you in another thread.

[Kuznetzova]

OMG, I can't believe that there are creationist loonies who don't accept the FACT of evolution on a supposedly 'intellectual' philosophy forum! You might as well be living in the bronze age.

Yeah well, I was feeling quite excited to see that my thread had received 25 replies while I was away. But after having read what was actually posted here, the wind has been knocked out of me.

[jinx]

No one seems to care about looking at DATA (John Sanfords model of DECAY)

Spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis is DELUSIONAL

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

The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists' immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments.


http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Phy ... eness.html

“If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”

If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.

The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:

“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”

If anyone has any faith in 'evolution' read Darwins original garbage, that should help get rid of it.

[SecularCauses]

No one seems to care about looking at DATA (John Sanfords model of DECAY)

Spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis is DELUSIONAL

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

The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists' immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments.


http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Phy ... eness.html

“If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”

If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.

The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:

“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”

If anyone has any faith in 'evolution' read Darwins original garbage, that should help get rid of it.

The theory of evolution does not state that evolution takes place by mere accident or chance alone. Who told you that?