Philosophy Now Forum

jinx wrote:You fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of a lie i mean species').

You keep saying this. Repeating over and over something you have made can lead to false beliefs, even memories, or if enough people do it, religion.

jinx wrote:
Lack of evidence for something=evidence for something. This is the anti-thesis of science. No one one earth would answer 'yes' to the question 'If i got every biomolecule in a living person and put it in a beaker, would you expect to come back 3.5 billion years from today and find life'? But when the process is reversed into the past it is taken as an axiom (based on NOTHING) that it happened. There is another model.

Genesis 1:26-28

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Yes, there is a different model and that is the model you have put forward. The model you have pout forward is an example of ontology based on the Genesis account of creation.

As I have said before I support the Genesis model. But in the end when you do ontology you are doing metaphysics. Metaphysics is not science.

Ginkgo

jinx troll spew:

Animals bring forth after their kind. Fish produce fish, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, worms produce worms, possums produce possums.

The animals, insects, fungus, trees, and bacteria, right outside your window -- right now -- are not organized into evenly-divided groups of species. This is science. This is observable.

In fact, this problem that species cannot be differentiated from variants is the reason why Darwin wrote his book in the first place. I have already told you this, and I have already posted this on this very forum in much more elaborate format.

jinx -- I tell you clear things, and you simply ignore them. I tell you again, and you ignore me again. Let's try this a fifth time! No scientific theory says that fish turn into dogs. No scientific theory says that dogs turn into cats. You keep referring the to theory of evolution as a "lie" and how Darwin "brainwashed" people --- but you have shown no indication that you even know what the theory says.

jinx troll spew:

I found out what after watching interviews on youtube with the filthy snake for hours on end day after day (him failing to answer some pretty basic questions (not
failing to account for existence of DNA))

((Long, tired sigh...))

Okay, what you actually said in plain english text here is that Richard Dawkins has been unable to prove that DNA exists. Of course that's silly so you didn't really mean to type that. So what you really meant to type (which I had to read between your lines to interpret), what you MEANT to say here is that Dawkins has been unable to account for the origin of DNA on earth. I think that's accurate, and even though it is not what you typed, I'm pretty sure it's what you meant. If you didn't mean that, please correct me. The following response will be to my interpretation of your post rather than what it explicitly says, okay so..


Now jinx, you are running around this forum and the internet at large, and you pointing out that science is not in a possession of a theory of abiogenesis. Here are some of the reasons you have presented to explain why science is not in possession of such a theory:

• Because Evolution requires that abiogenesis happened. If abiogenesis did not happen then ENS must be false.
• It has never been observed , so therefore it is not science.
• It was debunked in the 18th century because abiogenesis is a synonym for Spontaneous Generation
• Because Dawkins couldn't answer it when pressed by a fundie on TV.

So the above list indicates that I hear and understand you, jinx.

Okay? I hear you. I understand you. Now hear me, and understand science.

Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory that accounts for evidence involved in frequencies of traits seen in populations of organisms. The question of abiogenesis is not the theory of Natural Selection. ENS (E)volution by (N)atural (S)election, is a separable theory than abiogenesis, and ENS does not rely on abiogenesis to be true. It does not lean on it, nor does it extrapolate on it. ENS does not even REQUIRE that abiogenesis took place. Did you know that? Literally life could have been seeded here by an alien civilization, or by being carried on a meteor, or even seeded on earth by a magical sky wizard. Even if one, or all of those things happened, that would have no effect on ENS as a theory and its validity. ENS is an isolated theory all by itself. Belief in one does not require or imply belief in the other.

The primary reason that it is 2013 and science is not in possession of a theory of abiogenesis is because we don't have any hard data on it. That is, we don't see it happening all the time in the wild. If we had lots of data, we would then go about constructing a theory of this phenomenon. Scientific Theories are constructed to explain a body of evidence collected in the field or measured in a lab.

Spontaneous Generation says that full-blown, multicellular organisms emerge from mud. It says that multi-cellular, fully-formed winged insects emerge from rotting meat. Okay? That is in no shape or form even remotely close to any existing hypothesis of abiogenesis in any modern literature. Abiogenesis took place on an earth that had no oxygen in the atmosphere, where even the simplest forms of bacteria did not yet exist. It probably involved autocatalytic cycles of compounds, who being far from equilibrium were driven to produce molecular chains who could make copies of themselves. This was probably RNA. I am not your biochemistry teacher, and all I will say to you, so as to not waste both of our times, is that this topic has been written about in book-length books.

The reason that Dawkins does not spit out an origin story for DNA when pressed on TV, is because science is not in possession of one at this time. That's it. No underhanded tricks here. That's just the story layed out for you in brutal honesty (and I hope) clarity.

sorry double post

Ginkgo wrote:

tillingborn wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation. It is an important feature of science, but it is not the only feature.

Fair enough, but I think Feynman was on the money when he said that no matter how smart you are, or how beautiful your theory, if it disagrees with observation, it's wrong. (Or something.)

Ginkgo wrote:There are a number of important other feature as well, that need to be considered. When the YEC claim that science is essentially observation they only partially correct.

I would argue that the essential features of science or, at least physics, were identified by the Pre-Socratic schools. Probably the most important contribution was that of Thales and the other Milesians, they argued that the way to understand the world is to look at it and explain what you see without recourse to supernatural beings. But, the naked eye only reveals so much, so the Eleatics tried to advance our understanding using logic, the Pythagoreans favoured mathematics. Accounting for what you see by referring to something else you can see is what science does. Religion by contrast explains what you can see by appeal to something you can't.

Sorry tillingborn, I missed this post. You raise a very good point that is worth exploring. That point deals with the question as to whether the Pre-Socraties were doing science or metaphysics.


Clearly the Pre-Socratics were using observation as the basis for the natural explanation of the world. They were also dispensing with the need for supernatural explanations to account for the observations. Overall they seems to provide a cosmological explanation for the way things are. Nothing unscientific about this; science often indulges in cosmological explanations.

In order to settle the question of metaphysics versus science in the ancient world we need to ask ourselves if the Pre-Socratics were doing physical cosmology, or were they doing metaphysical cosmology. I believe they were doing the latter.

The animals, insects, fungus, trees, and bacteria, right outside your window -- right now -- are not organized into evenly-divided groups of species. This is science. This is observable.

In fact, this problem that species cannot be differentiated from variants is the reason why Darwin wrote his book in the first place. I have already told you this, and I have already posted this on this very forum in much more elaborate format.

jinx -- I tell you clear things, and you simply ignore them. I tell you again, and you ignore me again. Let's try this a fifth time! No scientific theory says that fish turn into dogs. No scientific theory says that dogs turn into cats. You keep referring the to theory of evolution as a "lie" and how Darwin "brainwashed" people --- but you have shown no indication that you even know what the theory says.

Genesis uses the term 'kinds' NOT species (i know i incorrectly assume atheists can read).

Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory that accounts for evidence involved in frequencies of traits seen in populations of organisms.

Which definition of 'evolution'? Change in gene frequency via natural selection? (scientific fact), descent with modification via natural selection? (scientific fact)? Mutation? Speciation? Gene flow? Genetic drift? (all scientific facts). The myth mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees? Oh you meant the last one. Thank you for your ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

jinx wrote:...
Which definition of 'evolution'? Change in gene frequency via natural selection? (scientific fact), descent with modification via natural selection? (scientific fact)? Mutation? Speciation? Gene flow? Genetic drift? (all scientific facts). The myth mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees? Oh you meant the last one. ...

No! Your dogma blinds you to the facts as the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp evolved, if you mean DNA change, after us, so its a common ancestor of a common ancestor.

Your ability to hold conflicting beliefs is astounding! Well done, you display the psychology of the YEC's admirably.

No! Your dogma blinds you to the facts as the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp evolved, if you mean DNA change, after us, so its a common ancestor of a common ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee ... n_ancestor

The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA.

Atheists are the most dumbest, delusional, retarded, brainwashed people on earth.

Your ability to hold conflicting beliefs is astounding! Well done, you display the psychology of the evolutionist's admirably.

Conclusion: 'Evolution' = the lie.

jinx wrote:The animals, insects, fungus, trees, and bacteria, right outside your window -- right now -- are not organized into even
Genesis uses the term 'kinds' NOT species (i know i incorrectly assume atheists can read).

It does not matter a rat's arse what the English translation of a LATIN text, originally written by semi-literate Jews in Hebrew says.
Genesis is a children's story, written for the babies and the hard of thinking.

jinx wrote:The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

Are you saying that you agree!?

Please remember that this is a Philosophy forum and undercutting your own argument is bad form.

However, my mistake as you are correct, I'd misunderstood that the divergence of the pygmy chimp and chimpanzee, if we use DNA percentage difference, does not introduce an extra common ancestor.

"... the common and pygmy chimps differ in about 0.7 percent of DNA and diverged around three million years ago; we differ in 1.6 percent of our DNA from either chimp and diverged from their common ancestor around seven million years ago; and gorillas differ in about 2.3 percent of their DNA from us or chimps and diverged from the common ancestor leading to us and the two chimps around ten million years ago."
[Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal , 1992]

So, in essence they have evolved after us and are our cousins not our ancestors.

However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA.

As you obviously know but deliberately misuse or just plain don't understand, the fossil record is incomplete in places due to Chemistry and Geology. That there are gaps means little compared to the evidence of the actual fossil record.

Atheists are the most dumbest, delusional, retarded, brainwashed people on earth.

Nope, we just don't belief in your 'God', your godbothering nor your creation myths.

I am surprised tho'! You say you are a Christian and yet I hear nothing from the New Testament? Its all OT which is essentially one of the Jewish religious books. Why not go the whole hog and become Jewish and abandon your Christianity as you show little of the ethos of the New Testament. Which bit of "New" did you not understand?

Your ability to hold conflicting beliefs is astounding! Well done, you display the psychology of the evolutionist's admirably.

Show me my conflicting beliefs? But the last bit I am proud to agree with.

Conclusion: 'Evolution' = the lie.

Its a Philosophy forum. You've used an example from something you say is not true to produce a conclusion that is obviously unsupportable given your example as an axiom.
p.s.
By the bye, you didn't reply to my question of whether you're in the 99% of people who haven't read Darwins book?

Arising_uk wrote:

jinx wrote:The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

Are you saying that you agree!?

Please remember that this is a Philosophy forum and undercutting your own argument is bad form.

However, my mistake as you are correct, I'd misunderstood that the divergence of the pygmy chimp and chimpanzee, if we use DNA percentage difference, does not introduce an extra common ancestor.

"... the common and pygmy chimps differ in about 0.7 percent of DNA and diverged around three million years ago; we differ in 1.6 percent of our DNA from either chimp and diverged from their common ancestor around seven million years ago; and gorillas differ in about 2.3 percent of their DNA from us or chimps and diverged from the common ancestor leading to us and the two chimps around ten million years ago."
[Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal , 1992]

So, in essence they have evolved after us and are our cousins not our ancestors.

However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA.

As you obviously know but deliberately misuse or just plain don't understand, the fossil record is incomplete in places due to Chemistry and Geology. That there are gaps means little compared to the evidence of the actual fossil record.

Atheists are the most dumbest, delusional, retarded, brainwashed people on earth.

Nope, we just don't belief in your 'God', your godbothering nor your creation myths.

I am surprised tho'! You say you are a Christian and yet I hear nothing from the New Testament? Its all OT which is essentially one of the Jewish religious books. Why not go the whole hog and become Jewish and abandon your Christianity as you show little of the ethos of the New Testament. Which bit of "New" did you not understand?

Your ability to hold conflicting beliefs is astounding! Well done, you display the psychology of the evolutionist's admirably.

Show me my conflicting beliefs? But the last bit I am proud to agree with.

Conclusion: 'Evolution' = the lie.

Its a Philosophy forum. You've used an example from something you say is not true to produce a conclusion that is obviously unsupportable given your example as an axiom.
p.s.
By the bye, you didn't reply to my question of whether you're in the 99% of people who haven't read Darwins book?

Obviously there is a gap between bonobo and human, as they are not our ancestors, but there is virtually no significant gap in the fossil record of human development, that would suggest anything other than evolution.

No i am not in the 99% of ignorant atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult ('On the origin of a myth i mean species').

Obviously there is a gap between bonobo and human, as they are not our ancestors, but there is virtually no significant gap in the fossil record of human development, that would suggest anything other than evolution.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

"Evolution" is so sick that propaganda starting from when a kid enters primary school makes people (and MILLIONS of people) deny their eyes, ears, senses, etc. No other myth has such a stronghold on peoples minds. Never let observation (or lack thereof) get in the way of blind ignorant dogmatic faith in religious leaders (Dawkins, whatever other garbage atheists listen to/read).

Decline in fitness 1%-5% a generation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/ ... l.pdf+html

Conclusion: 'Evolution'= the lie and atheists its sheep.

jinx wrote:No i am not in the 99% of ignorant atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult ('On the origin of a myth i mean species').

Obviously there is a gap between bonobo and human, as they are not our ancestors, but there is virtually no significant gap in the fossil record of human development, that would suggest anything other than evolution.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21
.

This article fails on key points in understanding of the Intellectual History of Evolutionary Biology.
If the writer is ignorant of those key points he cannot be trusted to understand the wider picture.
Disappointing!

If I thought you had the intelligence or interest, I would rebut this article point for point. Sadly your performance so far demonstrates your polemic approach and lack of academic appreciation.
Sorry.


Actually sorry that you are taken-in by this poor attempt to assert a child-like creationism, by this travesty of an 'academic' -style article.

Rebut.