Comments
21 - 40 of 50 Comments Last updated Apr 30, 2014
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#21 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was an evolutionist for 49 years.
Well gee, we ain't never heard THAT line before...
drjoel14 wrote:
All throughout my schooling, including university level EVERY biology class started with evolution and opened with theories of the beginning of life usually postulating from the Stanley Miller experiment and how that demonstrated how life began.
So what you're saying is that even though you were an evolutionist for 49 years (allegedly) you never learned a damm thing about it.

Since uh, ya know, Miller experiment having SWEET FA to do with abiogenesis and EVERYTHING to do with evolution.
drjoel14 wrote:
However I have noticed that lately the definition of evolution has been simplified to mean simply "change over time",
Well that IS what the term means.

After all, there was Darwin's rather famous book (not sure if you ever heard of it, or him for that matter) called "On The Origin Of SPECIES"

And NOT "On The Origin Of Species AND Life"
drjoel14 wrote:
if that is truly the official definition then everyone is an evolutionist as I don't know anyone who says that life does not change over time - the question is how much change is possible?
Anything consistent with the limitations as laid down by physics and nested hierarchies.

So that means no 50 foot women, no 100 foot spiders, and much to Shoob's disappointment, no sexeh furry cat-women. Unless it's Halloween.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#22 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutation + natural selection also cannot increase the genome of a creature or living thing. Information must be added to change scales into feathers, fins into feet, etc.- where does that information come from?
Mutation can indeed increase the genome. This has been observed for decades by geneticists in the lab, however creationists like yourself like to keep lying about it.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#23 Apr 22, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I sense an untruth here.
Like "Doctor" HTS on another thread.
Yeah, I forgot to mention - giant rats ARE possible.(apologies for teh linky)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26054...

Maybe Shoob will finally get lucky this time.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#24 Apr 22, 2014
drjoel14 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about other "religions" but from a Christian perspective there is a huge difference. The God of the bible is the ONLY one to claim He created ex nihlo (from nothing) and is important to the entire story of our fall and redemption - if there was death before Adam's sin then the bible would not be accurate when it says that death is the RESULT of sin and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) paid the wages of that sin (death) for us so if we trust in His substitutionary death we can be free of the consequences of our sinful nature and the resulting spiritual death.
All other "gods" create from something that is already in existence whether they be Hindu, Greek, Babylonian...whatever - that is a BIG difference.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz

Yeah yeah, your god is the big daddy and everyone else's is a massive p*ssy, yadda yadda yadda...(yawn)

And while we're on the subject, let's have a picture of one of those too:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Apparently shares our opinion about Shoob and his new buddy as the rest of us do.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#25 Apr 22, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am with you. The only mystery is which of our little buddies it is. HTS or a dark blue replay.
Well Repro isn't quite that stupid. He wants to be, but there's just a sliver of rationality in him that's being repressed. So he prefers to hate us all for being big meanies instead.

Dark Blue though is just plain incoherent, borderline Jimbo material, so it doesn't seem like him. So if it is an old pal of ours, I'd say Hooter's our primary suspect in my humble opinion.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#26 Apr 22, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong. This calls into question that education you claim.
It's like stealth fundies can never quite grasp the art of stealth...

http://rawmultimedia.files.wordpress.com/2012...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#27 Apr 22, 2014
Gillette wrote:
You can scientifically study fire in all its aspects without ever knowing haw the first flash of fire on earth came about.
Indeedy. And back on topic, just to remind any and all stray fundies of the same old thing as usual, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the exact same reason the theory of gravity doesn't rely on the origin of mass. Neither theory explains their respective origins, nor need to. As both theories work as they both make successful predictions based merely on currently observable phenomena. Just like EVERY modern scientific theory that also works today.

So all you fundies out there who haven't had chance to weigh in yet, just don't bother with coming along and claiming that evolution is wrong or in deep doodoo cuz it doesn't explain the origin of life. You're wrong, period. Always have been, always will be. All evolution deals with is the fact that life changes over time. Observable fact. And the theory would STILL work whether life started naturally, or by aliens, magical God-poofing, or some currently unknown previously unconsidered fourth option. It really doesn't matter. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise, all you fundies need to do is demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. And the best of luck to you all with that one.

As usual this point will be left unrefuted by EVERY single creo-fundie on the entire planet, or indeed anyone in the scientific community. Not because I'm an absolute genius, but rather because the argument is a frakking stupid piece of creationist rhetoric which is SO obvious that the High Lord Captain Obvious of the planet MASSIVELY OBVIOUS who's obviously in charge of Team Obvious in the Obvious League of the quaint old town of F CKING OBVIOUS is quite frankly SO astounded by how frakking obvious it is that he gave Cyrano de Bergerac the week off.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#28 Apr 23, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeedy. And back on topic, just to remind any and all stray fundies of the same old thing as usual, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the exact same reason the theory of gravity doesn't rely on the origin of mass. Neither theory explains their respective origins, nor need to. As both theories work as they both make successful predictions based merely on currently observable phenomena. Just like EVERY modern scientific theory that also works today.
So all you fundies out there who haven't had chance to weigh in yet, just don't bother with coming along and claiming that evolution is wrong or in deep doodoo cuz it doesn't explain the origin of life. You're wrong, period. Always have been, always will be. All evolution deals with is the fact that life changes over time. Observable fact. And the theory would STILL work whether life started naturally, or by aliens, magical God-poofing, or some currently unknown previously unconsidered fourth option. It really doesn't matter. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise, all you fundies need to do is demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. And the best of luck to you all with that one.
As usual this point will be left unrefuted by EVERY single creo-fundie on the entire planet, or indeed anyone in the scientific community. Not because I'm an absolute genius, but rather because the argument is a frakking stupid piece of creationist rhetoric which is SO obvious that the High Lord Captain Obvious of the planet MASSIVELY OBVIOUS who's obviously in charge of Team Obvious in the Obvious League of the quaint old town of F CKING OBVIOUS is quite frankly SO astounded by how frakking obvious it is that he gave Cyrano de Bergerac the week off.
No kitties were harmed in the writing of this post, we can only hope.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#29 Apr 23, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No kitties were harmed in the writing of this post, we can only hope.
Of course not, as unlike fundies they have a good grasp of the concepts of irony, sarcasm and reality
HTS

Englewood, CO

#30 Apr 23, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution shows how ordered complexity can increase through natural processes, but it can only work as a process once a self replicating organism with heredity already exists. Once we have that, evolution has something to work on. But by definition, evolution as a process (mutation + natural selection etc) cannot explain how that replicator first arrived.
.
The "first replicator" was simpler than a modern bacterium, correct?
Therefore, you need to explain what self-replicating life forms preceeded modern bacteria for hundreds of millions of years, unless you believe that a bacterium evolved directly from inorganic matter in one step.

The false bifurcation of abiogenesis and evolution began during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as atheists saw the collapse of spontaneous generation. Hiding your head in the sand and divorcing yourself from abiogenesis doesn't erase the problem.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#31 Apr 23, 2014
The Dude wrote:
I forgot to mention - giant rats ARE possible.
Of course they are. And if giant, bioengineered crabs pose no threat, then certainly giant rats would be no problem.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#32 Apr 23, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The false bifurcation of abiogenesis and evolution began during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as atheists saw the collapse of spontaneous generation.
When and how did "spontaneous generation" (whatever that is) collapse?

You seem to be making a smug assertion about something YOU MADE UP. LOL

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#33 Apr 23, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Repro isn't quite that stupid. He wants to be, but there's just a sliver of rationality in him that's being repressed. So he prefers to hate us all for being big meanies instead.
Dark Blue though is just plain incoherent, borderline Jimbo material, so it doesn't seem like him. So if it is an old pal of ours, I'd say Hooter's our primary suspect in my humble opinion.
Another good possibility. Because of the unwavering adherence to dogma and the irrationality by the existing and the new faithful, it is sometimes hared to tell if each new one is real or another sock. HTAss is a good choice now that you have me thinking on it. More claims of a scientific background followed by statements that are contrary to that.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#34 Apr 23, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like stealth fundies can never quite grasp the art of stealth...
http://rawmultimedia.files.wordpress.com/2012...
Exactly.
Laffin!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#35 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The "first replicator" was simpler than a modern bacterium, correct?
Therefore, you need to explain what self-replicating life forms preceeded modern bacteria for hundreds of millions of years, unless you believe that a bacterium evolved directly from inorganic matter in one step.
Not to validate evolution, I don't.

You are talking about abiogenesis, a process that logically cannot begin with evolution for reasons already explained to you many times. As far as evolution is concerned, "God made a bacterium" and "natural forces made a bacterium" work equally well.
The false bifurcation of abiogenesis and evolution began during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as atheists saw the collapse of spontaneous generation. Hiding your head in the sand and divorcing yourself from abiogenesis doesn't erase the problem.
Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species:

"I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have been modified, during a long course of descent, by the preservation or the natural selection of many successive slight favourable variations....It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing “occult qualities and miracles into philosophy”

----------

So HTS, you reverse the truth. Darwin from the outset understood that evolution of life and origin of life were two different things. You cannot have "preservation of many slight successive variations" before you have an organism to vary and heredity to preserve.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#36 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
The false bifurcation of abiogenesis and evolution began during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as atheists saw the collapse of spontaneous generation. Hiding your head in the sand and divorcing yourself from abiogenesis doesn't erase the problem.
As an aside, its funny how you often complain about religion being injectected to arguments, and demand explanations that do not refer to religion. Are you so blind to yourself that you fail to understand that every time you start railing against the dreaded "atheists", YOU are inserting religion into the argument?

Get it clear, HTS. You could 100% convince me of God's existence and I would still accept evolution, because the evidence supports it. Whether God created the universe or not, its clear from the evidence that evolution happened.

I really do not care about your little crusade against atheism. I am only interested in the science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The "first replicator" was simpler than a modern bacterium, correct?
Therefore, you need to explain what self-replicating life forms preceeded modern bacteria for hundreds of millions of years, unless you believe that a bacterium evolved directly from inorganic matter in one step.
The false bifurcation of abiogenesis and evolution began during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as atheists saw the collapse of spontaneous generation. Hiding your head in the sand and divorcing yourself from abiogenesis doesn't erase the problem.
However the problem of solving abiogenesis is a problem for abiogenesis, not evolution. The theory of evolution is in no way affected for reasons already explained. They've never yet been addressed.

Spontaneous generation is creationism.

Evolution is not atheism. Nor is abiogenesis.

Explain orthology Hooter.

(sound of crickets chirping)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#38 Apr 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Another good possibility. Because of the unwavering adherence to dogma and the irrationality by the existing and the new faithful, it is sometimes hared to tell if each new one is real or another sock. HTAss is a good choice now that you have me thinking on it. More claims of a scientific background followed by statements that are contrary to that.
Especially as Hooter has just showed up.
Old Guy

Napa, CA

#39 Apr 24, 2014
If a student, in the typical science class, asks a question regarding the scientific theory which explains the origin of life or the origin of the universe, is this an appropriate question for the typical science class?

If yes, then what is the appropriate scientific response?

If no, then are questions about origins not relevant to science?

If such questions are not relevant or appropriate to science, then what academic discipline is the appropriate discipline?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#40 Apr 24, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
If a student, in the typical science class, asks a question regarding the scientific theory which explains the origin of life or the origin of the universe, is this an appropriate question for the typical science class?
If yes, then what is the appropriate scientific response?
If no, then are questions about origins not relevant to science?
If such questions are not relevant or appropriate to science, then what academic discipline is the appropriate discipline?
Students are free to ask questions in a science class. Whether it is appropriate is another matter and depends on the science class. It would not be an appropriate question to ask in a physics class but might be in a biology class. It also depends on the particular topic under discussion and if the question relates to that topic.

Still trying to shove abiogenesis into ToE?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 18 min TedHOhio 172,529
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 37 min inbred Genius 115,251
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 136,276
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 3 hr susanblange 321
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 5 hr TedHOhio 209
Science News (Sep '13) Aug 28 positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••