Evolution - True Or False

It's

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Provide me a specific example of this and I shall answer in detail. In the meantime the general answer is that through plate tectonics, isostasy and climatic change, areas that are today in tropical lagoon may tomorrow (geologically speaking) be in the middle of a desert.
 
Saquist said:
All polar bears are not purple. The knowledge I've added would be my own: knowing that all polar bears are not purple.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's fine. But what about without that knowledge? My example was poor, since it allowed easy discounting of one choice.

Lets try this: the difference between these two:

"I've seen a purple polar bear" and "All the polar bears IN Juno Alaska are purple"

Without doing research to determine one or the other as true or false; as of right this second, having read this, are these two claims equally viable in your opinion?
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
So-called desert deposit layers cannot lie conformably between marine deposit layers, totally irrational, are you comfortable with that?
Click to expand...
Why are you now introducing the comformable-uncomformable dichotomy? Were you being backed into a corner?

To answer your question: no, I am not comfortable with that. There is no reason an aeolian layer should not lie conformably between marine layers. What makes you think this could be an issue?
 
river-wind said:
Ok, that's fine. But what about without that knowledge? My example was poor, since it allowed easy discounting of one choice.

Lets try this: the difference between these two:

"I've seen a purple polar bear" and "All the polar bears IN Juno Alaska are purple"

Without doing research to determine one or the other as true or false; as of right this second, having read this, are these two claims equally viable in your opinion?
Click to expand...


You mean that both become unverifiable claims.
 
Polar bear fur borders on white often turning more yellowish with age. Of course sometimes there are some browns added from dirt, mud and feces.
 
Moderator note:
I've cleaned up some troll posts here.

IceAgeCivilizations, please do not troll in the Biology and Genetics subforum
 
Saquist said:
One example was a fellow on the File Front Forums which gave me a similar challenge. I told him if I answered his first one I could answer them all.
Click to expand...
You never answered any of them. On that note, I find it odd how quotes from conversations on forums outside of this one, have any bearing here. To take these quotes that have obviously been taken out of context, and too then omit the responses to them, shows just how deceptive you can be.

Saquist said:
I posted my response to just the very first one. He Litteraly had nothing to say afterwards.
Click to expand...
It is better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies Saq. Anyone curious about what really happened over at filefront, feel free to head on over and view for themselves. Spare yourself the rhetoric, and false hearsay I've just witnessed.
 
Saquist said:
I must take the perspective that it was global. Not just because the Bilble tells us but because 270 plus cultures tells us there is a global consensus.
Click to expand...
It tells us that 270 plus cultures had oral histories describing big floods. What makes you think that they're all referring to the same flood?
 
Location, location, Location...
not to mention similari.....

SEDISTIX.....HA HA HA....oh man...

what are you doing here? Hold on Pete....bigger fish to fry.

It is better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies Saq. Anyone curious about what really happened over at filefront, feel free to head on over and view for themselves. Spare yourself the rhetoric, and false hearsay I've just witnessed
Click to expand...

I'm just saying...dude. You had the opportunity. Like you, Wiz4rd posted a long list...of what? Misunderstandings...mis translations. You know cultures and history and language is more than just skin deep.

But you guys are just looking at the surface. Look a little deeper in your investigations.

And I did invite everyone to view for themselves. No smoke and mirrors. Take a look. Everyone has a rhetoric. You have a rhetoric I have a rhetoric it's the same thing over and over again.

The only time it changes is when one person, ONE PERSON, choses to learn a little more and as medicine woman said breech the comfort zone.

I offered to answered all those questions to you.
But here on this forum it was going to be a useless debate on semantics because many people here simply believe that the Bible can never be viewed as correct on any issue and they wish it to remain that way.

There's nothing I can do to change them but I can be vocal and I can step up and rise to the occasion on behalf of others and to correct wrong thinking on the bible issues, so that people, YOU all, reconsider just "going with the popular vote" and chose to investigate for yourselves.

I continued down that list Sedistix...
Using every source book I could find...You'd be shocked as too what I found...but...you inquired no further...and I pursued no further.
 
"Evolution might be true, but the natural progression of all things is entropy."--Annonymous

"If its true we are alone in the universe, then I have to say, the universe aimed very low and settled for less"--Annonymous
 
The idea that a Creator made life is precisely spontaneous generation. After all, where did the Creator come from? Abiogenesis doesn't suggest that the first life popped up spontaneously, but rather from a series of simpler chemical reactions.

There is an excellent description of how abiogenesis might have happened in "The Ancestor's Tale", also by Dawkins.
 
oH but that would be a failure of logic, wouldn't it Spidergoat? A creator is an idea who's christian foundation defines him as the "living God" and there is nothing spontaneous and unplanned about the decision and will inherient in the act.

You can do much better than that Spidergoat. Chemical reactions would still be undirected, disorderly and "formless"...totally chaotic...

Don't worry..I intend to address your "chemical bath" of life's spawning....
welcome to the false side of your reasoning and the evolutinary theory....Muster yourself or selves...It's gonna be long and dragged out after all this literature is revealed a piece at a time....
 
Creation is spontaneous generation once removed. All you have done is shifted the unexplained thing into a concept who's nature you can't explain.

Chemical reactions cannot be chaotic, otherwise they wouldn't happen. They aren't directed from without, but they are governed from within by the nature of the chemicals and the prevailing conditions where the reaction occurs.
 
spon·ta·ne·ous /spɒnˈteɪniəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spon-tey-nee-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5. produced by natural process.

are you sure you wish to continue the use of this word...it will lead to further misunderstandings
 
Saquist: so what do you think? If you are presented with two unknowns, neither with any more evidence to support it than the toher, are the two always going to be equally likely to be true? Or can the structure of the unfounded statements give us a clue as to the possible accuracy of one in comparison with the other?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins' 1991 lectures on evolution, natural occurance, probabilities, and more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlQcMRq0oug

I don't always agree with his statements, but it is a great series. There seem to be at least 5 parts.
 
Last edited:
river-wind said:
Saquist: so what do you think? If you are presented with two unknowns, neither with any more evidence to support it than the toher, are the two always going to be equally likely to be true? Or can the structure of the unfounded statements give us a clue as to the possible accuracy of one in comparison with the other?
Click to expand...


I don't know this...this is abstract...highly abstract despite the metaphor. I'm not an abstract person. Therefore this difficult for me to comprehend. I'm sorry, I need more information.

Dawkins.

Dawkins ushered in a new form of Spontaneous Generation. In his book he describes the Earth as having an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methan, ammonia and water. Therough energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanos, these simple compounds were broken apart and reformed into amino acids. Som gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says the ocean became an "organic soup," but still lifeless.

In other words what scientist expect to fine on TITAN, Saturns moon, and the only moon in the Solar system with an atmosphere.

According him and his description, "a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident". A molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself.

He admits...that the probablity is unlikely...he says...improbable. Yet he maintains that it must have happened...

Do you not just love that sort of reasoning? It had to happen....improbable but it "HAD" to happen.

Apparently he theorizes similar molecules clustered togeher, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier or other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. And the first living cell was spontaneously self generated.

I have to say while I read this my eye brow was reaching from the ceiling the hole time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top