Evolution

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 21, 2011, 03:55:02 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 03:27:19 PM

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

And again, you'd be wrong.

And nothing to back up your claims. Is is standard FE'ers issue?

We have created life but never a star. It would be too complicated.

When has man created life?

Quote from: Ski on November 21, 2011, 11:57:59 PM

It's relevant if one is attempting to disregard the possibility while arguing the proposed dynamics of stellar evolution.

It's irrelevant because you can't prove it either way. Sure, you can say "Stars are alive" but the other person has equal weighting in the argument to say "Stars are not alive." Since there isn't any extra evidence to tip the scale, any argument about stars being alive or not will always reach a stalemate.

Precisely why we should avoid blanket statements like "A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star."

When has man created life?

Never.

Precisely why we should avoid blanket statements like "A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star."

I was just giving arguments why, in my opinion, stars and living organisms are so different that it is a bit pointless to make a comparision. All your quibbling shows me that nothing interesting has come up of it. I can wait, I'm patient, you can prove me wrong.

I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:

• Redefine "chair" so that it no longer requires armrests to be one. This is the FE approach. When presented with a flat celestial body, we've decided that flat celestial bodies exist.
• Refuse to redefine it, and either claim that this chair cannot possibly exist, since it contradicts the definition of a chair - this is (an exaggerated misrepresentation of) the RE approach. All celestial bodies we've seen thus far are round, so the Earth must be round too.

In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.

That's completely asinine.  We've decided that (as far as we know) flat celestial bodies DON'T exist.  If they do, we've already decided... no, PROVEN that the earth is not one of them.  Why?  No, not because we speculated or took a vote and decided it was that way or because we've been lying to ourselves about how math works for over 2,000 years, but because we have pictures, measurements and first-hand witness accounts.  All of which are easily ignored when you convince yourself that the pictures and witnesses are a part of a conspiracy, and math is wrong. 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 21, 2011, 12:23:36 PM

The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.

When Rowbotham first did the earliest BLE's, he determined the world was flat because you CAN see an object in its entirety.  Soon thereafter, the BLE's were redone correctly, and proved you, in fact can't see the objects in their entirety because of the horizon.  Rowbotham then came up with an explanation into human perspective based on artistic theory, which made a ham-handed excuse at saying "my experiments were wrong, but since Christian fundamentalists are giving me tons of money to prove the world is flat, here's how my experiments being wrong actually concluded the same thoery as it did before."

This is how it happened:

1. Rowbotham proved that 2+2 = 5.
2. The church thought this was awesome, because the Bible says 2+2 = 5!
3. Another guy proved that Rowbotham accidentally used a 2 and 3 instead of 2 and 2.
4. Rowbotham proved that 2+3 also = 5 because the church needed it too.
5. 150 years later, 15 people believe 2+2 = 5 because of what happens when you add 2+3.  The rest of the world... along with every iota of scientific evidence and pictures and eyewitness account, proves that 2+2=4 while 2+3=5. 

Quote from: Ski on November 22, 2011, 09:31:44 AM

Precisely why we should avoid blanket statements like "A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star."

I was just giving arguments why, in my opinion, stars and living organisms are so different that it is a bit pointless to make a comparision. All your quibbling shows me that nothing interesting has come up of it. I can wait, I'm patient, you can prove me wrong.

So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Yeah, you still have to prove me wrong.

Yeah, you still have to prove me wrong.

Not really.  You're the one that need to provide enough evidence to show that you're right.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 21, 2011, 03:55:02 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 03:27:19 PM

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

And again, you'd be wrong.

And nothing to back up your claims. Is is standard FE'ers issue?

So you make a baseless (and frankly ludicrous) claim without providing any evidence, I tell you you're wrong, and you berate me for not providing any evidence that what you didn't provide any evidence for in the first place is wrong?

Interesting.

So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Semantics. Troll harder.

I don't think I am going to bother explaining obvious things regarding a comparison which is more boring than possible.
Let me know when you draw some interesting conclusions about the FE/RE debate.

I don't think I am going to bother explaining obvious things regarding a comparison which is more boring than possible.
Let me know when you draw some interesting conclusions about the FE/RE debate.

Interesting conclusion: The earth is flat.

Quote from: Ski on November 22, 2011, 12:35:28 PM

So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Semantics. Troll harder.

Hardly. It is an important distinction which I am glad you managed to realize.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 22, 2011, 03:37:29 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 22, 2011, 12:35:28 PM

So we've gone from baseless statement of "fact" to "in my opinion."  That's a start, at least.

Semantics. Troll harder.

Hardly. It is an important distinction which I am glad you managed to realize.

It is possible to use "in my opinion" and to state something to be a "fact" in cases where the stated subject may be either fact or opinion. It's a matter of phrasing. Therefore to redefine an argument based on the distinction between them is a fallacy.

What is it when both the opinion and the "fact" are false?

What is it when both the opinion and the "fact" are false?

In that case it's called being wrong. Many things have been stated as both opinions and facts over the years that have turned out to be false.
I was just saying attacking the exact wording of a post rather than its intention is weak trolling.

you people who talk like you know what a star actually is makes me laugh

you don't know, lol

you will never know

no one will, PERIOD

there is no debate

so you can quote useless scientists all you want, till you are blue in the face

all you have is a "theory"

nothing more, nothing less

you have no proof

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

humans are so stupid and ignorant

to think we are the true Gods, lmao

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....

And no, I'm not a bible thumper. But what I said before, the elite make it easy to figure out what side to cheer for

they attack God

why?

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever


that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.

how retarded can someone be?

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?

welcome to the "new age of Aquarius"

more sick fantasy's,  by garbage like alice bailey and her loser followers

you people who talk like you know what a star actually is makes me laugh

you don't know, lol

you will never know

no one will, PERIOD

there is no debate

so you can quote useless scientists all you want, till you are blue in the face

all you have is a "theory"

nothing more, nothing less

you have no proof

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

humans are so stupid and ignorant

to think we are the true Gods, lmao

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....

And no, I'm not a bible thumper. But what I said before, the elite make it easy to figure out what side to cheer for

they attack God

why?

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever


that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.

how retarded can someone be?

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?

welcome to the "new age of Aquarius"

more sick fantasy's,  by garbage like alice bailey and her loser followers

tl;dr

you have no proof 1

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created2

humans are so stupid and ignorant3

to think we are the true Gods, lmao4

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....5

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?6

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever

that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.7

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?8

1. Neither do you.

2. Are there stamps on everything that says "Made by God"?

You people who talk like you know God actually exists is makes me laugh, to quote you somewhat. You can't prove that God exists.
 
3. If you don't like it, get out. I personally don't care who created the universe, because, once we find out, what will change?

4. I don't think that. Plenty of people don't think we are.

5. Who are you to "demand" evidence like that? You aren't any greater or lesser than the average human being. In fact, why don't YOU create me a universe with your belief in God? Once we reach this stalemate, your claims become useless. Goodnight to that "attack".

6. Because people like you believe in it and tell them that they're wrong. That's why they try to discredit it.

7. Let's assume God exists. What's to stop human curiosity about these kinds of things? IT's exactly the same as trying to find out how the universe began. And before you say "God made it", prove it. And if your only point is "Prove it wrong" then we've reached a stalemate again.

8. AT least we know that humans exist.

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

I could never understand why evolution is incompatible with God.  Are you suggesting that God could not create a dynamic, evolving universe?

Quote from: snipez on November 25, 2011, 12:39:00 PM

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

I could never understand why evolution is incompatible with God.  Are you suggesting that God could not create a dynamic, evolving universe?

Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

 Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

This is the downside of using the word "evolution" for rocks and water. Every creationist who googles the word "evolution" comes to pick a fight where nobody wants to fight creationists.

Every FE "theorist" is clear in the concept that rocks do not adapt to survive, and therefore the word "evolution" is just a poorly chosen word for "change", as in "the Earth was different in the past compared with its present condition". Every real scientist will tell you the same thing.

So, the discussion about evolution and the second chapter of the Genesis belongs in the angry ranting random musings section.

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2011, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: snipez on November 25, 2011, 12:39:00 PM

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

I could never understand why evolution is incompatible with God.  Are you suggesting that God could not create a dynamic, evolving universe?

Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

Do you think that the authors of the Bible (and every other ancient holy text) had the intellectual capacity to understand the intricate workings of a dynamic, evolving universe?  They had to tell their story in a way that people of the time could understand.  After all, why couldn't God take pond scum, evolve it for a few hundred million years and then breathe a soul into the end result (humans)?

Quote from: hoppy on November 25, 2011, 10:21:16 PM

 Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

This is the downside of using the word "evolution" for rocks and water. Every creationist who googles the word "evolution" comes to pick a fight where nobody wants to fight creationists.

Every FE "theorist" is clear in the concept that rocks do not adapt to survive, and therefore the word "evolution" is just a poorly chosen word for "change", as in "the Earth was different in the past compared with its present condition". Every real scientist will tell you the same thing.

So, the discussion about evolution and the second chapter of the Genesis belongs in the angry ranting random musings section.

Ah, but they do. Why do you think river rocks are round? They either become as such or break apart. Rocks which cannot suit their environment become sand; lifeforms that can't become dirt.

Ah, but they do. Why do you think river rocks are round? They either become as such or break apart. Rocks which cannot suit their environment become sand; lifeforms that can't become dirt.

And why do you consider round rocks more evolved than sand? Why is Earth more evolved than the bigger planets, which ignited and became secondary stars in their star system?

Where is your analogy for the basis of evolution, which is the survival of the best adapted until they produce offspring? Are you suggesting that river rocks have offspring?

As everything in FE "theories", this is not more than a very generic analogy that crumbles at the slightest inspection.

Evolution is incompatible with God because evolution contradicts the word of God. God created man in the image of God. He formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into us.
 God did not start with pond scum to make man, he started with dust of the earth.
  You can read more in Genesis chapter 2.

Are you equally positive that mountains and hills actually sing, or that trees clap their hands? Why are you insisting on a literal translation of a text that reads like poetry?

Quote from: Tausami on November 26, 2011, 08:37:24 AM

Ah, but they do. Why do you think river rocks are round? They either become as such or break apart. Rocks which cannot suit their environment become sand; lifeforms that can't become dirt.

And why do you consider round rocks more evolved than sand? Why is Earth more evolved than the bigger planets, which ignited and became secondary stars in their star system?

Where is your analogy for the basis of evolution, which is the survival of the best adapted until they produce offspring? Are you suggesting that river rocks have offspring?

As everything in FE "theories", this is not more than a very generic analogy that crumbles at the slightest inspection.

This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.

you people who talk like you know what a star actually is makes me laugh

you don't know, lol

you will never know

no one will, PERIOD

there is no debate

so you can quote useless scientists all you want, till you are blue in the face

all you have is a "theory"

nothing more, nothing less

you have no proof

anyone who supports the hurtful agenda called evolution is in essence, ANTI-GOD

that's what evolution is anyways. a way to SPIT in God's face and to discredit everything he has created

humans are so stupid and ignorant

to think we are the true Gods, lmao

keep thinking that

while you are prancing around and playing God, please create me a universe

I'm waiting....

And no, I'm not a bible thumper. But what I said before, the elite make it easy to figure out what side to cheer for

they attack God

why?

if God doesn't exist then why waste their time to try and discredit it?

because God does exist and they want God removed from the earth forever


that's where you get weather modification, GMO food, and all the other sick BS going on in our world today. us stupid humans are the real God. hahaha, give me a break.

how retarded can someone be?

to think we are more "high" than the highest of the high?

welcome to the "new age of Aquarius"

more sick fantasy's,  by garbage like alice bailey and her loser followers

God did a few cool things a few thousand years ago, but what has he done for us recently? Did he warm up my hot pocket or turn on my computer for me? No? But I'll tell you what did, science. Well, science created the things that did, being a microwave and a plastic "on" button respectively.

Lol, just messing with you. Even if God does exist, I don't think I could serve a god as evil and psychotic as the god of the bible. I would rather be a moral person who does good in the world, rather than someone who follows the rantings of cosmic serial killer. Food for thought.

This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.

You mean cheap philosophy, or dumb word games, as most "FE'ers" play.

Evolution is not just a synonym for change, it is the name of a specific biological process. And it involves specific mechanisms which appear in living beings and do not appear in rocks or planets or stars.

What you are naming "philosophical" is actually a bad metaphor, where you play with the other meanings of the word "evolve" and try to jump back to the first meaning without others seeing your deplorable sleight-of-hand.