Evolution Explained

[rhocam]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work. I see no point in discussing them

What I disagree with is the atheistic evolution belief that it is enough within itself to explain life.

Dividing the sciences up into smaller and smaller disciplines only shields you from having to deal with the actual issues.

to ignore abiogenisis, the singularity, the "near" miracles, does not make them go away.

If you really believe the phycology behind atheistic evolution, then I am sad for you. Not that you believe it, but that you are

unactually unable to live it. 

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

Yet you study and try to gain knowledge, for what? to have it rot in the ground with you.

Evolution as a faith is dead, for it does not even know why it is alive.

[Azdgari]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work. I see no point in discussing them ...

What about psychology?

[jaimehlers]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work. I see no point in discussing them

Moving the goalposts.  "Evolution is wrong, you can't have heredity variation and natural selection together." *after being proven wrong* "I understand the mechanics of evolution, I don't want to discuss them."  You still haven't shown that you actually understand those mechanics, and it's important that you either do so or acknowledge that you do not.  By trying to ignore or sidestep this problem, you undermine your credibility everywhere else.

What I disagree with is the atheistic evolution belief that it is enough within itself to explain life.

So it was never about evolutionary theory to begin with.  It was about something called "atheist evolution belief", which I've never heard of except from a few creationists.

Dividing the sciences up into smaller and smaller disciplines only shields you from having to deal with the actual issues.

No, it's for accuracy.  This is a basic part of every single scientific discipline.  Even in something like computer programing, it's a lot easier and more accurate to divide things up into smaller parts instead of trying to deal with the whole.

to ignore abiogenisis, the singularity, the "near" miracles, does not make them go away.

None of us actually ignore abiogenesis or the Big Bang singularity.  Frankly, I don't know what you mean by the "near miracles", so you'll have to explain this.  But the fact that we deal with them in different aspects of science does not mean we're ignoring them.  It means we're simplifying the equation.

If you really believe the phycology behind atheistic evolution, then I am sad for you. Not that you believe it, but that you are unactually unable to live it.

Given that evolution isn't a religion or a faith, I don't really understand the purpose of this statement.  But if you're trying to say that you feel sorry because we don't actively look for the presence of a god behind evolution, well, don't.  The whole point of scientific inquiry is to discover how things happen.  If you have to have a reason (such as God) why they happened, that's your business, but there's no point in "feeling sorry" for people who aren't interested in your reason why.

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

And what makes you think that?  I have friends, family, coworkers, people who'll remember me after I'm dead.  That's good enough.

Yet you study and try to gain knowledge, for what? to have it rot in the ground with you.

I study and gain knowledge so that everyone can benefit from it.  So that people who are not yet alive can benefit from the fruits of what we discover today.  But even if I knew for a fact that the world was going to end tomorrow and that there would be no future for any of us, I would not regret any of the efforts to gain knowledge that we've engaged in.  Nor would I need to be comforted with the belief that it really wouldn't be the end because we'd all end up in a different place.  I actually feel kind of sorry for people who do need that kind of comfort, because they must truly be terrified of the idea of death

Evolution as a faith is dead, for it does not even know why it is alive.

Evolution as a "faith" never lived in the first place, for it was not and never has been one to begin with.

[wright]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work. I see no point in discussing them

What I disagree with is the atheistic evolution belief that it is enough within itself to explain life.

And again, you show you don't understand evolution: it does not attempt to explain the origins of life. To continue conflating evolution and abiogenesis is dishonest and willfully ignorant.

Dividing the sciences up into smaller and smaller disciplines only shields you from having to deal with the actual issues.

to ignore abiogenisis, the singularity, the "near" miracles, does not make them go away.

Abiogenisis is not ignored, but is a separate field of science. This is not arbitrary, but a reflection of our current understanding of life's origins: incomplete. When at least one pathway for abiogenisis can be reproduced and show how life may have started, then a basis for connecting it to evolutionary theory will exist.

If you really believe the phycology behind atheistic evolution, then I am sad for you. Not that you believe it, but that you are

unactually unable to live it. 

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

Yet you study and try to gain knowledge, for what? to have it rot in the ground with you.

Laughable. For the record, thinking about my inevitable death is not my favorite pastime. But I've seen how the legacies of others I knew have transcended their mortality in very real ways.

There are those who will miss me: they will mourn me and go on with their lives. The second part is far more meaningful.

I gain knowledge to amuse and inform myself. That knowledge existed before me and will exist after me. If I'm very, very fortunate, something original that I've created may survive me and be passed on to others.

Evolution as a faith is dead, for it does not even know why it is alive.

Good thing it's not a faith. It's a well-established theory that underpins all modern biology and reaches into such fields as geology and paleoanthropology. And you've yet to show you understand it, much less present any evidence for a better explanation of life's history and diversity.

[One Above All]

So now evolution is atheistic. It's all a big conspiracy by mean old atheists to try to draw people away from a magical fairy that created a flat Earth about 10000 years ago.
Keep going with the strawmen, rhocam. You're doing great. Particularly when you claim to understand evolution after already being told that what you think is evolution is just another strawman.

[JeffPT]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work. I see no point in discussing them

If you understand the mechanics of it, then please make a reasoned, well thought out refutation of the theory that does not involve any form of "I don't understand how evolution could possibly be responsible for life in all it's forms, therefore... God did it."  Almost every argument you've spoken about in this thread boils down to that one sentence.  Please understand, your projecting your own personal ignorance onto us as if we are all as equally ignorant as you. That's simply not the case.     

What I disagree with is the atheistic evolution belief that it is enough within itself to explain life.

It isn't.  The question of how life started still looms large (though science is making headway on that question every day).  We don't quite know how that happened yet, but what we DO know is that once it started, evolution IS enough to understand how we got to where we are right now.  As you've been told about fifty times now, you are combining the two as if they are the same.  You should stop.  It's just embarrassing for you now.

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

This is an emotional appeal that holds no weight in an argument about what is true versus what is not.  We may wish to live forever, and be with our family and friends when we die, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that's what happens.  In fact, I think that's pretty childish.  Grown ups tend to accept reality for what it is, no matter how good or bad it makes us feel. 

Feel sad for us if you wish, but don't think for a second that we envy you.  Yours is an infantile position.  You are stuck in perpetual puberty, unable to grow up and face reality.  If you want to know what's sad, it's that.   

Yet you study and try to gain knowledge, for what? to have it rot in the ground with you.

Because it's awesome, that's why.  Why do I eat hamburgers?  Why do I have sex with my wife?  Why do I study evolution?  The answer is all the same.  Because those things are awesome. 

Yes, that knowledge will rot in the ground with me.  Acknowledging that doesn't make it any less important to me right this minute, or the next minute, or the next. 

Evolution as a faith is dead, for it does not even know why it is alive.

And God is a fairy tale that was born out of ignorance and fear... and it doesn't even know it's dead. 

[Astreja]

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

Is that so, Rhocam?  I find it unspeakably tragic that you're so attached to the concept of "you" that you feel the need to be remembered by your fellow meat puppets.

I don't mind being forgotten because I know that My current personality and physical form is just a pretty little mask for subatomic particles that formed during the Big Bang, and the stuff that makes them up may be older still (inasmuch as we don't yet know what was there before the Big Bang).

We are star stuff, and this is both thrilling and humbling.

Yet you study and try to gain knowledge, for what? to have it rot in the ground with you.

(Springy G sighs and shakes Her head)  Knowledge is for the living, not for the dead.  Learn it, teach it, create with it, and let it go.

[Samothec]

Rhocam

Scientist are having to explain nature without appealing to a higher power.

You make a huge and inaccurate assumption: that one must appeal to a higher power. Good scientists use the simplest explanation possible that fully explains the results. Appealing to a higher power is a more complex explanation because one must then prove the higher power exists and that can not be done scientifically.

 

Not even evolution is allowed to be called any more than chance and happenstance.

This statement is false. Chance (and happenstance) is only a small part of the process and thus characterizing evolution as chance is at best a distortion of reality.

 

You have no explaination for why life arose, I in the belief of a God do.

You make another huge assumption: that there is a reason "why". Life is. Why do you need a "why"?

how do bones show any bearing on my life now? even IF evolution is true, what is it to me? How does it help me pay the bills? What can it give to me in trying to teach my children morals and kindness? why would i care about what you have to say regarding where I came from?

All of these questions can be validly reversed:
How does an ancient "holy" book show any bearing on my life now? (Other than helping create a hateful society.) Even IF the Bible is true, what is it to me? (Other than showing god to be erratic and/or malevolent.) How does it help me pay the bills? (It doesn't.) What can it give to me in trying to teach my children morals and kindness? (It can't unless one is careful to cherry pick small portions.) Why would I care about what you have to say regarding where I came from? (Since you don't accept reality.)

The claim that there is no God, I can do what I want. I look at the REAL world. Being people and how they interact with each other and ask you. Is that not the very statement being made throughout our culture? Nobody appeals to a higher power for accountability. Those of us who do are mocked and ridiculed, all the while society falls apart around us.

I am not so weak that I need a God to provide a morality.

There are questions I had that were unanswerable through evolution. Such as the basics in journalism, who what when where and why. If we can't apply those questions to evolution and answer them, how can we claim evolution is true?

Why does there need to be a "who"?
What, when and where are answered.
Why does there need to be a "why"?

I claim it is because there is a Designer. The very fact that the rules don't change suggests there is something Keeping them from changing. You live your life in the belief that Gravity will hold you to the surface of the earth. why, if chaos and randomness created this, how can you be sure they wont change at any moment? It is because you believe there is "something" keeping them this way. Allow me to introduce to to that "something" I call Him God

You have this strange idea that the universe on its own would be chaos and randomness. IF that were true, something/someone would be needed to maintain things. But ONLY if you believe the weird idea that the universe is chaos.

Evolution does not subjest itself to the same rules the above sciences do. Evolution begins with the premise that it has already been proven.
It hasn't. What has been proven is adaptation, speciation, genetic drift.
The issue I have with this is the gene transfer necessary to produce new animals.

The first two statements here are false. And I see you've been listening to Kent Hovind. He has progressed to the outright lie that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. The contrary is true: natural selection is the core of evolution. Similarly, adaptation, speciation and genetic drift are crucial central components of evolution since they are parts of natural selection.

at the very beginning of his treatise vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Robert Carrol observes " most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradual account" of evolution. Yet Darwins theory requires it. It is the heart and soul of the theory.

Not true. Darwin's initial theory might have needed it but we have modified it to match reality. Catastrophic circumstances can cause a far more rapid change – most often extinction of some species while other formerly marginal ones thrive. And as I stated above, natural selection is the "heart and soul of the theory" of evolution.

Heredity requires genes to be present before they can be passed, they must be present in the parent.

Or a mutation occurs in either gamete cell or the zygote.

Natural selection requires the progeny to be better than the parent.

False. This displays a total lack of understanding of natural selection. Natural selection will eliminate any progeny that are not equally adapted[1] to the environment they are living in. If there are changes to the environment, then mutations can prosper even if the parent would not have.

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

Seriously? This is a load of fecal matter. This is what you could learn by watching the Simpsons opening credits – and that's supposed to be a humorous version of evolution.

1. The Intrinsic value of Life
2. The Intrinsic Belief that Man has purpose
3. The Intrinsic difference between man and animals
4. The Intrinsic ability to see Good and Evil
5. The Intrinsic ability to Choose to do good or evil
6. The Intrinsic Belief in "A Moral Code"

What are each of these things? In other words, don't just claim they exist, tell us what they are. What, when, where?

If you really believe the phycology behind atheistic evolution, then I am sad for you.

(bold mine) Why is the study of algae such a problem?



Elsewhere you have said that you don't "believe" in evolution. I used to believe in evolution. Then I read more about it and realized the flaw. A knowledgeable person understands evolution. You can only believe or not believe in evolution ONLY if you do not understand evolution.

Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and their ilk are not the people to listen to since they will mislead you if you are lucky. Both named men have lied outright in their discourses about evolution. Read Darwin and Richard Dawkins if you actually want to know about evolution. If you don't want to know about it, you should not enter into discussions about it.

1.	as their parent assuming no environmental changes

[ParkingPlaces]

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

I'm sure someone will miss me, until they die. And I'm also sure it won't be long until I'm just a name in a family tree. How many people do you remember from the year 1211, 1311,  1411, 151, 1611, 1711, 1811 or 1911? Other than historical figures (who are probably just an atheist theory anyway), I'm pretty sure your answer is none. And you will suffer the same fate eventually.

Big deal. Over 100 billion humans have died so far. I'm not so special I need to be more recognizable then them after my death than those folks. In the meantime, I enjoy being alive, given that this is the only time this is going to happen. I was fine with not existing before I was born, I'll be fine with my demise. It's not like there is an actual choice. Heaven doesn't count because that would suck. An infinite period of time drooling over some deity's ass. That's not for me.

And hell is such a joke I can't believe you guys are still pushing it. With no connection between your "loving' god and reality, it is so obviously a human invention for the purpose of scaring that it's ridiculous. You don't think Rick Santorum is the first idiot christian that ever existed, do you?

But in the meantime, maybe I'll give up my atheistic evolution faith and turn to my atheistic gravity belief or atheistic germ theory belief or atheistic quantum theory belief. It's probably more peaceful there.

No, evolution is a legitimate theory. If it's not, it should be quite easy to prove it, because people who think it is true have collected lots of data that seems to support it. If it's not true, that information is supporting something else instead, and you guys should be able to ship out a new theory, with various forms of proof, in a few weeks. Instead you stand around and complain because what we say couldn't be true and make no effort to put forth a realistic and all-encompassing alternative. Just saying life is designed doesn't make it so. Having guys with PhD's from back alley divinity schools brush off years and years of serious scientific endeavor may make sense to you, but you've already proven you have low standards.

For instance, there must be some very obvious reason why the giraffe has such a long recurrent laryngeal nerve. If design is involved, the reason for it should just pop out at you and your explanation should be so simple that it causes all of us who think evolution was involved to slap our foreheads really really hard. If evolution truly sucks, every single claim made in it's name should have obvious alternative explanations, that fit together far far better than evolution. For instance, you should be able to use your version of what happened to predict the sorts of discoveries that science will make over the next few decades, whether it be in paleontology or medicine, that are based on what you claim is true. Because evolution can do that, and you need to be able to do it better. Or we ask that you take your ball and go home.

It's no coincidence that the less educated a person is, the more likely they are to accept a 6,000 year old earth. I know ID'er dance around the question of how old earth is, because you don't have a frickiin' clue. And you don't care. The less you know, the more others can make up and you won't know the difference.

I used to be stupid. Real stupid. But then I was born and things started improving. Until ID'ers and creationists can demonstrate that they too followed that same path, I'm sort of forced to guess that they didn't know they had that option.

(That's my insult, almost a requirement if I'm to hope for a response from you.)

[Alzael]

If you really believe the phycology behind atheistic evolution, then I am sad for you. Not that you believe it, but that you are

unactually unable to live it. 

It must be also sad to realize that once you are dead no one will miss you. You wont even miss you.

Don't be. Our way is far more amazing than yours could ever hope to be. As I'm fond of quoting what a friend of mine once said.

Here's a way of approaching the universe: You are a tiny speck of insignificant biological material in an immense universe that probably defies your brain's ability of understanding. Yet you are remarkable, in innumerable ways. Every second of every day you are a walking ecosystem of life, housing trillions of microbes that continuously interact with you to keep both you and them alive. Your body is constantly building and rebuilding itself, encoding information on simple strains of molecules at the speed of jet engines, in each and every nucleus-possessing cell in your body. You are a walking, talking, living, breathing orchestra of life, a beautiful display of the potential inherent in our particular universe.

You are the remarkable product of an unbroken, let me say that again, UNBROKEN line of descendants stretching all the way back to the very first interactions of seemingly pointless inanimate molecules. You share a common ancestry with every living thing ever, including the estimated 106 billion humans who have ever lived. You are tied to the trees and the birds and the small phytoplankton that gently ride the crests and dips of the oceans of this world. You are part of the vibrant tapestry of what we refer to as life, a piece of art that stretches back billions upon billions of years. Everything this universe has thrown at you and your ancestors has been roundly defeated - from harsh radiation, to extraterrestrial objects, to volcanic eruptions and more. You are a symbol of utter perseverance, of the sheer will to continue onwards. You are a cry in the dark, the voice of one who will not be quiet.

So now you've realized that there is no inherent meaning to existence. So what? This doesn't mean life has suddenly lost meaning - it means there was no meaning in the first place. So you haven't actually lost anything. Instead, you have gained a wonderful opportunity. Give existence the meaning it is seeking. MAKE a purpose for yourself. Maybe it should be your kids, or maybe it should be giving from the bounty you have (because let us face reality - if you have an internet connection and personal computer, you are in the top 10%, maybe even the top 1%, of humanity). Maybe you should learn a new skill, explore a new facet of creation that you never realized was open to you.

So why do you teach a toddler how to behave? Because maybe that toddler will be the one to find other life, other existence in our so far lonely universe. Or maybe they will be the father, the mother, the close friend, the lover, the supporter of the one who does. Or maybe they will be the person to speak out at just the right moment, the one to stand up and stand out, who will provide the inspiration, or the moment of connection for the person who does. Or maybe that toddler will be the one to protect the life around us from an otherwise inevitable end, from the sucking void of empty existence that we struggle against every second of our being.

Are you just a breeder? Just biology? What an insult to biology! Just?!? I forgive you, because you know not what you say You are the product of a few basic particles, a few basic forces, yet you are impossibly complex, impossibly intricate. The sheer unlikeliness of your very existence is staggering, and yet here you are. The title of "breeder" is just a single facet of what you are. You can be a teacher, a leader, a thinker, a cook, a scientist, an artist, a musician, a protector, an enlightener, a champion, a peacemaker, a lover, a friend, a companion, a confidant... the list is a vast as the seemingly infinite complexities of neuron interactions in the collection of molecular structures known as cells in your brain.

And let us not end our poetic license there, for if all that is true, than this is also: There is something after death. The part of you that continues to exist in all life around you will never cease to be, not as long as things from this planet continue to live. You will continue on, interminably, from the beginning of life to its end potentially countless aeons from now, if ever. Maybe through some fluke you will be the Eve for humanity in the future, the one woman every human will trace their ancestry back to. Maybe not. But who can tell what the future holds. Rather than collapse under the imagined weight of nothingness, I posit that you should grasp hold of your life, and take it to heights heretofore unseen.

Your pale, limited view of the world doesn't even compare.

[Anfauglir]

I did ask on the previous page that you state, in your own words, what you believe the ToE is.  I want to repeat that request to help me work out exactly where your understanding is flawed.

may I quote outside sources? I want to show that I have not made up natural selection.

No, you may not - you misunderstand what I'm asking of you.

It doesn't matter whether you believe what you will type in your response.
It doesn't matter if what you type is supported by every scientist under the sun, or if you just dreamed it last night.

What matters is that you tell us exactly what you think the theory of evolution is.  Because I have yet to be convinced that what YOU think it is bears any relation to what anyone ELSE thinks it is.

I just want to be absolutely clear on what you think you are objecting to, since most of your posts seem to show no real understanding of the subject.

So I want it all in your own words, NOT copy and pasted, please.  Any teacher will tell you that one of the best ways of understanding a subject is to put it in your own words.

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

Rhocam, this is unacceptable as a response.

Either you will take the question seriously and explain clearly what your understanding of the theory of evolution says, or moderator action will be taken.  You will not be permitted to dodge questions in this manner.

[velkyn]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work. I see no point in discussing them

Ah, this only after you've been shown to be utterly wrong in your claims about evolutionary theory.  Such a sad little Christian who has been caught with his pants down.   You have demosntrated that you have no clue about how evolutionary theory works or what it consists of.   

It's so fun ot see Christians discard their claims of truth and try to act like they knew about evolutoinary theory all along.  It's also fun to watch them try to make up other excuses.  Now we have Rhocam deciding that sciences shouldn'tn be divided up because it will mysteriously "shield' everyone from dealing with the actual issues.  Sorry, but no, Rhocam.  Having different specialities has helped science pursue the truth. And as always has benefited you, but in your willful ignorance, you try to ignore that.  I do wish I could put all of you who dislike science so much onto a nice desert island where you could pray and pray and die of easily controlled diseases.  You see, Rhocam, what really happens with knowledge is that it's passed down, and people, even little hypocrites like you, can use it repeatedly. 

No one, except creationists, try to ignore any part of science.  Creationism requires that little trick.   Of course, creationists now aren't like they used to be.  Tsk, the ones back in the 19th century or even the early 20th, would see so many of you as heretics since you've actually accepted some science since you couldn't ignore it anymore. 

And awwww, poor widdle creationist has to lie again when he claims tha no one will miss the people here when they are dead.  Golly, Rhocam, you sure do lie a lot for being a supposed Christians.  Your god really hates liars.  What do you think it must consider you when you intentionally lie repeatedly with no evidence that you are sorry about it in anyway?   As always, if hell exists, it'll be packed to the rafters with "good Christians".

[rhocam]

I did ask on the previous page that you state, in your own words, what you believe the ToE is.  I want to repeat that request to help me work out exactly where your understanding is flawed.

may I quote outside sources? I want to show that I have not made up natural selection.

No, you may not - you misunderstand what I'm asking of you.

It doesn't matter whether you believe what you will type in your response.
It doesn't matter if what you type is supported by every scientist under the sun, or if you just dreamed it last night.

What matters is that you tell us exactly what you think the theory of evolution is.  Because I have yet to be convinced that what YOU think it is bears any relation to what anyone ELSE thinks it is.

I just want to be absolutely clear on what you think you are objecting to, since most of your posts seem to show no real understanding of the subject.

So I want it all in your own words, NOT copy and pasted, please.  Any teacher will tell you that one of the best ways of understanding a subject is to put it in your own words.

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

Rhocam, this is unacceptable as a response.

Either you will take the question seriously and explain clearly what your understanding of the theory of evolution says, or moderator action will be taken.  You will not be permitted to dodge questions in this manner.

What is unacceptable about this?

I claim that evolution has been misused by athiests to create a world where God is deemed unecessary. I have no fear of evolution. It is science, where it is applied scientifically. Athiests have taken evolution and used it to prosyletize those who are inclined to deny the existence of a God. You do not seek truth. You use psuedo-science to try to make everything materialistic. You use your belief system to mock and ridicule those who know God, without having any "science" or "empiracle"  evidence to support your world view.

You who profess athiesm have hijacked science in order to promote your own world view. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking majority, claiming that your way is better. You are preparred to "remove" all ignorance from the world. The very Idea that man is getting better is not scientific, nor is it evolution. We are notmarching towards "superman" as Dawkins would lead you to believe. There is no ultimate Human, evolutionary science insists this is not possible. Yet athiests are ok with the destruction of all those who are unwilling to hold to their tennets of faith.

So live in your self delusion, ridicule and mock me for knowing God. I don't care. But realize that your faith is directly responsible for most of the death destruction and dehumanizing of people currently in the world.

[Samothec]

... So you keep shifting the goal posts, hoping that if I can't see them I wont reach them. The mistake you make is thinking there are goal posts.

You can't see the parallel lines and goal posts. Hmmm. Are you even in a stadium? If so, can you see a square with square bags at three of the corners and a pentagonal plate at the fourth? That would be why you are so very, very off.

I am remembering why I had stopped following this thread. Great posts by the intelligent people, not so great from Rho. I will try to catch up and see if that changes.

[ParkingPlaces]

What is unacceptable about this?

I claim that evolution has been misused by athiests to create a world where God is deemed unecessary. I have no fear of evolution. It is science, where it is applied scientifically. Athiests have taken evolution and used it to prosyletize those who are inclined to deny the existence of a God. You do not seek truth. You use psuedo-science to try to make everything materialistic. You use your belief system to mock and ridicule those who know God, without having any "science" or "empiracle"  evidence to support your world view.

You who profess athiesm have hijacked science in order to promote your own world view. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking majority, claiming that your way is better. You are preparred to "remove" all ignorance from the world. The very Idea that man is getting better is not scientific, nor is it evolution. We are notmarching towards "superman" as Dawkins would lead you to believe. There is no ultimate Human, evolutionary science insists this is not possible. Yet athiests are ok with the destruction of all those who are unwilling to hold to their tennets of faith.

So live in your self delusion, ridicule and mock me for knowing God. I don't care. But realize that your faith is directly responsible for most of the death destruction and dehumanizing of people currently in the world.

There's a whole lot of charging goin' on here. If my mommy knew this about me, she's have me shot.

Could you please give us an example of how we have misused evolution. We may have, but nobody has come here and calmly explained where we've gone wrong. Well, they've tried by asking where the crockoducks are, but all that does is show that they have no understanding of the concept. and your blithe description of your understanding, though worthy of a Nobel Prize in some dimensions, isn't in ours.  I quote:

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

This is not the way civil discussion advances. I could describe the concept of democracy as "A bunch of people didn't like getting killed, and they were all prissy about the blood and stuff and so the pussies got together and made up some so called rules against manly things like overthrowing governments and made us all wear bike helmets and the next thing you know they all turned communist, just like the people they revolted against, because that it how people really are but they don't want to admit it."

See, when accuracy isn't an issue anybody can say anything and pretend it is true. That none of it holds up to scrutiny is apparently of little concern to believers who say abiogenesis and evolution are false. Nobody ever comes here taunting us with religious truth while simultaneously displaying even a minimal understanding of the science we non-creationists support. While amongst we atheists there are a number of folks who have read the bible and can argue the details, none of the fundamentalists who have shown up here have demonstrated even a Cliff Notes level understanding of the science they so despise. You included.

(At this point, I ranted for awhile and then deleted said rant. You lucked out.)

You seem to have a fairly dastardly view of us atheists. And you presume our view of believers is equally despicable. You seem to be under the impression that the only way to fix the world is to hate the right folks, and obviously if you hate the right groups, those groups will hate you and before long a fair and equitable solution will be worked out, where all the atheists are dead and you guys win. You know that your god loves us, despite our flaws. So you don't have to. How sweet.

No, you're not right about much. You don't understand our reasons, our motives, science in general, evolution specifically, or civility. Luckily you're real cute when sputtering foamy spittle all over your screen, so we get some entertainment value out of your spiels. You are angry about situations that don't exist and because of your own ignorance about some very relevant aspects of science. You are angry because someone dares suggest there are alternative explanations to reality, and since you don't have the time or patience to examine those claims, you are left no choice but to lash out at us. To prepare yourself, you read the first three paragraphs in a couple of really well designed web sites with flashing banners and animated jesus characters and lots of misspelled words and then call yourself an expert. And with that expertise you attack. And then you're surprised when the naughty atheists don't roll over and play dead once exposed to your mighty brain.

Oh well.

And I repeat, you sure are lucky I erased my rant. That would have really pissed you off.

[Samothec]

I understand, quite well how the mechanisms of evolution work.

Not according to what you've said here.

I see no point in discussing ...

Huh? You've done nothing but discuss (your flawed idea of) evolution. Plus this thread is titled "Evolution Explained". Why post in a thread when you don't see a point in discussing the subject of the thread? That is either trolling or idiocy.


Edit: wow, just found out that I had read more of this thread than I remembered. No wonder why so many of the replies to Rho seemed so familiar. Of course, upon rereading it and seeing Rho's responses I understand why I forgot it: better for my mental health.

[jetson]

But realize that your faith is directly responsible for most of the death destruction and dehumanizing of people currently in the world.

Quoted for evidence of Christian love.

I don't know why I am always amazed at the level of lying and misinformation some people are willing to spread in the name of their delusion.

[Anfauglir]

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

Rhocam, this is unacceptable as a response.

Either you will take the question seriously and explain clearly what your understanding of the theory of evolution says, or moderator action will be taken.  You will not be permitted to dodge questions in this manner.

What is unacceptable about this?

What is unacceptable is that you make numerous claims about evolution, but refuse to explain what you understand by the term.  From your posts it appears to be wildly different from what anyone else understands evolution to be.  When pressed for an answer, you produced the facetious mess quoted above.

Rhocam, it is entirely up to you - you can withdraw from this thread, or you can explain in your own words - in a serious fashion - what you understand evolution to be.  If you do this, we will be able to identify where the (seemingly considerable) gap lies between what you understand evolution to be, and what everyone else understands it to be.

[velkyn]

What is unacceptable about this?

I claim that evolution has been misused by athiests to create a world where God is deemed unecessary. I have no fear of evolution. It is science, where it is applied scientifically. Athiests have taken evolution and used it to prosyletize those who are inclined to deny the existence of a God. You do not seek truth. You use psuedo-science to try to make everything materialistic. You use your belief system to mock and ridicule those who know God, without having any "science" or "empiracle"  evidence to support your world view.

and as has been noted by others, you make these baseless claims repeatedly.  Show evidence for your claims.  If you have none, I do like the bearing of false witnesses repeatedly.   I wonder, if you do believe in this god, how many times can you sin intentionally and repeatedly and still expect it to forgive you?  What worth is such “forgiveness”?

You who profess athiesm have hijacked science in order to promote your own world view. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking majority, claiming that your way is better. You are preparred to "remove" all ignorance from the world. The very Idea that man is getting better is not scientific, nor is it evolution. We are notmarching towards "superman" as Dawkins would lead you to believe. There is no ultimate Human, evolutionary science insists this is not possible. Yet athiests are ok with the destruction of all those who are unwilling to hold to their tennets of faith.

  Ummm, where has Dawkins said any such thing?  More lies on you part, Rho?  And where is anyone saying that people who are unwilling to accept science should be destroyed?  I think religion should be removed by education.  However, if you do wish to reject the science that supports evolutionary theory, appers to support abiogenesis, the BBT, etc, and all of the things you enjoy, computers, modern medicine, modern food stuffs, etc, I’m sure you can go live as a hermit in the wilderness with no access to any of these.   

So live in your self delusion, ridicule and mock me for knowing God. I don't care. But realize that your faith is directly responsible for most of the death destruction and dehumanizing of people currently in the world.

No, I mock you for your evident ignorance.  You attack science because you don’t like how it shows your religion to be false, but you hypocritically still accept its benefits.  You do finish up with quite a nice lie at the end.  More false witnessing, evidently in ignorance and anger.  Please do support this claim with evidence. 

[caveat_imperator]

A scientific argument is not made by misquoting other scientist.

But it's pretty much all the anti-sciencers have.

[JeffPT]

I claim that evolution has been misused by athiests to create a world where God is deemed unecessary.

Jesus effing Christ you're nuts. 

Look dude, a scientific theory doesn't have any other goal than explaining how facts fit together.  That's it.  It isn't meant to destroy you, or to harm you in any way.  The FACT is, however, that the theory of evolution (purely as a by product) DOES make God completely unnecessary; in much the same way that the germ theory of disease makes the 'possessed by demons' theory unnecessary.  Don't you see that if you were hopelessly emotionally attached to the demon theory, you would react EXACTLY the same way when presented with the germ theory? 

Every single discovery we make, and every theory that science comes up with makes God more and more unnecessary.  I don't see why evolution is such a hang up for you.  They all destroy the need for God.  All of them. 

You do not seek truth. You use psuedo-science to try to make everything materialistic. You use your belief system to mock and ridicule those who know God, without having any "science" or "empiracle"  evidence to support your world view.

Laughable.  The same science that gives you every creature comfort you've ever known is the science that gives us evolution.  It works.  Evolution is true whether you like it or not.  It doesn't care what it does to your mythology. 

We mock your belief system because it deserves mockery.  It's ridiculous.  You should be mocked.  Openly mocked.  Believing in God is like walking around with your fly down all day. 

You who profess athiesm have hijacked science in order to promote your own world view.

Atheism isn't a world view.  The sum total of atheism rests in just a few words (I don't believe you) that we wouldn't even have to utter if you Christians would stop being so stupid. 

You are not seeking truth, you are seeking majority, claiming that your way is better.

And this is a problem for you because for centuries, religion has held all the power and now you're starting to lose it.  That's good.  Looking back at the past few thousand years, this world would have been a LOT better off without your the trash that is organized religion. 

The very Idea that man is getting better is not scientific, nor is it evolution. We are notmarching towards "superman" as Dawkins would lead you to believe. There is no ultimate Human, evolutionary science insists this is not possible.

The very fact that you wrote this for other people to read shows that you don't know anything about evolution.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is saying that man is marching toward a 'superman' state.  That is NOT what evolution says is happening.  Not in the least. 

We are, however, marching away from stupidity and toward understanding.  Science has given us that.  The only people holding us back are the people like you who are stuck in their ignorant mythologies. 

Yet athiests are ok with the destruction of all those who are unwilling to hold to their tennets of faith.

We don't want you to die.  We just want you to grow up. 

So live in your self delusion

The delusion is yours.  Science works.  It's real.  Religion doesn't.  It's fake. 

But realize that your faith is directly responsible for most of the death destruction and dehumanizing of people currently in the world.

You'd really like to believe that wouldn't you?  Too bad it's completely false. 

But if you'd like to stick with this, show me your evidence please.  Show me where atheists are causing death and destruction in the name of atheism around the world.  Show me.  If this is your claim here, then prove it with some evidence.  And while you're at it, if you'd like to see some evidence that RELIGIOUS faith is responsible for much of the terrible things that happen in our world, I give you this...  http://i.imgur.com/FUDKZ.jpg

Zoom in on it and scroll up and down.  It's just a small taste of the shit we atheists have to put up with. 

You're just wrong rhocam.  You're wrong.  God is not real.  Wake the hell up. 

[monkeymind]

Jeff:
theory of evolution (purely as a by product) DOES make God completely unnecessary; in much the same way that the germ theory of disease makes the 'possessed by demons' theory unnecessary.  Don't you see that if you were hopelessly emotionally attached to the demon theory, you would react EXACTLY the same way when presented with the germ theory? 

And people did freak out when Semmelweis suggested washing his hands before delivering babies. He wound up dying in a nuthouse over it.

Ignaz Semmelweis introduced handwashing standards after discovering that the occurrence of puerperal fever could be prevented by practicing hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. He believed that microbes causing infection were readily transferred from patients to patients, medical staff to patients and vice versa.

REACTION TO SEMMELWEIS’ DISCOVERY

Although hugely successful; Semmelweis’ discovery directly confronted with the beliefs of science and medicine in his time. His colleagues and other medical professionals refused to accept his findings mainly because they did not find it convincing that they could be responsible for spreading infections. The reaction reflected on his job as well when he was declined a reappointment in 1849.

Ignaz Semmelweis was himself reluctant to publish or demonstrate his research and findings publically but some of his students and colleagues wrote letters and delivered lectures explaining his work. But later, he somehow got convinced and during 1850, he delivered a few lectures in Vienna on the Origin of Puerperal Fever. He returned to Budapest in 1851 and joined St. Rochus Hospital remaining there till 1857. His antiseptic methods proved to be fruitful here as well. In 1861, he eventually published a book in German about his significant discovery followed by a series of letters written in reaction to his critics.
HIS DEMISE

The continued criticism and lash out finally broke him down. By 1865, he was suffering from depression, forgetfulness and other neural complaints and was eventually committed to an asylum. He only lasted there for two weeks and died on August 13, 1865 at the age of 47.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/semmelweis-germ-theory.html

[Vger]

Ignaz Semmelweis introduced handwashing standards after discovering that the occurrence of puerperal fever could be prevented by practicing hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. He believed that microbes causing infection were readily transferred from patients to patients, medical staff to patients and vice versa.

Semmelweis carried on handwashing standards. Cleaning ones self before eating after touching the dead or the sick was introduced long before him. It was written in the bible long ago. It just took us mere humans awhile to understand it. Go figure.


http://www.experiment-resources.com/semmelweis-germ-theory.html

I

[Ivellios]

Semmelweis carried on handwashing standards. Cleaning ones self before eating after touching the dead or the sick was introduced long before him. It was written in the bible long ago. It just took us mere humans awhile to understand it. Go figure.

So, there's no difference between "running water" and "clean" what-so-ever?

If you swim in stagnant water, you get sick and might die. Even a primitive ignorant goat herder knew it was better to water thier goats where there was flowing water as opposed to a stagnant pool. So, if you get a cut, you better wash it in a river instead of using that bowl of water that's been left on the dining room table. Obviously god doesn't think that boiling the water for a specific amount of time will do anything.

[riley2112]

Semmelweis carried on handwashing standards. Cleaning ones self before eating after touching the dead or the sick was introduced long before him. It was written in the bible long ago. It just took us mere humans awhile to understand it. Go figure.

So, there's no difference between "running water" and "clean" what-so-ever?

If you swim in stagnant water, you get sick and might die. Even a primitive ignorant goat herder knew it was better to water thier goats where there was flowing water as opposed to a stagnant pool. So, if you get a cut, you better wash it in a river instead of using that bowl of water that's been left on the dining room table. Obviously god doesn't think that boiling the water for a specific amount of time will do anything.

[springrain]

"it's is considerably easier to believe in God and that He created all of life than it is to believe in evolution."

Iamabeliever,

The big difference between believers and those who take science for answers about the world is that:

Believers like you are just afraid of not knowing, so scared to admit that you don't know and too lazy to take an effort to know what you don't know so you prefer to believe there is a god because god gives you easy answers to everything, you just need to have faith and believe.

Scientists, non-believers,  on the other hand, are NOT afraid of not knowing and they are willing to put their time and effort, even if it takes them years or decades, to find answers to their many questions/doubts,  to know what they don't know and to understand what they don't understand.

God seems to provide answers to everything, and an idea that has all answers is the most dangerous idea in the world.

[dono061]

  Good message,,,but a little deep for some who posted nonsense and with direct disregard
as to your post.

[EdgedInBlue]

Hatter23 hasn't been around for a little bit, so let me take a stab at this...

Evolution can not be proven. Where are the missing links, those being fossils showing any living creature transforming from one to the next. Even one.  They don't exist.

Argument from ignorance.

To me, it's is considerably easier to believe in God and that He created all of life than it is to believe in evolution.

Argument from incredulity.

But we believe in faith, not because of science - however, contrary to what you teach, science has not disproved Gods existence.

Strawman.

I invite your correction if I am wrong but doesn't the theory of evolution teach that all life came from a single cell organism?

This would count as a strawman, except that you asked whether you are wrong -- bonus points for that.  (And by the way, no, that is not what the ToE says.)

You can accept that but not God?

Argument from incredulity.

If believers in the Holy bible are wrong then we lose nothing. We just die. But if the bible is true, and the saved burn in hell for eternity then I caution you to carefully consider what you are preaching.

Pascal's Wager.

If you see a painting there must be a painter. See a building there must be a builder. See a creation there must be a creator.

Begging the question.

There was a beginning.

Irrelevant.

If I am correct in my faith, then I prey "May God bless you and open you heart and eyes to the truth. Amen".

Appeal to emotion.

I think I love your logic. Hope that's not too forward! 

[pianodwarf]

Hatter23 hasn't been around for a little bit, so let me take a stab at this...

I think I love your logic. Hope that's not too forward! 

No, it's not too forward... thank you.  (I had good teachers.)  Just for future reference, though, this thread hasn't had any posts in a while.  Generally, if a thread hasn't seen any posts in about three months, you should refrain fro posting it.  They call that "thread necromancy", and it's problematic for various reasons, so it's best to avoid it.

Welcome to WWGHA.  I hope you enjoy it here!