Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

rhocam



    Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13

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.

as usual, a creationist depends on their willful ignorance to attack something that they don't like.    Rhocam, you have no idea what evolutionary theory is at all.     Evolutionary theory postulates that living beings are acted upon by their environments.  I see not one mention of that very essential fact in your nonsense.  You seem to think evolutionary theory postulates a nonsense world like Dr. Seuss, and indeed that's all your claims seem to rest on.   You are wrong.

how? its not my theory. Postulate
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, I have one simple suggestion for you.  Go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book on evolution done by actual scientists, and read it cover-to-cover.  After all, if you're going to argue something, you're suppose to know what you're talking about.  Going from the above quote, you've obviously have no idea what evolution is. 

That, or your only "education" on the subject came from Ray Comfort.

You agrue against God on the same premise

No offense, rhocam, but your understanding is deficient to a great degree.  This is why people asked you to define it in your own words, because that's how you show that you really understand something.  Anyone can copy and paste someone else's words, but you don't really learn anything when you do that.  It would do me no good, for example, to be able to say E = mc^2 unless I understood what it meant well enough to be able to explain it (this formula allows us to determine the total amount of energy bound up in a fixed amount of matter; the total energy is equal to the mass involved times the square of the speed of light).

Please show us that you are willing to at least listen to what we're saying.  You don't have to accept it blindly; in fact, that defeats the purpose.  But you do have to be willing to think seriously about it and not simply reject it because it doesn't fit what you already know.  Knowledge isn't just about learning things that match what you expect, it's about resolving the inevitable situations where the things you learn contradict what you expect.

For example, I expect wood to burn when I light it on fire.  If I take a piece of wood and discover that it doesn't burn when I try to light it on fire, that's a contradiction.  At that point, I need to figure out why.  Maybe the wood was soaking wet, and thus can't burn unless it dries out first.  Or maybe it wasn't actually wood and thus wouldn't burn.  Perhaps it's a kind of wood which is highly resistant to being burned.  Or perhaps it's something else entirely.  Once I figure out which of those is accurate (by testing them), I can then tell other people what I found out and let them check my findings.  If they run the same tests and find that it works the same way, then we can be reasonably sure that it's accurate.

That is the scientific method in action.  That is the process evolutionary theory went through.  And that is why statements that it's faked up or simply wrong don't fly without results that people can actually investigate.  If those results are repeatable, then there's something to what those people are saying.  If nobody else can come up with the same results, following the same process of testing, then those statements can't be accepted.

emphasis mine

that is not the process. I have been on talk origins. Darwin proposed an idea and science ever since has been trying to confirm it. But with out appealing to a higher power.


To ask me to put my convictions and beliefs aside to see things your way is as impossible for me as it is to ask you to do the same when exploring God.

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, I have one simple suggestion for you.  Go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book on evolution done by actual scientists, and read it cover-to-cover.  After all, if you're going to argue something, you're suppose to know what you're talking about.  Going from the above quote, you've obviously have no idea what evolution is. 

That, or your only "education" on the subject came from Ray Comfort.

I will if you will read David Berlinski's book ,the Devil's Delusion : atheism and its scientific pretensions

You may suggest one now, I will get to it once I have finished Francis S. Collins book, The Language of God
Oh yeah and Shadows in Flight by my favorite fiction author Orson Scott Card. I love the Enderverse.
Then I will have time to read your science fiction.
Changed Change Reason Date
Omen Nucking Futz February 16, 2012, 04:36:18 PM