Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[ErasOmnius]

That's not sad. That's positively glorious.

It's sad that a theory that is so un-substantiated like Evolution has to be taught as dogma in the West's schools.

Here's a few:

Polystrated tree fossils [petrified tree matter existing vertically through alleged eons of time layers]. Quite common in Nova Scotia, Canada, and other places around the world. [Where does that crazy geographic strata layering exist perfectly? Basic amphibians in Ordovician and Silurian, Complex Reptiles in Mesozoic? No-where!]

The Cambrian explosion. That allegedly 600 million yrs ago, life suddenly became so complex around the world.

You see... in a fair Western World. People would admit, "Hey's there plenty of mistakes with Evolution...so of course let's teach other points of view to the younglings."

But our Western World is winding down, and cannot tolerate different points of view.

[Dante]

1) If you want to argue science, do it properly. I want sources, links, structured arguments with points leading to conclusions. I don't want lazy paragraphs that assume a title is enough of an argument and I don't want a single link to an article that does all of the arguing for you. I've spent far too long pandering to the half-baked chattering of fools to have any patience left for this rubbish.

2) If you can't structure your argument properly then I suggest you don't argue at all. I've also had enough of stupid people saying stupid things in this thread and had rather hoped that it would have died by now.

3) Evolution by natural selection is, and I do not overstate this, a cornerstone of life science. Everything we know about life, biology, anatomy, physiology, development, makes sense only in terms of natural selection. Take away natural selection and the entire school of biology ceases to make sense. Those who believe otherwise fall into two categories: those who do not understand natural selection and those who do not want to understand natural selection.

4) If you want unsubstatiated claims, look to creationism. Where the answer to every single question it is possible to ask is "because it says so in this book."

[SandChigger]

You see... in a fair Western World. People would admit, "Hey's there plenty of mistakes with Evolution...so of course let's teach other points of view to the younglings."

But our Western World is winding down, and cannot tolerate different points of view.

Wow... someone even more ignorant of science than Hwi. At least as an irresponsible [=not responsible, right?] corporate banker she can play with the numbers and bedazzle the equally or more clueless. But you got no-thing.

(Had major head trauma or something this week?)

[Wolf]

Erasmus, just start reading the thread from the beginning. While the totality of the evidence only mostly argues in favor of a naturalistic origin of species, intelligent design is logically inconsistent (i.e. logically impossible) without acknowledging that naturalistic evolution is possible--which defeats its "purpose" in the first place. That may not make sense to you at face-value, but abstract reasoning backs it up.

[ErasOmnius]

1) If you want to argue science, do it properly. I want sources, links, structured arguments with points leading to conclusions. I don't want lazy paragraphs that assume a title is enough of an argument and I don't want a single link to an article that does all of the arguing for you. I've spent far too long pandering to the half-baked chattering of fools to have any patience left for this rubbish.

2) If you can't structure your argument properly then I suggest you don't argue at all. I've also had enough of stupid people saying stupid things in this thread and had rather hoped that it would have died by now.

3) Evolution by natural selection is, and I do not overstate this, a cornerstone of life science. Everything we know about life, biology, anatomy, physiology, development, makes sense only in terms of natural selection. Take away natural selection and the entire school of biology ceases to make sense. Those who believe otherwise fall into two categories: those who do not understand natural selection and those who do not want to understand natural selection.

4) If you want unsubstatiated claims, look to creationism. Where the answer to every single question it is possible to ask is "because it says so in this book."

I have to provide you with links and sources...otherwise I am lazy and pandering?

I find it hard to believe that you have not heard of any of this before. Just text someof the words I have provided. These topics have been debated all over the Internet, ad infinitum...

Sorry to bring up the belief that all evolution cling-ers really believe in is that they are Slime+Time.

Maybe I should just go away, be scared, and hide in my little church room.

C'mon man.

[ErasOmnius]

Erasmus, just start reading the thread from the beginning. While the totality of the evidence only mostly argues in favor of a naturalistic origin of species, intelligent design is logically inconsistent (i.e. logically impossible) without acknowledging that naturalistic evolution is possible--which defeats its "purpose" in the first place. That may not make sense to you at face-value, but abstract reasoning backs it up.

Are you talking about Natural Selection?

[ErasOmnius]

Wow... someone even more ignorant of science than Hwi. At least as an irresponsible [=not responsible, right?] corporate banker she can play with the numbers and bedazzle the equally or more clueless. But you got no-thing.

(Had major head trauma or something this week?)

Sorry I don't believe that my 8-year old should be taught solely that he is nothing more than Slime+Time, when there is evidence to the contrary.

[Dante]

1) No, there is no evidence to the contrary. None. If you think otherwise, prove it.

2) I said that I wouldn't accept "go look for it yourself" responses. If you actually read this thread, or did a search on the forum, you would find that I have come across this 'intelligent design' bullshit before and have provided long, detailed replies demonstrating that it is of as much scientific worth as a leadless pencil.

3) Don't multi-post, it's against the rules.

4) Yes, you are lazy. And apparently don't know how to read properly because I said that I was pandering, not you. In the sense of "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism."" ref. In my case, I have been lowering my standards by pretending that creationism is worthy of debate at all rather than immediate and contemptuous dismissal.

[SandChigger]

Sorry I don't believe that my 8-year old should be taught solely that he is nothing more than Slime+Time

Personally, I think teaching religion to children that young is a form of child abuse.

[ErasOmnius]

Personally, I think teaching religion to children that young is a form of child abuse.

To teach them to turn the other cheek when violence and scorn is thrown at them.

To teach them all men are equal regardless of race or ethnicity.

To teach them regardless of age, human beings have high value [before birth and at the near-end of life].

To teach them that the Son of God is their loving older brother.

To teach them that the Father loves them and wants to spend eternity with them.

To teach them that helping the poor and homeless, and educating them, is a good thing

What is it, SandChigger, that you don't like?

[Tatar Khan]

Sorry I don't believe that my 8-year old should be taught solely that he is nothing more than Slime+Time

I am not sure about where you live but here in Canada actual theory of evolution I think is taught in grade 9 or 10 (and I think they still do the crappy job explaining it). Before that it is generally mentioned but not really taught. So if your school system is even close to Canadian, I think you should have no worrries about your 8 years old. Plus in the end I don't think it is possible to teach the kid at that age the complexities of the theory of evolution.

Personally, I think teaching religion to children that young is a form of child abuse.

Well in some religions the parents can't wait for their child to grow up and make a rational choice because it could be to late than. Plus according to most Christians believe the unbaptised and heretics go to hell and so the religious parents don't want their children going there.

One good thing is that latter in life the child has the choice of leaving the religion.

To teach them to turn the other cheek when violence and scorn is thrown at them.

To teach them all men are equal regardless of race or ethnicity.

To teach them regardless of age, human beings have high value [before birth and at the near-end of life].

To teach them that the Son of God is their loving older brother.

To teach them that the Father loves them and wants to spend eternity with them.

To teach them that helping the poor and homeless, and educating them, is a good thing

Well I am not sure about number one. I don

[MrFlibble]

If your parents don

[Wolf]

Erasmus, like I said earlier, you really need to read the full content of previous posts before making demands of other users--especially when a topic was as hard-fought and extensively discussed as this one. Dante, myself, Chigger, Edric and others are not going to like re-writing our extensive, well-researched, thought-out posts just because you're not willing to click a few buttons. Like I said, a lot of the answers to your questions are there. But, for my part, I essentially came to the conclusion that intelligent design is an impossible concept, and should be acknowledged in schools for what it is--an attempt to reconcile traditional creationism with modern science that collapses under its own ambition, cannot satisfy the latter, and profanes the former.

[ErasOmnius]

I am not sure about where you live but here in Canada actual theory of evolution I think is taught in grade 9 or 10 (and I think they still do the crappy job explaining it). Before that it is generally mentioned but not really taught. So if your school system is even close to Canadian, I think you should have no worrries about your 8 years old. Plus in the end I don't think it is possible to teach the kid at that age the complexities of the theory of evolution.

Well in some religions the parents can't wait for their child to grow up and make a rational choice because it could be to late than. Plus according to most Christians believe the unbaptised and heretics go to hell and so the religious parents don't want their children going there.

One good thing is that latter in life the child has the choice of leaving the religion.

Well I am not sure about number one. I don

[Dante]

Oh please. A great many of the world's ills can be traced back to application (and perversion) of religious rules. Many of the most profane individuals profess themselves to be devout. Hypocrisy is rife and you are no exception.

[athanasios]

Personally, I think teaching religion to children that young is a form of child abuse.

It is not your business. You are against the family and view sex as a pleasure only. When you have children then you can speak.

[MrFlibble]

It is not your business. You are against the family and view sex as a pleasure only. When you have children then you can speak.

Why does this remind me of the "You can't judge KJA's books because you're not a writer yourself" argument?

[athanasios]

Because people with similar views kill their own children through abortion. For them: "Sex is only for pleasure and children are a side effect".

[MrFlibble]

Because people with similar views kill their own children through abortion.

Sounds like a prejudice to me.

[Edit] Oh, and by the way:

You are against the family and view sex as a pleasure only.

For them: "Sex is only for pleasure and children are a side effect".

Yet in reality, children are "our duty to the Party", eh? And only those who practice goodsex should make judgements about what is right and what is wrong in education?

[SandChigger]

To teach them to turn the other cheek when violence and scorn is thrown at them.

To teach them all men are equal regardless of race or ethnicity.

To teach them regardless of age, human beings have high value [before birth and at the near-end of life].

To teach them that the Son of God is their loving older brother.

To teach them that the Father loves them and wants to spend eternity with them.

To teach them that helping the poor and homeless, and educating them, is a good thing

What is it, SandChigger, that you don't like?

I don't like teaching children that wanton stupidity and ignorance are acceptable, for starters.

#1 isn't something American "Christians" really practice anyway, and besides, teaching a child to stand up for itself, as Tatar_Khan pointed out, but to ignore idiots as long as possible, is far more practical. A lesson that doesn't need to be couched in religion, either way.

#2 Not a religious concept. Not a "Christian" one, at any rate. Should be taught by parents by example.

#3 Not a religious concept, and maybe a bit esoteric for children below a certain age. Again, taught by example.

#4 & #5 are fairy-tale bullshit, so why clutter a child's mind with them? Teaching fantasy as truth is abusive.

#6 Not really a religious concept, but again a good thing to teach BY EXAMPLE.

It is not your business. You are against the family and view sex as a pleasure only. When you have children then you can speak.

Well, considering that you really have no idea what I am for or against, your opinion is, as usual, worth nothing.

And can we also expect YOU to keep silent on things on things that are "not your business" and of which you have no experience? I see no evidence for that thus far. :)

[Anathema]

Trust me. The West of today has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

It doesn't?

That's the best news I've heard in years!

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to celebrate.

[Dante]

...When you have children then you can speak.

But we were all children. Heck, some of you still are as far as I can see. And as far as I'm concerned, the perspective of a child is more important than that of an adult in this situation. An adult is supposed to want to bring up their children "properly," but a child has no intrinsic prejudices and should not have those of others forced upon them.

Looking back, I am beyond grateful that I was told I could believe what I wanted. I remember asking my mother once if I had been baptised (I think a friend had mentioned it in school), being told no, but I could if I wanted to. I thought about it for a while, and decided no, I really didn't. I can justify my reasoning on several different levels now, but the important point is that I was able to make the decision then. I can't help but pity people who were never offered that choice.

[Wolf]

I was going back through this thread because I remembered how much fun it was, and I have to take issue with one thing re. the digression on Barabbas:

Hwi said this:

"And yet, a quick look at Wiki reveals -   "Abba has been found as a personal name in a First Century burial at Giv'at ja-Mivtar, and Abba also appears as a personal name frequently in the Gemara section of the Talmud, dating from AD 200-400.[16] These findings support "Barabbas" being used to indicate the son of a person named Abba."  So you see, Wolf, such a practice was neither self-effacing nor heretical."

(Quotes from Wiki are bold.)

Which is funny, since she did that to argue in favor of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas being different people. Yes, I said, "Jesus Barabbas," because that was his name, and the very next line of the Wiki is... "Abba means "father" in Aramaic, and appears both translated and untranslated in the Gospels. A translation of Bar-Abbas would be son of the father. Jesus often referred to God as "father", and Jesus' use of the Aramaic word Abba survives untranslated in Mark 14:36 (in most English translations). This has led some authors (named below) to speculate that "bar-Abb

[SandChigger]

Hmph! That doesn't matter at all, because the statistics show that it would be impossible for a replicator to arise spontaneously that could synthesize all the proteins in a full functioning sheep cell! Especially NOT in a reducing atmosphere!

Nice try, though, WoofWoof! :P

[athanasios]

...

Sorry, but if we are going to continue quoting such ridiculous explanations it will be better to stop posting and read a book of Zechariah Sitchin. ::)