--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

[bluepistolero]

Ultimately All is vanity (I think somebody said that once).

Actually, no one said it, since according to evolutionists, people in the bible are just myths.

bluepistolero

[bluepistolero]

They could ping you when talking about you, but then I suppose, that might elicit a response from you, lol.

[va4me]

Pete, there is a book called "Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker that you might be interested in reading.

Most of what we humans spend our time doing is designed to keep us from thinking about the reality that we are all destined to die.

The book won the pulitzer prize in 1974.

[GSHastings]

Most of what we humans spend our time doing is designed to keep us from thinking about the reality that we are all destined to die.

Actually, a large percentage of we humans spend our time doing things that are designed to keep us thinking about the reality that we are all destined to die.

Ah, yes. 1974. What better topic for a book to garner a pulitzer prize in 1974?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Go suck a shotgun...

[bluepistolero]

Good grief, it's just a thread.

bluepistolero

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Go suck a shotgun..."

Still unable to make an argument. How about instead of sucking a shotgun, I just sit here and laugh at you instead? :)

[YHAOS]



Well, there would have to be a third way to explain life origins, since the theory of evolution does not cover life origins.

That’s what I thought too; that the theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. But, I don’t think Harvard is expecting to explore a third theory of origins (at least no such third theory was mentioned), so there must be some degree of confusion existing in someone’s mind at Harvard. I don’t know that anyone is lying up there, but, properly, doesn’t origins belong in the philosophy or the theology dpt? Yet the Science Dpt seems to be all over the subject.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of repeating a lie. Creationists never do.

If I ever do (lie), I’m sure you’ll be the very first to let me know, and that you will justly rule on differences over disputed facts or matters of opinion. I’m a Presbyterian, by the way.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Four things:

1. I'm a serious person. (caballero)

2. The guy is a Marxist troll (pinchi caverone)

3. Make up your own mind. (pensando?)

4. Don't bother me with it again. (hasta luego)

Yo habla Espaniol muy muy buen - although I don't write it well... (poquito)

[Dimensio]

That’s what I thought too; that the theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life.

Then you were right.

But, I don’t think Harvard is expecting to explore a third theory of origins (at least no such third theory was mentioned), so there must be some degree of confusion existing in someone’s mind at Harvard.

On what do you base this? A USA Today article? Can you actually quote one of the Harvard scientists in stating that the theory of evolution covers the ultimate origin of life or are you just going to continue asserting that such a connection was made without providing any actual evidence?

Yet the Science Dpt seems to be all over the subject.

Is this your evidence? That the origin of life is studied at all is what links it to the theory of evolution?

[Dimensio]

Although intelligent design is often very hard to detect, especially with computer software, it obviously is possible to prove that intelligent design exists, abundantly.

But how can you demonstrate that intelligent design is present if you can't point to a hypothetical counterexample?

Whether or not it is "falsifiable"...you tell me?

It's not my responsibility to demonstrate that ID is a worthwhile explanation. IF you assert that ID can be detected, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's possible to hypothetically falsify the explanation. An explanation that can't be hypothetically falsified is fundamentally worthless because there's no way to determine what qualifies as evidence for your argument.

[YHAOS]

The *shyster* is the one who claims abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution, and that the Harvard professors linked the two.

Although the professor clearly is talking about abiogenesis, I don’t know that we can accuse the reporter of being a shyster. The morons of the press are fully capable of misreporting most any story, but the Harvard Science Dpt’s fingerprints seem to be all over this story, it’s obvious the money is going to that department, and evolution appears to be the focus of attention. I don’t think the reporter is writing anything but what he’s been told by professor Liu &c.

I’ve always understood that the subject of origins was properly a study for theology or philosophy, but clearly the Science Dpt is taking the lead here, and, in fact, those other departments seem to be out in the cold without a cent or a say. But, maybe we’ll discover it was all just a BIG mistake, thanks to a really stupid reporter.

Sorry if you can't read English.

Well I have my occassional problem, as do we all except the very few perfect ones, but my real difficulty sometimes is with slippery English.

[KMJames]

If I may chime in with a few questions - has "evolution" ruled that the origin of species and the origin of life are mutually exclusive?

It seems that if the hypothesis is that species evolve from predecessors, and since "evolution" concerns itself with predecessors, then why not be concerned with the original predecessor?

At what point in the progression does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?

[KMJames]

...or perhaps I should have written -

"... at what point in the REGRESSION does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?"

[Dimensio]

If I may chime in with a few questions - has "evolution" ruled that the origin of species and the origin of life are mutually exclusive?

It's not a matter of rulings. The theory of evolution covers a specific scope, based upon the processes that it involves. Amongst those processes are organisms that replicate imperfectly. The process by which the first life form came into existence must have involved, in at least one step, a point where there were no organisms replicating imperfectly. As such, the theory of evolution cannot address life origins.

It seems that if the hypothesis is that species evolve from predecessors, and since "evolution" concerns itself with predecessors, then why not be concerned with the original predecessor?

Because how the first life form came into existence doesn't matter to how its offspring and their successive generations of offspring evolved. It's like insisting that you need to know where the metal originally came from before you know how to build a car.

I posit three scenarios: the first life forms came about through natural, undirected processes; the first life forms came about through a divine agent zap-poofing them into existence or the first life forms were seeded on Earth by time-travelling humans. Would evolution require that any one of those possibilities be true? If so, can you explain how one of the others being true would falsify the theory of evolution? If not, then how the first life forms came to exist is truly irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

At what point in the progression does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?

When you go back to where you don't have imperfect replication.

[mordo]

When you go back to where you don't have imperfect replication.

No one ever uses this argument. It is a complete and total strawman.
Define this, Be specific. Give citations.
Provide evidence. Got a citation for this?
Support this claim with evidence.
All premises in science are materialistic. Science can't make meaningful statements about anything else.
Perhaps you could make a real fool out of me by stating something in science that is proven.
Are you just going to blow me off again for daring to suggest that your assertions be supported?

[KMJames]

If so, can you explain how one of the others being true would falsify the theory of evolution? If not, then how the first life forms came to exist is truly irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Well, actually it seems that if any of the three candidates you posited as possible agents in originating life were "the originating force", then that force may have acted at other times.

It seems that it would be quite relevant to evolution, if it were subjected to such a force even once after the "origin".

[Dimensio]

Well, actually it seems that if any of the three candidates you posited as possible agents in originating life were "the originating force", then that force may have acted at other times.

There is no postulate in biology that abiognesis was only possible in the past and is not possible now.

It seems that it would be quite relevant to evolution, if it were subjected to such a force even once after the "origin".

How would it be relevant? Be specific.

[RadioAstronomer]

no hard feelings I hope

Not at all. :-)

[VadeRetro]

Okay, I'll bite. No person who buys into intelligent design dares to face what challenge?

What about the Cambrian explosion?

Is it that hard to follow the replies back? Do I already sense you're going to make a point of being dense here?