Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics. He did not start another religion and none was started in his name. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinLois this post has nothing to do with Darwin's religious beliefs at the time, it has to do with the secular religion of science and mathematics that Darwin spawned with his book. Darwin allows those who choose to believe that life spawned from a warm pond, to deny the existence of anything outside of our planet, it also allows these people to believe that we, the human race are the best and brightest species in the universe. Presumably you include yourself in this defintion of "people." There is just no evidence to support this, and there is great evidence to support the implausibility of this idea, as the DNA code, which causes evolution because of it's almost infinite complexity, could not have formed from randomness, in a warm pond. Again, this is like the sun, providing the light and heat for life on the Earth, before the Sun existed, it is a mathematical impossibility. You have objective proof that he was wrong, right? We're waiting to hear you present it. So far, all you've done is make baseless statements. Baseless statements are not evidence of anything but your inability to think rationally. Lois If I said that life was created when an asteroid crashed into a bubbling pond of semi liquid sulfur that shot a splash of that sulfur into a warm pond nearby and life was created from this, would you need proof that I was wrong? or would I need to prove that I was right? Darwin or those who champion his theory, need prove his theory correct, no one else needs prove it wrong It is the scientific principle that the creator of a theory needs to provide evidence and proof of that theory. Hubble provided evidence of red shift, and with this Hubble crippled Einstein's mathematical model of a static universe, and the current cosmic expansion theory is attributed to Hubble and is accepted, because of proof that Hubble discovered. If you have proof of spontaneous generation, (which is needed to prove Darwin's theory, please present it now) You need do this, until you do your theory has no meaning and is not even a true theory. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, and a few bird beaks, to explain the universe. Seriously saying that evolution created differences in finches is correct, but furthering this to say that evolution therefor created the finches in the first place, has no scientific merit.
Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics. He did not start another religion and none was started in his name. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinLois this post has nothing to do with Darwin's religious beliefs at the time, it has to do with the secular religion of science and mathematics that Darwin spawned with his book. Darwin allows those who choose to believe that life spawned from a warm pond, to deny the existence of anything outside of our planet, it also allows these people to believe that we, the human race are the best and brightest species in the universe. Presumably you include yourself in this defintion of "people." There is just no evidence to support this, and there is great evidence to support the implausibility of this idea, as the DNA code, which causes evolution because of it's almost infinite complexity, could not have formed from randomness, in a warm pond. Again, this is like the sun, providing the light and heat for life on the Earth, before the Sun existed, it is a mathematical impossibility. You have objective proof that he was wrong, right? We're waiting to hear you present it. So far, all you've done is make baseless statements. Baseless statements are not evidence of anything but your inability to think rationally. Lois If I said that life was created when an asteroid crashed into a bubbling pond of semi liquid sulfur that shot a splash of that sulfur into a warm pond nearby and life was created from this, would you need proof that I was wrong? or would I need to prove that I was right? Darwin or those who champion his theory, need prove his theory correct, no one else needs prove it wrong It is the scientific principle that the creator of a theory needs to provide evidence and proof of that theory. Hubble provided evidence of red shift, and with this Hubble crippled Einstein's mathematical model of a static universe, and the current cosmic expansion theory is attributed to Hubble and is accepted, because of proof that Hubble discovered. If you have proof of spontaneous generation, (which is needed to prove Darwin's theory, please present it now) You need do this, until you do your theory has no meaning and is not even a true theory. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, and a few bird beaks, to explain the universe. Seriously saying that evolution created differences in finches is correct, but furthering this to say that evolution therefor created the finches in the first place, has no scientific merit. You have demonstrated many times over that you do not comprehend the scientific method and that you have a deep resentment against science in general. There are mountains of evidence in support of Darwins theory of evolution, in other words common ancestry. It is not, nor is it intended to be the theory of everything in regards to life including how life started. That is a requirement only you place on a book you have not read, and are highly unlikely to read. It is clear that no matter how much proof anyone provides for your consideration, you would not read it and claim it nonsense. If you really want to find it you can google it. But you will not seek any information that does not fit into your narrow desire to support ideas that you have already decided for yourself. Why should we believe you would actually read any of the research that has been done in the last 100 plus years that all support his theory? You haven't ever read the book you claim is nonsense. You did not come to this forum to share ideas and expand your own understanding on anything. Your only reason for being here is to inflict whatever damage you can on the scientific process in the name of your make believe, irrelevant god. Sadly for you, you are not capable of doing any damage. The scientific process is far more brutal to new ideas than anything you will ever be capable of. Darwin's theory has stood the battering of many far more educated attacks for more than a hundred years. You will never measure up to the task you have given yourself. The only thing you will accomplish is more frustration and bitterness than you already demonstrate in your posts. You have no intention of exploring or understanding anything because you think you already know it all. You're wasting your time and everyone else's that you engage, as long as your mind remains so tightly closed.
Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics. He did not start another religion and none was started in his name. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinLois this post has nothing to do with Darwin's religious beliefs at the time, it has to do with the secular religion of science and mathematics that Darwin spawned with his book. Darwin allows those who choose to believe that life spawned from a warm pond, to deny the existence of anything outside of our planet, it also allows these people to believe that we, the human race are the best and brightest species in the universe. Presumably you include yourself in this defintion of "people." There is just no evidence to support this, and there is great evidence to support the implausibility of this idea, as the DNA code, which causes evolution because of it's almost infinite complexity, could not have formed from randomness, in a warm pond. Again, this is like the sun, providing the light and heat for life on the Earth, before the Sun existed, it is a mathematical impossibility. You have objective proof that he was wrong, right? We're waiting to hear you present it. So far, all you've done is make baseless statements. Baseless statements are not evidence of anything but your inability to think rationally. Lois If I said that life was created when an asteroid crashed into a bubbling pond of semi liquid sulfur that shot a splash of that sulfur into a warm pond nearby and life was created from this, would you need proof that I was wrong? or would I need to prove that I was right? Darwin or those who champion his theory, need prove his theory correct, no one else needs prove it wrong It is the scientific principle that the creator of a theory needs to provide evidence and proof of that theory. Hubble provided evidence of red shift, and with this Hubble crippled Einstein's mathematical model of a static universe, and the current cosmic expansion theory is attributed to Hubble and is accepted, because of proof that Hubble discovered. If you have proof of spontaneous generation, (which is needed to prove Darwin's theory, please present it now) You need do this, until you do your theory has no meaning and is not even a true theory. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, and a few bird beaks, to explain the universe. Seriously saying that evolution created differences in finches is correct, but furthering this to say that evolution therefor created the finches in the first place, has no scientific merit. You have demonstrated many times over that you do not comprehend the scientific method and that you have a deep resentment against science in general. There are mountains of evidence in support of Darwins theory of evolution, in other words common ancestry. It is not, nor is it intended to be the theory of everything in regards to life including how life started. That is a requirement only you place on a book you have not read, and are highly unlikely to read. It is clear that no matter how much proof anyone provides for your consideration, you would not read it and claim it nonsense. If you really want to find it you can google it. But you will not seek any information that does not fit into your narrow desire to support ideas that you have already decided for yourself. Why should we believe you would actually read any of the research that has been done in the last 100 plus years that all support his theory? You haven't ever read the book you claim is nonsense. You did not come to this forum to share ideas and expand your own understanding on anything. Your only reason for being here is to inflict whatever damage you can on the scientific process in the name of your make believe, irrelevant god. Sadly for you, you are not capable of doing any damage. The scientific process is far more brutal to new ideas than anything you will ever be capable of. Darwin's theory has stood the battering of many far more educated attacks for more than a hundred years. You will never measure up to the task you have given yourself. The only thing you will accomplish is more frustration and bitterness than you already demonstrate in your posts. You have no intention of exploring or understanding anything because you think you already know it all. You're wasting your time and everyone else's that you engage, as long as your mind remains so tightly closed. I have the highest regard for science, I however comprehend clearly that Darwin was not a scientist, he was a birdwatcher, who invented nothing of any consequence. All Darwin did was watch birds, and make the observation that they were related. While this is true, it is also true that there is no evidence of how a finch could have evolved from a single cell, nor how that single cell with thousands to billions of parts could have spontaneously generated from a warm pond. I believe that science will elevate humanity to God, at the point when we seed another planet with life, so that we can make use of the vast cosmos and escape our little doomed planet. Those who toil today, in physics, astrophysics and genetics to bring this to reality are the true scientist of merit. While the past does have relevance, all creation will exist in the future, the past is old and dead, those who dwell there will never see the next Worlds. Man has the power to create life, just look into the eyes of your child and wonder, where will the future take them.
Re the religion of Darwin. He started out as a Christian believer and once studied at a seminary. He later described himself as an agnostic, probably because he did not understand the actual definition of an atheist as one who has no belief in god. He was an atheist in actuality since he stated it by saying he was an agnostic that he had no belief in god. He misdefined the word atheist, as so many peopLe do, as someone who claims there is no god. An agnostic is not a third choice between theism and atheism. It is not a statement on belief. It is a statement on knowledge. Theists and atheists can also be agnostics. He did not start another religion and none was started in his name. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinLois this post has nothing to do with Darwin's religious beliefs at the time, it has to do with the secular religion of science and mathematics that Darwin spawned with his book. Darwin allows those who choose to believe that life spawned from a warm pond, to deny the existence of anything outside of our planet, it also allows these people to believe that we, the human race are the best and brightest species in the universe. Presumably you include yourself in this defintion of "people." There is just no evidence to support this, and there is great evidence to support the implausibility of this idea, as the DNA code, which causes evolution because of it's almost infinite complexity, could not have formed from randomness, in a warm pond. Again, this is like the sun, providing the light and heat for life on the Earth, before the Sun existed, it is a mathematical impossibility. You have objective proof that he was wrong, right? We're waiting to hear you present it. So far, all you've done is make baseless statements. Baseless statements are not evidence of anything but your inability to think rationally. Lois If I said that life was created when an asteroid crashed into a bubbling pond of semi liquid sulfur that shot a splash of that sulfur into a warm pond nearby and life was created from this, would you need proof that I was wrong? or would I need to prove that I was right? Darwin or those who champion his theory, need prove his theory correct, no one else needs prove it wrong It is the scientific principle that the creator of a theory needs to provide evidence and proof of that theory. Hubble provided evidence of red shift, and with this Hubble crippled Einstein's mathematical model of a static universe, and the current cosmic expansion theory is attributed to Hubble and is accepted, because of proof that Hubble discovered. If you have proof of spontaneous generation, (which is needed to prove Darwin's theory, please present it now) You need do this, until you do your theory has no meaning and is not even a true theory. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, and a few bird beaks, to explain the universe. Seriously saying that evolution created differences in finches is correct, but furthering this to say that evolution therefor created the finches in the first place, has no scientific merit. You have demonstrated many times over that you do not comprehend the scientific method and that you have a deep resentment against science in general. There are mountains of evidence in support of Darwins theory of evolution, in other words common ancestry. It is not, nor is it intended to be the theory of everything in regards to life including how life started. That is a requirement only you place on a book you have not read, and are highly unlikely to read. It is clear that no matter how much proof anyone provides for your consideration, you would not read it and claim it nonsense. If you really want to find it you can google it. But you will not seek any information that does not fit into your narrow desire to support ideas that you have already decided for yourself. Why should we believe you would actually read any of the research that has been done in the last 100 plus years that all support his theory? You haven't ever read the book you claim is nonsense. You did not come to this forum to share ideas and expand your own understanding on anything. Your only reason for being here is to inflict whatever damage you can on the scientific process in the name of your make believe, irrelevant god. Sadly for you, you are not capable of doing any damage. The scientific process is far more brutal to new ideas than anything you will ever be capable of. Darwin's theory has stood the battering of many far more educated attacks for more than a hundred years. You will never measure up to the task you have given yourself. The only thing you will accomplish is more frustration and bitterness than you already demonstrate in your posts. You have no intention of exploring or understanding anything because you think you already know it all. You're wasting your time and everyone else's that you engage, as long as your mind remains so tightly closed. I have the highest regard for science, I however comprehend clearly that Darwin was not a scientist, he was a birdwatcher, who invented nothing of any consequence. All Darwin did was watch birds, and make the observation that they were related. While this is true, it is also true that there is no evidence of how a finch could have evolved from a single cell, nor how that single cell with thousands to billions of parts could have spontaneously generated from a warm pond. I believe that science will elevate humanity to God, at the point when we seed another planet with life, so that we can make use of the vast cosmos and escape our little doomed planet. Those who toil today, in physics, astrophysics and genetics to bring this to reality are the true scientist of merit. While the past does have relevance, all creation will exist in the future, the past is old and dead, those who dwell there will never see the next Worlds. Man has the power to create life, just look into the eyes of your child and wonder, where will the future take them. All righty then. Thanks for sharing your extraordinary claims.
To all who believe that humanity consists of “mortal gods”, this may discomforting. And I urge anyone interested in evolution as we know it, to watch this incredible series.
To all who believe that humanity consists of "mortal gods", this may discomforting. And I urge anyone interested in evolution as we know it, to watch this incredible series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R8UN9zGD04&list=PL33B1613BB707EFBESo was that an example of something filmed with Thomas Edison's first movie camera? Are you aware that, the little clip you just provided, and another half a million full length digital DVD's can now be stored on one gram of DNA, which (((PROVES))) that DNA, is a storage media, compatible with scientifically designed modern binary code, which that dopey movie was not filmed in. What is the inference? That you are a machine, similar to a computer. 1. A computer has a cpu, that must have electricity for the flow of electrons. Your brain must have electricity for the flow of ideas between neurons. 2. A computer uses 50 to 100 million lines of code to operate, both from the OS-and the secondary programs. Your DNA makes this look simple, with three billion lines of code, in every single cell. 3. Computers have evolved from day one. You agree with this one, as you are evolving as well. 4. Take the electricity out of the CPU and it flatlines and produces nothing. Same as you will with a flat eeg. 5. Computers have a hard drive for code storage, but if the main drive crashes the computer fails. You have all of your information stored on every cell in your body, however the cpu/ brain also contains the ram and is also the main hard drive where memories are stored, if it fails the brain while bootable will not know what to do. I could go on with perhaps hundreds of parallels between a mammal and a Computer or other manmade machine. This is not however not a God argument, it is a scientific argument for creation which makes those who create highly technical machines creators of highly technical machines. There are also however persons tinkering with the mechanics of DNA, for the purpose of creation or modification of life forms to do various jobs. So was God just a scientist, with billions of years more knowledge that the human race, who has about two millennia of scientific knowledge at best. Are you created in the DNA image of God, theoretically empowering you with all the abilities of God, given enough time to evolve those abilities? Seriously, these are postulations, if you have the answer, either way, then you are ignorant, however that does not mean that the answer will not be known one day. Look into the eyes of your child and wonder, will they be the one to understand the mysteries of life and creation? or bring a simple bacteria, or photosynthetic single celled plant to a new ocean on a new World in order to have it multiply and create the sugar, and Oxygen needed for us to survive there, noting that it might take millions to billions of years for this, or that the seeding process could be undertaken on a space voyage that like the moon landings would be very limited to under a weeks time.......? ?
Evolution forming DNA, is no different than the Sun warming the Earth, before the Sun and Earth existed.Seems you have missed the word RNA in this thread. Are you implying that RNA has been demonstrated to form from nothing and write DNA? Can you elaborate on how RNA might do this?
There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him.You are absolutely right. There is not credible source that has demonstrated that. What you have done is created a Strawman - "That would be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Coral, if I said "Wallace" would that ring a bell? just curious. There has never been an argument made that shows how evolution could have created the DNA that is now known to be the driving force of evolution. Seriously, evolution without DNA, is like writing without either a language to write, and a species to do the writing. Even the thought is scientifically illiterate. So you are saying that your omnipotent god could not possibly create DNA and evolution. Is your "intelligent designer" not intelligent enough? You are saying that a god can create universes only by magic and that evolution and DNA would be far too complicated for him. What kind of god is that? Lois
There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him.You are absolutely right. There is not credible source that has demonstrated that. What you have done is created a Strawman - "That would be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Coral, if I said "Wallace" would that ring a bell? just curious. There has never been an argument made that shows how evolution could have created the DNA that is now known to be the driving force of evolution. Seriously, evolution without DNA, is like writing without either a language to write, and a species to do the writing. Even the thought is scientifically illiterate. So you are saying that your omnipotent god could not possibly create DNA and evolution. Is your "intelligent designer" not intelligent enough? You are saying that a god can create universes only by magic and that evolution and DNA would be far too complicated for him. What kind of god is that? Lois I have no idea where you got that from, but I have said that since Harvard scientist have proved that DNA can store binary computer data, it is proven that DNA is a chemical hard drive, like it or not. I have also said that millions to billions of lines of the chemical hard drive data, that is encoded onto every double helix inside of every cell, did not write itself in an abiogenic pond that just decided to write DNA and thus enable evolution and spawn life. Thus it is clearly inferred that this information, since it is highly advanced was created, the likelihood that even hundreds of thousands of lines of DNA for a simple cell could have occurred by chance, is mathematically just not viable, . It is also clear that we as the human race are altering this data as we see fit. I never once implied that God created any universe, not ever. You want me to believe this as it is convenient for you. CIAO
There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him.You are absolutely right. There is not credible source that has demonstrated that. What you have done is created a Strawman - "That would be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Coral, if I said "Wallace" would that ring a bell? just curious. There has never been an argument made that shows how evolution could have created the DNA that is now known to be the driving force of evolution. Seriously, evolution without DNA, is like writing without either a language to write, and a species to do the writing. Even the thought is scientifically illiterate. So you are saying that your omnipotent god could not possibly create DNA and evolution. Is your "intelligent designer" not intelligent enough? You are saying that a god can create universes only by magic and that evolution and DNA would be far too complicated for him. What kind of god is that? Lois I have no idea where you got that from, but I have said that since Harvard scientist have proved that DNA can store binary computer data, it is proven that DNA is a chemical hard drive, like it or not. I have also said that millions to billions of lines of the chemical hard drive data, that is encoded onto every double helix inside of every cell, did not write itself in an abiogenic pond that just decided to write DNA and thus enable evolution and spawn life. Thus it is clearly inferred that this information, since it is highly advanced was created, the likelihood that even hundreds of thousands of lines of DNA for a simple cell could mathematically be viable, to have occurred by chance. It is also clear that we as the human race are altering this data as we see fit, and creating new and improved organisms as God was once attributed to have done. I never once implied that God created any universe, not ever. You want me to believe this as it is convenient for you. CIAO