LactoseIntolerant
Member
I have nothing to say to you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Existence
- Thread starter King Phenomenon
- Start date
LactoseIntolerant
Member
Please refer to the last memo.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
Can evolution occur in populations of rocks or unliving things?
So in the naturalist framework, if "it can not", then how did the unliving transition to the living and begin evolution. The initial conditions in the evolution equation.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
What about all the other people?
"Various forms"? Can you point out a couple and explain how they differ from one another?
Because as far as I know, there is only 1 theory of evolution and it's that one that's taught in science classes.
Lol?
Human beings aren't mammals?
Here's the definition of what a mammal is:
Mammals are endothermic vertebrates belonging to class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. Some of their distinctive features are as follows: a neocortex, three middle ear bones, a lower jaw made of a single bone, a hairy body covering, a thoracic diaphragm, a four-chambered heart, and females that are mostly viviparous.
Please explain how human beings don't fit this description.
Says our anatomy.
False. The classifications are a conclusion of the data, not the other way round.
And it's not mere similarities. It's the pattern thereof. It is impossible to come up with a definition for what a "primate" is that includes all primates yet excludes humans, without resorting to special pleading by arbitrarily adding "...but not humans".
Same with mammals.
If you list all properties that ALL mammals have, to get to the highest common denominator of ALL mammals - then humans have all those properties. You can't define what a mammal is in such a way that in includes ALL mammals, yet excludes humans.
No. Rather, because the data forced them to.
You seem to be thinking that Darwin labeled humans as mammals, primates, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...
This is, off course, hilariously incorrect.
That all life is genetically related. It reveals a family tree.
It's the same evidence and data that can distinguish your biological brother from a random person merely by analyzing anonymous DNA samples. So really, by denying this science, you are essentially denying every DNA test to test for family ties, paternity, etc.
No. A phylogenetic tree is the result of objectively plotting out completely sequenced genomes on a graph. If evolution theory is correct, then what comes out of that MUST be a hierarchical tree (a family tree). It didn't have to be that way. But it is. That our collective DNA falls into a nested hierarchy is a fact.
You can deny it if you want. But facts are facts.
No, they aren't. They are very straightforward, objective, tried and tested and accepted by any court to prove that some child is your biological child or not in paternity cases.
The denial is strong, in this one.
There are no assumptions. It's just the visual representation of the underlying structure of life's collective DNA. And when cross referenced, it fully matches comparative anatomy and geographic distribution of species.
By any and all standards, these are objective facts.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Biological evolution is a process that occurs in living organisms.
Rocks aren't biological entities.
The initial conditions of evolution, is that life exists.
How life came about is irrelevant to the question of which processes it is subject to.
Life exists and we can study it.
How life exists, is a different question.
You can assume first life was created by aliens or by your god if that pleases you.
It doesn't change one iota of the evolutionary process.
When the process of photosynthesis is explained, do you then also complain about "but where did the plants come from????". Is it at all necessary to know where plants come from, to be able to study and unravel the process of photosynthesis that occurs in plants?
Obviously not. Plants exist and we can study them.
Same with life and evolution. It exists. How it exists = different question, different field of inquiry.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
You might have to reread
Last edited:
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
This makes no sense
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No one has said that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you are happy being wrong about almost everything. People can believe what they want to believe. Though many do not understand their own beliefs. For example you are calling God a liar with your beliefs.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Humans in behaviour claim I have dominion over all things.
Which is human ego.
You once claimed God had given you dominion.
Humans are the egotists.
Why would being placate any being unworthy or less when it is mutual and balanced?
Just one of many sophisms of a humans claim I gave myself the rights.
Group.
Group behaviour
Group mockery
Group beginnings anti to natural family real group
Egotism always was.
Natural family tells the human truth. Functional. Worthy group support mutual effort. Hierarchy by Inheritance.
Humans claim I know.
Yet they observe what they are not.
First scientific observation is any whole form.
Law natural first see.
Science ist dug up mutated human bones to pretend the evolution theory.
The evidence they quote were the bones.
If we all died right now. And then in a future came back. If you dug up the bones you would identify Multi types of bone bodies.
Humans like Stephen hawkings bones would give evidence. A changed human body.
Moses era science pyramid exodus DNA genesis genetics.
Water mass by half removed off ground state to amass cloud flooding cooling. Life had been saved from extinction was the science lesson.
We always were just a human.
If humans today by science wanted to prove human life was irradiated mutated in the past it is proven.
All life lives today due to a water oxygenated atmosphere the exact same mass for everything.
I live within water have water inside my body.
So does any other single body form live the same. Within O ones atmospheric earths history water oxygen mass.
Science statement living with gods creation.
Theists just humans claim I know how and why. You lied.
The situation human ego should be included in the human community of scientific expressions. As it is included in why a human by group status enforced their belief.
If a human bio life body is given a human data imposed chemistry. Animals owning the same bio chemicals would also be changed.
In the thesis when you never existed and let me theory how my machine reaction can put life into a cosmic moment to conclude my human science thesis.....once nothing existed let me invent it.
Which is human ego.
You once claimed God had given you dominion.
Humans are the egotists.
Why would being placate any being unworthy or less when it is mutual and balanced?
Just one of many sophisms of a humans claim I gave myself the rights.
Group.
Group behaviour
Group mockery
Group beginnings anti to natural family real group
Egotism always was.
Natural family tells the human truth. Functional. Worthy group support mutual effort. Hierarchy by Inheritance.
Humans claim I know.
Yet they observe what they are not.
First scientific observation is any whole form.
Law natural first see.
Science ist dug up mutated human bones to pretend the evolution theory.
The evidence they quote were the bones.
If we all died right now. And then in a future came back. If you dug up the bones you would identify Multi types of bone bodies.
Humans like Stephen hawkings bones would give evidence. A changed human body.
Moses era science pyramid exodus DNA genesis genetics.
Water mass by half removed off ground state to amass cloud flooding cooling. Life had been saved from extinction was the science lesson.
We always were just a human.
If humans today by science wanted to prove human life was irradiated mutated in the past it is proven.
All life lives today due to a water oxygenated atmosphere the exact same mass for everything.
I live within water have water inside my body.
So does any other single body form live the same. Within O ones atmospheric earths history water oxygen mass.
Science statement living with gods creation.
Theists just humans claim I know how and why. You lied.
The situation human ego should be included in the human community of scientific expressions. As it is included in why a human by group status enforced their belief.
If a human bio life body is given a human data imposed chemistry. Animals owning the same bio chemicals would also be changed.
In the thesis when you never existed and let me theory how my machine reaction can put life into a cosmic moment to conclude my human science thesis.....once nothing existed let me invent it.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Reason the church kept preserved human Saint body.
Most bones living combusted in the event. To ashes and dust. Where sciences human theories began in science conditions with God. Practice of science.
Human saints preserved bodies would all have been left as bone evidence as past life human evidence.
Kept shroud to prove the irradiation event returned 1000 years later. Same attack as gods states caused it. Cosmic.
Knew human scientists would try to do it again. The theme mind possession in radiation communications is real. Studies of life changed already proved it was.
Most bones living combusted in the event. To ashes and dust. Where sciences human theories began in science conditions with God. Practice of science.
Human saints preserved bodies would all have been left as bone evidence as past life human evidence.
Kept shroud to prove the irradiation event returned 1000 years later. Same attack as gods states caused it. Cosmic.
Knew human scientists would try to do it again. The theme mind possession in radiation communications is real. Studies of life changed already proved it was.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
Interesting how the goal post moves. Better snatch this before it disappears. As per Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8]...."
What branch of science exists in a vacuum? That it need not be consistent with any other scientific endeavour?
Can I take it to mean you believe the evolutionary process not the theory (whatever that means)?
If the question is "how do plants generate their food?" sure. But if the question is "how was the atmosphere generated?" then no. Oversimplification usually indicates agenda, not truth. So may I infer you see evolution not as a theory but a process (conjecture)? Like I said no theory exists in a vacuum. If you find one, let me know. I would be curious to study it.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
In polite society, interjecting into a conversation with rude comments are normally associated with troglodytes wanting attention. post #175 from your man Dan. #176 from you. First impressions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And there you are mistaken. This is an open forum. It is not a private discussion. If you want a private discussion with someone use the PM feature. When you post here you are inviting everyone to respond to you. There was no rudeness in responding.
LactoseIntolerant
Member
See previous post. But come on, you are an atheist telling a Christian about God????
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are times when Wikipedia is not quite right. Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That is why it is not part of the theory of evolution. Reread that in its whole context. You should have at least have quoted the whole paragraph:
" While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]"
When or if the concept of abiogenesis has enough of its questions answered it will slowly move beyond the hypothetical stage. Then it will be proper to discuss it as part of the theory of evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not telling a Christian about God. I am telling a Christian about your version of God. You only have a belief in your version of God. And you do not fully understand the implications of what you have claimed here. And please note. the phrase that I used was "When I was a Christian".. Like many atheists in the US I used to be a Christian.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Over simplification is usually a creationist thing. In trying to explain complex ideas we will sometimes simplify them a bit, but often with a warning. Creationists tend to take over simplified ideas and "refute" them. The strawman argument is a creationist favorite.
I’m aware of how classification is done. Thanks for explaining it in all its boring detail. It seems you’ve missed my points, I’m not surprised. I’ll keep it simple:
Who came up with the word “mammal” and decided what characteristics should fit into the mammal category? For what purpose did they do it? What’s the value of it?
If you are aware of how classification is carried out it is sort of a strange set of questions to ask.
I cannot answer your questions about mammals, but in general, the characteristics are observed and those with the characteristics are sorted together into a larger group. A list of characters is not generated a priori to stuff living things into categories.
The person that originated the system and the man known as the father of modern taxonomy was a Christian named Carl Linnaeus.