Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wolfie · 07-14-2007, 05:15 PM

For your god's sake, stop going on and on about interrelation!

No-one other than you finds it an acceptable term for what you purport that it means (effectively evolution!).

I could dream up a word, for example 'exocosmoeccentricity', and claim that Creation is not valid because it is exocosmoeccentric - and were it to be valid, there would be negation of Gibbs Free Energy, vargarification of the entropy slope, resonance due to elliptic oscillation of ligand fields, transposition of the O-H stretch and wag frequencies in the infrared spectrum of Great Flood water, spontaneous tritium enrichment, a plague of frogs and a functional infinite improbability drive.

Everything I have said has been agreed.

Go figure.

GilgameshEnkidu · 07-14-2007, 05:16 PM

Samarai, your poor grasp of the english language does not make evolution supernatural. A single celled creature is less complex than a multi celled creature.

Why do you insist on saying evolution can only be true if nature said so? Why do you dislike the word so much?

celdd · 07-14-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Samurai:
No, you need to remember that evolution theory is a theory of origin of species. And since no one had ever witnessed origin, then, we need supernatural explanation to talk about "origin".

Not exactly. What we do have are several lines of direct evidence (the fossil record, observations of the existing flora and fauna, and analysis of molecular and DNA data, as well as observations of new species evolving both in the lab and in the natural world) that lead to the theory of evolution to explain all these data and observations.

Quote:

Samurai:
It is comparing two supernaturals: God or nature...

This is an incorrect statement. God is supernatural because we can never observe any evidence that s/he exists.

Nature is NOT an individual entity, supernatural or not. It is a word we use to refer to the observable world/universe around us. Because nature is what we can observe, it is by definition, not supernatural.

But, of course you know that. Your insistence in this forum that Nature is a sentient entity, and to rename evolution as interrelation, appears to be a silly game to rile up people so you can get some attention.

So, Samurai, what is your agenda? Why are you so focused on trying to redefine the theory of evolution as supernatural? Why do you reject the definitions long established and used in the science community?

Weltall · 07-15-2007, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celdd

So, Samurai, what is your agenda? Why are you so focused on trying to redefine the theory of evolution as supernatural? Why do you reject the definitions long established and used in the science community?

I'm guessing it's because if he accepts one branch of science as-is (which messes up a literal interpretation of his holy book) then he might have to accept those branches of science that really put a spanner in. Thus, he has to try and mangle definitions and make evolution something supernatural, lest his precious beliefs be threatened. [Insert new comment about real samurai here, I can't be arsed any more].

Wolfie · 07-15-2007, 07:35 PM

There are plenty of 16 ton weights....

Or I could release the tiger!

Chuck Rightmire · 07-15-2007, 11:29 PM

What he seems to be saying and believing here is that the interrelationship, as he calls it, of, say, humans and chimps is just that and has appeared in the world with no real connection with the past. As a result, the fact that we may have a few alleles in common with round worms has no bearing on either our history or the history of round worms; it has to do with the interrelationship of species from some cause or another, presumably god. And he is claiming that evolution is false because there has been no observation of it, he says, in practice, and the various records and proofs cited here are not true because they only show the interrelatedness of animals throughout the past, not that they became other animals. Therefore, since they are not proofs of evolution, then the only bearing that they have is to indicate that animals have lived together and (maybe?) infected each other? Because he has been taught in Sunday School that evolution is wrong and bad, he refuses to see that the fossil record (which encompasses too much time, longer than genesis allows) actually shows not only the interrelatedness of nature today, but also down through history. I think it is the time line that causes him the biggest problems; he wants to reject the long time of descent because that would be another proof of evolution to go along with what he chooses to call interrelatedness. He is the one who has led himself astray by trying to label evolution as supernatural rather than a reading of the historical interrelationship of life.

samurai · 07-16-2007, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Rightmire

What he seems to be saying and believing here is that the interrelationship, as he calls it, of, say, humans and chimps is just that and has appeared in the world with no real connection with the past. As a result, the fact that we may have a few alleles in common with round worms has no bearing on either our history or the history of round worms; it has to do with the interrelationship of species from some cause or another, presumably god. And he is claiming that evolution is false because there has been no observation of it, he says, in practice, and the various records and proofs cited here are not true because they only show the interrelatedness of animals throughout the past, not that they became other animals. Therefore, since they are not proofs of evolution, then the only bearing that they have is to indicate that animals have lived together and (maybe?) infected each other? Because he has been taught in Sunday School that evolution is wrong and bad, he refuses to see that the fossil record (which encompasses too much time, longer than genesis allows) actually shows not only the interrelatedness of nature today, but also down through history. I think it is the time line that causes him the biggest problems; he wants to reject the long time of descent because that would be another proof of evolution to go along with what he chooses to call interrelatedness. He is the one who has led himself astray by trying to label evolution as supernatural rather than a reading of the historical interrelationship of life.

You are incorrect. I am not talking here young earth or old earth. I am assuming that the universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I'm talking here the obvious natural explanation that should be taught and used in schools and in pubic that we are observing in nature.

To make it very easy to understand, let us use say, Species A,

Species A may had changed to Species A000122 for the span of 100 million years, and changed again to Species A0002323334 for the span of 200 million years and again changed (big change) to Species A2222 for the span of 500 million years but it did not change to Species B or C or D!

THERE is no SPECIES whatsoever that we had witnessed to change from Species A to Species B or C or D either in history of the earth in fossils or the present times. All the so called facts are/were fabricated explanation by Evolution Theory scientists and proponents or were labeled incorrectly by ET scientist by using circular reasoning.

The hard fact that we are seeing is that ALL SPECIES had interrelated and are interrelating from/to their surrounding/habitat/places to live with respect to their time of existence.

GenesisNemesis · 07-16-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

THERE is no SPECIES whatsoever that we had witnessed to change from Species A to Species B or C or D either in history of the earth in fossils or the present times. All the so called facts are/were fabricated explanation by Evolution Theory scientists and proponents or were labeled incorrectly by ET scientist by using circular reasoning.

*Coughs* Look at the Fossil Record *cough cough*

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

The hard fact that we are seeing is that ALL SPECIES had interrelated and are interrelating from/to their surrounding/habitat/places to live with respect to their time of existence.

If you ignore the obvious, gradual progression in the Fossil Record. How do you explain that? The Flood?

apaosha · 07-16-2007, 01:54 AM

Is he saying that ET assumes that, say, a lizard suddenly gave birth to a giraffe, therefore indicating an unrelated change in the species; from one to the other without gradual mutation, as happens constantly?

Dunno where he gets this though:

Quote:

All the so called facts are/were fabricated explanation by Evolution Theory scientists and proponents or were labeled incorrectly by ET scientist by using circular reasoning.

GilgameshEnkidu · 07-16-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apaosha

Is he saying that ET assumes that, say, a lizard suddenly gave birth to a giraffe, therefore indicating an unrelated change in the species; from one to the other without gradual mutation, as happens constantly?

Dunno where he gets this though:

Quote:

All the so called facts are/were fabricated explanation by Evolution Theory scientists and proponents or were labeled incorrectly by ET scientist by using circular reasoning.

No, I think he is thinking that scientists couldn't possibly know that one species descended from another without some supernatural aid.

About the evolution theory scientist, well he is saying taht they must be lying because he thinks they couldn't posibly know what they say they know without supernatural aid.

He is also implying that since God is the only supernatural being, then evolution is false becasue his god wouldnt have told scientists that things evolved, I guess.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2007, 05:15 PM	#351
Wolfie Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Wolf Pit, England, old chap, what? Posts: 1,627	For your god's sake, stop going on and on about interrelation! No-one other than you finds it an acceptable term for what you purport that it means (effectively evolution!). I could dream up a word, for example 'exocosmoeccentricity', and claim that Creation is not valid because it is exocosmoeccentric - and were it to be valid, there would be negation of Gibbs Free Energy, vargarification of the entropy slope, resonance due to elliptic oscillation of ligand fields, transposition of the O-H stretch and wag frequencies in the infrared spectrum of Great Flood water, spontaneous tritium enrichment, a plague of frogs and a functional infinite improbability drive. Everything I have said has been agreed. Go figure.

07-14-2007, 05:16 PM	#352
GilgameshEnkidu Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 422	Samarai, your poor grasp of the english language does not make evolution supernatural. A single celled creature is less complex than a multi celled creature. Why do you insist on saying evolution can only be true if nature said so? Why do you dislike the word so much?

07-15-2007, 07:35 PM	#355
Wolfie Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Wolf Pit, England, old chap, what? Posts: 1,627	There are plenty of 16 ton weights.... Or I could release the tiger!

07-15-2007, 11:29 PM	#356
Chuck Rightmire Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Billings, Montana Posts: 451	What he seems to be saying and believing here is that the interrelationship, as he calls it, of, say, humans and chimps is just that and has appeared in the world with no real connection with the past. As a result, the fact that we may have a few alleles in common with round worms has no bearing on either our history or the history of round worms; it has to do with the interrelationship of species from some cause or another, presumably god. And he is claiming that evolution is false because there has been no observation of it, he says, in practice, and the various records and proofs cited here are not true because they only show the interrelatedness of animals throughout the past, not that they became other animals. Therefore, since they are not proofs of evolution, then the only bearing that they have is to indicate that animals have lived together and (maybe?) infected each other? Because he has been taught in Sunday School that evolution is wrong and bad, he refuses to see that the fossil record (which encompasses too much time, longer than genesis allows) actually shows not only the interrelatedness of nature today, but also down through history. I think it is the time line that causes him the biggest problems; he wants to reject the long time of descent because that would be another proof of evolution to go along with what he chooses to call interrelatedness. He is the one who has led himself astray by trying to label evolution as supernatural rather than a reading of the historical interrelationship of life.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.