Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

. . . and sometimes faulty. peer reviewed literature and airplanes fall out of the sky.

I live in Boeing country and unfortunately we know this all two well.

 

[nPeace]

No not my words. You said, '(The science of) evolution is from Satan.'

Post #1102


Not my false statements they are yours. Own up to them.

You are lying dude. I don't own up to lies, or anything I did not say, or do.
You seem to think it's okay to lie... Is that something you do so regularly, it has become so ingrained.
Go ahead. Adjust your words, again.... and as you cleverly twisted in the post before.
Try to fabricate more lies.
Are you not ashamed of such tactics?
I don't believe this is the behavior of your Bahai brothers. I don't think Bahaullah would preach it either.

Every eyeball that reads Post #1102 can see that you are lying and fabricating lies.
Why don't you say what the post really says?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are lying dude. I don't own up to lies, or anything I did not say, or do.
You seem to think it's okay to lie... Is that something you do so regularly, it has become so ingrained.
Go ahead. Adjust your words, again.... and as you cleverly twisted in the post before.
Try to fabricate more lies.
Are you not ashamed of such tactics?
I don't believe this is the behavior of your Bahai brothers. I don't think Bahaullah would preach it either.

Every eyeball that reads Post #1102 can see that you are lying and fabricating lies.
Why don't you say what the post really says?

I don't see any significant difference. You essentially claimed that:

"Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe."

'a design of Satan' is the same as saying it is from Satan.

 

[nPeace]

I don't see any significant difference. You essentially claimed that:

"Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe."

'a design of Satan' is the same as saying it is from Satan.

Thank you for bringing it forward.
Now match the two statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for bringing it forward.
Now match the two statements.

In meaning they are identical. The only difference is the wording. So how does that make him a liar?

 

[YoursTrue]

The foundation of flight is NOT just mechanical science. It involves a history of research involving physics of flight and propulsions and numerous peer reviewed research,

I realize that. I wasn't talking about the foundation of flight. An airplane that flies is based on practical application put in action, including physics. That's different from the idea (theory) that a unicell or more appeared from whatever scientists say it or they may have come from. That you say a plane flying is comparable to the assumption of a unicell or many unicells emerging is ridiculous. Even if it's a "peer reviewed" assumption. Have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

As Shunya said, airplanes fly, computers work. This very post you made is a testament to the reliability of science.

Something being imperfect doesn't mean it isn't reliable. I'm sure your front door occasionally breaks, but that doesn't mean that when you open your front door it is reasonable to expect it to instantly fly of its hinges. No - you expect it to work because it has demonstrated reliability over and over and over again, and the number of times it works makes the number of times it doesn't appear completely insignificant. In the exact same way, science is demonstrably and irrefutably reliable.

Planes flying is not guesswork as if a plane evolved from something they did not see or have direct knowledge of (such as a unicell said to be the first living organism). I can only imagine you will argue against that in a circular fashion. Evolution works on its own, according to what I see you say, even though cells can be manipulated, which is not the same as "natural selection."
It's the same thing with cars and computers. That Edison utilized forces of nature does not mean that the phonograph evolved. It means that Edison put knowledge of what he knew to action, harnessing these forces. Similar to a flying machine. These things did not come about by themselves. That genes can be manipulated does not mean that a unicell OR a gene came up from whatever it is said to come up from by itself, kind of, more or less. A plane utilizing the forces of nature for propulsion is not evolution. Not even close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Planes flying is not guesswork as if a plane evolved from something they did not see or have direct knowledge of (such as a unicell said to be the first living organism). I can only imagine you will argue against that in a circular fashion. Evolution works on its own, according to what I see you say, even though cells can be manipulated, which is not the same as "natural selection."
It's the same thing with cars and computers. That Edison utilized forces of nature does not mean that the phonograph evolved. It means that Edison put knowledge of what he knew to action, harnessing these forces. Similar to a flying machine. These things did not come about by themselves. That genes can be manipulated does not mean that a unicell OR a gene came up from whatever it is said to come up from by itself, kind of, more or less. A plane utilizing the forces of nature for propulsion is not evolution. Not even close.

What makes you think that the fact that you are an ape is guesswork?

 

[nPeace]

In meaning they are identical. The only difference is the wording. So how does that make him a liar?

shunyadragon said...
1. You consider the science of evolution Satanic
2. Evolution is the history of life from single cell organisms billions of years ago that evolved to the great diversity of life through the millennia sense.
3. You said, '(The science of) evolution is from Satan.'

Why did he try to adjust what he said, if it was the same as what I said? It didn't seem like he was being truthful.
If he knew exactly where to find the post, he could have quoted me.
Because I did not understand Darwin's idea of evolution and the idea of UCA to be the same as evolution. I was of the understanding that terminology matters... which is why I specified that in the OP, and at other times.

Is the term theory of evolution is no longer being used?
If there is no difference, then I am accusing him wrongfully for using the terminology according to his understanding, and would apologize for that.
I'm sorry @shunyadragon

However, referring to the ideas of universals common descent, yes I did say I believe it is a design of Satan.
I owned up to what I said, and what I understood I said, rather than what I thought someone was saying I said.
Anything else, I should do, or is this good?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. You consider the science of evolution Satanic
2. Evolution is the history of life from single cell organisms billions of years ago that evolved to the great diversity of life through the millennia sense.
3. You said, '(The science of) evolution is from Satan.'

Why did he try to adjust what he said, if it was the same as what I said? It didn't seem like he was being truthful.
If he knew exactly where to find the post, he could have quoted me.
Because I did not understand Darwin's idea of evolution and the idea of UCA to be the same as evolution. I was of the understanding that terminology matters... which is why I specified that in the OP, and at other times.

Is the term theory of evolution is no longer being used?
If there is no difference, then I am accusing him wrongfully for using the terminology according to his understanding, and would apologize for that.
I'm sorry @shunyadragon

However, referring to the ideas of universals common descent, yes I did say I believe it is a design of Satan.
I owned up to what I said, and what I understood I said, rather than what I thought someone was saying I said.
Anything else, I should do, or is this good?

This post is quite the train wreck. Before I comment on it why not clean it up a bit. Obviously I do not agree with 1. It is rather unreadable. Perhaps if you shortened it. I would not want us to misunderstand each other.

 

[nPeace]

This post is quite the train wreck. Before I comment on it why not clean it up a bit. Obviously I do not agree with 1. It is rather unreadable. Perhaps if you shortened it. I would not want us to misunderstand each other.

Are you referring to the OP?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you referring to the OP?

No, your most recent post. If one tries to cover too much in a post the point is often lost.

 

[nPeace]

Interested in knowing...
@Jose Fly & @Subduction Zone what do you think of a theory that is supported only by circumstantial evidence alone, where there is no direct evidence, and the only evidence that can be observable, is not testable?
How confident are you in it, and why?
Why do you have confidence in the methodologies that are all subjective, and based on opinions of researchers?
Are you fully convinced? Why?
What do you consider the most convincing evidence?

Referring to evolution on a grand scale.

 

[nPeace]

No, your most recent post. If one tries to cover too much in a post the point is often lost.

The three statements were what shunyadragon said. I'm sorry, I will edit it to reflect that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interested in knowing...
@Jose Fly & @Subduction Zone what do you think of a theory that is supported only by circumstantial evidence alone, where there is no direct evidence, and the only evidence that can be observable, is not testable?
How confident are you in it, and why?
Why do you have confidence in the methodologies that are all subjective, and based on opinions of researchers?
Are you fully convinced? Why?
What do you consider the most convincing evidence?

Referring to evolution on a grand scale.

You should not use "circumstantial" as a derogative term. Some of the most reliable evidence that we have is circumstantial and some of the poorest evidence is direct. Eyewitness evidence is actually weaker than DNA evidence which is circumstantial. I am fine with the evidence for evolution. It is so strong that one there is no response to it from creationists. Most do not even want to know what is and what is not evidence in the sciences.

And what makes you think that the evidence is not testable? That seems to be a rather odd claim to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In meaning they are identical. The only difference is the wording. So how does that make him a liar?

It doesn't. He is, however, the victim of false accusations. Not that there is likely to be acknowledgement of that or any apology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't. He is, however, the victim of false accusations. Not that there is likely to be acknowledgement of that or any apology.

I know, but let's cut him a little slack right now. After all it is just him against several posters. That can get to be a bit overwhelming. But I still don't want to give away the store. He just claimed that the evidence of evolution was not testable. You have worked in biology, perhaps you could explain to him how some evidence is tested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

shunyadragon said...
1. You consider the science of evolution Satanic
2. Evolution is the history of life from single cell organisms billions of years ago that evolved to the great diversity of life through the millennia sense.
3. You said, '(The science of) evolution is from Satan.'

Why did he try to adjust what he said, if it was the same as what I said? It didn't seem like he was being truthful.
If he knew exactly where to find the post, he could have quoted me.
Because I did not understand Darwin's idea of evolution and the idea of UCA to be the same as evolution. I was of the understanding that terminology matters... which is why I specified that in the OP, and at other times.

Is the term theory of evolution is no longer being used?
If there is no difference, then I am accusing him wrongfully for using the terminology according to his understanding, and would apologize for that.
I'm sorry @shunyadragon

However, referring to the ideas of universals common descent, yes I did say I believe it is a design of Satan.
I owned up to what I said, and what I understood I said, rather than what I thought someone was saying I said.
Anything else, I should do, or is this good?

Okay, that is better. "3." appears to be where your problem lies. Though it was a shortened version it was essentially the same as what I quoted. Sometimes one remembers the general gist of what somebody said and not the exact wording. Rather than going back to quote word for word a paraphrase is used. A paraphrase is not dishonest if it has the same idea as the original work.

And both "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" are used today just as "gravity" and "the theory of gravity" (also Einstein's General Relativity). The theory in both cases explain the facts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Computers do not verify evolution. Period.

That wasn't my point. My point was that computers demonstrate the reliability of the scientific method, not specifically evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Planes flying is not guesswork as if a plane evolved from something they did not see or have direct knowledge of (such as a unicell said to be the first living organism). I can only imagine you will argue against that in a circular fashion. Evolution works on its own, according to what I see you say, even though cells can be manipulated, which is not the same as "natural selection."
It's the same thing with cars and computers. That Edison utilized forces of nature does not mean that the phonograph evolved. It means that Edison put knowledge of what he knew to action, harnessing these forces. Similar to a flying machine. These things did not come about by themselves. That genes can be manipulated does not mean that a unicell OR a gene came up from whatever it is said to come up from by itself, kind of, more or less. A plane utilizing the forces of nature for propulsion is not evolution. Not even close.

You've entirely misinterpreted the point of my argument. Look above.

Although you could easily say that airplanes are a result of our observing and understanding of physical laws, just as phylogenetics and certain forms of medicine rely on our understanding of evolution. You're confusing the framework with the application. It would be perfectly reasonable to say that antibiotics demonstrate the reliability of the theory of evolution, just as planes demonstrate the reliability of our understanding of physics.