1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

True Science Debunks Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Alter2Ego, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #21
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRe08bTbbg&feature=relmfu
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  2. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #22
    Obamanation, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  3. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    No folks!! This isn't a joke. He really DOES think that evolution means that one species will turn into another species...virtually overnight! So don't laugh. Be worried, very worried, that people like this are allowed to vote!
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  4. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    Tried that before..didn't work.
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  5. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    14
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #25
    Alter2Ego

    Are you at least capable of seeing that your use of the term "macroevolution theory" is innacurate? For crying out loud, you even provided the correct definition to shoot your own use of the term down in flames.

    One more time abiogenesis and biogenesis are distinctly different principles. Darwin speculated on biogenesis . . . abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. It has been added and proliferated as being part of TOE by people like yourself. Evolution does not propose the beginning of life, it certainly does not propose that life came from non living matter. To suggest otherwise in an era when so much correct information is at your fingertips is nothing more than seeing only that which you want to see to "prove" a desired outcome. Reverse methodology or working from a position of crippling bias, however you would like to describe it. You have taken the Genesis story and are force fitting, manipulating, misrepresenting, obfuscating and distorting facts to make it true but in the end it is all nothing more than lying to yourself.

    Instead of wasting my time arguing with someone who has continually had their inaccurate notions ripped to shreds by people with a bit of education but yet still claims victory, I'll move on. Though I might return to drop a link that you and people like yourself really need to see.
     
    Gomeza, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  6. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    A2E,
    If you truly want to understand what the ToE says, you'd do much better with even an intro-level biology text. I doubt you're interested at all, frankly. You only wish to discredit, but you don't have the knowledge to do it, so you rely on apologist website mis-information, which can really get you in trouble, as we're now seeing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  7. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    Alter2Ego's Science Reaction Checklist.

    Theory of electromagnetism: Good!
    Theory of gravity: Good!
    Quantum theory: Good!
    Germ Theory: Good!
    Thermodynamics: Good!
    Theory of evolution: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and those dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us.
    Photosynthesis: Good!
    Periodic Table of the Elements: Good!
    Theory of Relativity: Good!
    Acoustics Theory: Good!
    Chaos Theory: Good!
    Number theory: Good!
    Big Bang theory: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and how can they believe in the Big Bang when no one was around to see it.
    Cell Theory: Good!
    Decision theory: Good!
    Circuit Theory: Good!

    So, in general, science is great and one of the best means of understanding our universe...... unless it contradicts the writings of ancient goat herders. Then it's evil and wrong.
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  8. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #28
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    The textbook definitions of micro- and macroevolution were for your benefit, because you erroneously insisted micro- and macroevolution are "unnecessary" distinctions, suggesting you think there's not much difference between the two. Below is an excerpt from your initial post on Page 1 of this thread where you said it.


    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    The textbooks confirmed what I said, that micro- and macroevolution are vastly different. Microevolution is with reference to variations within the exact same species of animal, meaning the various expressions of the same creature can still interbreed with one another (eg. dogs and wolves belong to the same species and can therefore interbreed). Macroevolution, on the other hand, claims—without evidence—that the animal evolved into something entirely different from what it started off as (a dinosaur evolved into a bird) so that the new version of the creature is incapable of interbreeding with what it started off as because the change is ABOVE the species level. Now you are trying to claim victory after the textbook definitions debunked you? Wow! Unbelievable.
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  9. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    14
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #29
    There is a great deal of hubris involved at the personal level when an individual, who must know that his understanding of science is at best rudimentary, feels that he can refute a scientific theory that has withstood 150 years of international peer review and scrutiny by countless thousands of accredited men of science. The best and the brightest of our species have subjected the scientific theory of evolution to relentless scrutiny over this time period and have yet to disprove its basic principles.

    So waddya think the chances are that any amongst us could possibly offer any insight that would refute the overwhelming mountains of evidence accumulated by these men and women over this time period?

    If you believe that you have somehow managed to do this with a handful of poorly conceived counter arguments, some misquotes and misrepresentation, you should stand up and take a bow . . . . you are indeed the king of self delusion.

    Now go stand by your mailbox, your crown will be arriving soon and yes, it will be 1/2 size too big to fit over your tin foil helmet.

    Of course I'm not referring to anyone in particular . . . but if the shoe fits.

    For anyone who sincerely would like to know more about the scientific theory of evolution, a good place to begin is the following video series:

    [video=youtube;KnJX68ELbAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY[/video]​
     
    Gomeza, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  10. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #30
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Using the expression "one more time" is supposed to add more weight to your personal denials of the facts? This back and forth about what Charles Darwin believed has already been covered in my Post #7 on Page 1 of this thread.

    True enough, evolution theory deals with creatures evolving into other species or variations of themselves by means of a "common ancestor." But what you and many evolutionists won't admit is that the evolution theory relies upon abiogenesis to have produced the "common ancestor." While I acknowledge that evolution theory and abiogenesis are technically two principles, they are forced together like Siamese twins because there has to be an explanation for how the common ancestor came to life from non-life without God. That is the dilemma of the evolution theory: It attempts to exclude God by latching itself to abiogenesis aka spontaneous generation.

    Charles Darwin and modern pro-evolution scientists rely on abiogenesis aka spontaneous generation. I might add that they got this idea from Greek philosopher Aristotle. Below is yet another source that confirms this. Keep your eyes on the words bolded in red.


    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/01/darwin’s-framework-self-organization/#more-2371


    Even after Louis Pasteur debunked Darwin on abiogenesis, to this day, the modern evolution theory continues to rely on abiogenesis aka "self-organization" to have produced the "common ancestor." Remember, by ruling out an intelligent God, atheists are forced to rely on abiogenesis (life coming to life by itself) to have produced the "common ancestor." Without the "common ancestor," there could be no evolution.

    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/01/darwin’s-framework-self-organization/#more-2371
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  11. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    14
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #31
    You really should stop copying and pasting snippets from the internet and offering them as arguments without fully comprehending their meaning. You may also want to try sticking to valid sources (any blog selling self authored books is not generally considered an accredited source regardless of their beliefs)

    By doing so you've gotten yourself into immediate trouble: abiogenesis and self-organization are not synonymous words, nor do they represent the same scientific principle. Just as the term "survival of the fittest" is often thought to be synonymous with the term "process of natural selection" there are far too many instances where they are not readily interchangeable to be considered synonymous.

    Getting your information from other extremely biased and misinformed sources isn't doing your ill conceived arguments any favors.

    Again . . . try picking up a Websters dictionary and learning the actual definitions of the words you are attempting to use and until you do . . adios.
     
    Gomeza, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  12. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    Alter2Ego and his cat.

    [​IMG]
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  13. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #33
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Translation: any source that does not line up with Gomeza's ideology is "misinformed."

    I should not quote from blogs, you say. You are hardly in a position to complain about me quoting occasionally from blogs, considering all you've presented thus far is a YouTube video. In my opening post I quoted three different refereed papers written by pro-evolution scientists. At Post #13 on Page 1 of this thread, I quoted two school textbooks and also quoted biology-online.org, which gave a scientific definition of "macroevolution," rather than a layman's definition from Webster's Dictionary. (I actually own three Webster's Dictionaries but opted for the scientific definition from biology-online.org.)

    Meanwhile, all you've done is posted a YouTube video. YouTube is to video what Wikipedia is to print. Neither of them are reliable, unless what they say is backed up by quoting other reference sources. Why so? Because anybody can post a video on YouTube and anybody can post stuff on Wikipedia—whether or not they have credentials.


    Compare my six "scholarly" sources against the YouTube video and what are we left with?

    ANSWER: your repetitive personal objections to everything I post, while you present no scientific sources as rebuttals.


    Below are two more reliable sources.

    1. DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY IN 1859:
    "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Source: Origin of Species, p. 484)


    2. EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012 MIMICKING DARWIN -- FROM PRO-EVOLUTION WEBSITE:


    http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  14. Gomeza

    Gomeza Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    14
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #34


    My ideology is predicated upon personal integrity, can you say the same?

    The Youtube video is actually one of a 15 part series that you really need to see. I have watched them several times and haven't as yet found any inaccuracies.

    Credible sources are vitally important when using material from the web, especially when dealing with this subject and especially in the years since the minions of the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy and other similar movements have polluted public domain with such enormous volumes of bogus material concerning evolution. Much of which you have latched onto.

    A battle of posting links and copied quotes is something that I am simply not interested in investing time in. Nothing I provide is going to cure you of your crippling religious bias. As a matter of fact I'm simply going to leave this thread permanently after re-iterating a few points you should listen to but probably will dismiss.

    The last portion of the post where you begin with this heading "Scientific theory" and encapsulate numbered points is if nothing else, an illustration of the pointlessness of discussing this subject with you. There is not one thing within that encapsulated area (at quick glance) that I disagree with yet you offer it to me as a form of rebuttal. I'm guessing that you still don't know the difference between biogenesis and abiogeneisis and are still refusing to correct your inaccuracy of ascribing abiogenesis to Darwin's formation of evolutionary theory instead of biogenesis.

    Again and for the last time, pick up a dictionary and look up some of the words you are misusing and watch a few of those YouTube videos. I still suggest these things because if you are intent at overturning 150 years of scientific research with links and quotes from the web, you may want to find out what it is that you are actually hopelessly attempting to refute.
     
    Gomeza, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  15. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #35
    Genesis describes making Adam from the earth then using his rib to make eve. How does that not describe evolution?
     
    Bushranger, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  16. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #36
    Look out Gomeza! You'll soon be on the ignore list. LOL!

    No, you didn't quote them, you quote-mined them...as I showed earlier.
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  17. pladecalvo

    pladecalvo Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #37
    These 'creationist' do go spinning around don't they. One minute they are crowing about Darwin being wrong about evolution (despite the fact that for 150 years, the ToE has withstood being falsified)...and the next minute they are quoting Darwin as a "reliable source"!
     
    pladecalvo, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  18. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #38
    ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
    Believe me, I know the difference between biogenesis and abiogenesis. All that's required for anyone is to type either word into a search engine and hit the ENTER key and dozens of websites will pop up with the definitions. Darwin proposed abiogenesis, as indicated by what I stated and referenced in Post #7.

    Me, watch YouTube self-promoters? Nah! I'll pass. Give me the printed word anytime. You can stick with YouTube, since that's your preference.

    You will leave the thread for good you said? Why is that? Because the three refereed quotes I presented in my OP, the two textbook quotes and the biology-online.org quote I presented in Post #13, the Richard Dawkins quote I presented in Post #16 from his book the Selfish Gene, the Charles Darwin quote I presented in Post #33 from from his book Origin of Species, and the various other sources I quoted cannot hold a candle to your one single YouTube video? Never mind that all of the quotes I just described are from pro-evolution sources--all of them debunking their own macroevolution theory by having to admit to its 150 years of flaws.

    If you feel like leaving the thread permanently, that's your choice. You shouldn't take this topic so personal. Really, it's just a theory, and one that is full of gaping holes--which I was merely pointing out. At no time did I rely on my personal opinion when debunking macroevolution. I relied completely on academia and other sources. In other words, your battle is not with me but with the sources I quoted--some of which happen to be pro-evolution. It's not my fault that you don't want to accept what the sources are saying.

    Cheers!
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
    Alter2Ego, Aug 3, 2012 IP
  19. Mikaël2

    Mikaël2 Member

    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    35
    #39
    What makes you think the bible is the "inspired word of God" ?
     
    Mikaël2, Aug 4, 2012 IP
  20. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #40
    ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
    I don't "think" it is; I know it is. The evidence of this is presented in almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies--some of them written centuries before the event. Archeology and secular history confirms many of these prophecies, and neither archeology nor secular history are related to the Bible. They are simply independent sources. In other words, nobody can argue that the Bible is used to prove the Bible (circular argument).
     
    Alter2Ego, Aug 4, 2012 IP