Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,191,229 members, 7,943,401 topics. Date: Sunday, 08 September 2024 at 02:30 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? (7750 Views)
How To Debate Or Argue With An Athiest / Pastor Adeboye Was Afraid To Die On Nigeria Airways Flight / If Heaven Is Real Why Are Christians Afraid To Die?? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by KAG: 4:06am On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: 1 "Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes. As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others may have been caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks that become meteorites, etc)." 2"There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc. As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known." However, I can go further on the first question. First, one should realise that it s likely that it wasn't just life that was necessary for evolution, but lifeforms, as evolution occurs in populations. Now, as to the origins of the first lifeforms, there exist only different hypotheses that propose, in some cases, tangible ways life may have arisen. The RNA world hypthesis is probably the most well known. As regards ERVs, i need to sleep - comprehensive questions detailing how appallingly untrue much of that will be coming tomorrow. Pls dont miss it! Lol. I'll just wait for you to insult yourself. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by bawomolo(m): 4:06am On Mar 24, 2009 |
Mutations and adaptation we can observe . . . why can we not observe macro-evolution? so what happened to the Timena cristinae or the stickleback fish? Sticklebacks are enormously varied, so much so that in the 19th century naturalists had counted about 50 different species. But since then, biologists have realized most populations are recent descendants of marine sticklebacks. Marine fish colonized new freshwater lakes and streams when the last ice age ended 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Then they evolved along separate paths, each adapting to the unique environments created by large scale climate change. “There are really dramatic morphological and physiological adaptations” to the new environments, Kingsley said. For example, “sticklebacks vary in size and color, reproductive behavior, in skeletal morphology, in jaws and teeth, in the ability to tolerate salt and different temperatures at different latitudes,” he said. Kingsley, Schluter and their co-workers picked one trait — the fish's armor plating — on which to focus intense research, using the armor as a marker to see how evolution occurred. Sticklebacks that still live in the oceans are virtually covered, from head to tail, with bony plates that offer protection. In contrast, some freshwater sticklebacks have evolved to have almost no body armor. http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley4.html Another evidence of adaptation or "mutation" as u may call it http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2008/05/15/reverse_evolution.html |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 10:30am On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Davidylan, Many thanks for the links to the New Scientist article. I like it when people reference respected material in such debates and I have learned a lot from that material. Many thankz. But I have got one important reservation and it is the following: Why should I trust the work of these Chinese scientist? Is it conceivable that they have got their methodology all wrong and have fed the world with wrong and misleading data about the alleged age of these crustaceans. Can we be sure that the figure of 525 millions is in the correct ball-park? I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 11:18am On Mar 24, 2009 |
Quote from: huxley on Today at 01:53:45 AM Good. Now we know that much of the posturing here has been largely in ignorance. Yes, the human race is largely ignorant as to the naturalistic origin of life, but that is not to say that we shall for ever remain ignorant. Secondly, the fact that we have no explanation for something or an event does not preclude making further useful prediction/theories about that something Quote from: huxley on Today at 01:53:45 AM Before the eye fully "evolved" to what it is now, what did it look like before? Before a goat became what we know of it today, what was it like mid-evolution? You still have NOT define what an intermediate lifeform is? Before a goat, there was something similar to a goat, but with NOT exactly the same morphology as a present day goat. Now, Davidylan, to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, can you address these first please? It is only fair that you attempt my questions, as I have done yours. 1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts. 2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it? |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 12:29pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
noetic: What is this thing called EVOLUTION that you are so opposed to and criticizing, but you seem not to know what you are criticising? Don't you think it makes sense that you should first of all learn the claims of evolution before venturing to criticise it? How can you criticise something that you don't understand. Your strategy is commonly called "Shooting the strawman". It means you carricature or misrepresent a view so that you can more easily shoot it down. Are your opposition to evolution the result of scientific skepticism or from religious principles. If they are scientific, can you present the scientific data/evidence that renders evolution untenable? Once again I ask the following questions: 1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts. 2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it? |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by wirinet(m): 1:17pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: I decided to respond to this thread again because i felt that you cannot squeeze water from a stone no matter how long and hard you try, that is referring to davidylan and co. You can explain evolution to them a thousand times and they would still say you have not answered a single question there are raising. But i am responding now because of the above statement by huxley whom i respect very much, and a few others. Scientist have very good and sound postulations about the origin of live on earth and the process being repeated on other planets. It had been dealt with extensively by my mentor - Carl Sagan. But for those who do not know here is my explanation. Before I explain the naturalistic origin of life as generally accepted by scientists, we have to agree on the definition of life. So What Is Life? I think the problem we have is that different people has a different definition of life. We have spiritual life, biological life, physical life, and so on. The one we are interested in is biological or organic life. I have no definition or understanding of spiritual life. To me Life is a self contained system of molecules that is capable of duplicating itself from generation to generation. Put in another way it is organic molecules with the potential of forming self reproducing systems. The basic unit of life is The DNA. If you agree with me on the definition of life, we can then move on to its origin, if not then our thought pattern will never cross. Nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, as they are responsible for life's primary function - replication and growth. Nucleic acids and protein are polymers. Polymerization involves the loss of water. In constructing a nuceic acid, the phosphorous group losses -OH, allowing the phosphate group to link with ribose sugar. The ribose sugar and a base link when the ribose loses an -OH and the base loses one -H. The loss of these two water molecules leads to the formation of a nucleotide. A nucleotide links to the next nucleotide when it loses one -H and the other one loses one -OH. To make nucleic acids out of the original dehydration(loss of water ) is necessary.dehydration is also necessary to polymerize amino acids into proteins. Polymerization of carbohydrates also requires dehydration. The original components (phospate group, ribose deoxyribose sugars, bases, amino acids, glocose, etc) are readily formed by by action of electrical charges meaning lightening and ultraviolet radiation in the primitive atmosphere of the earth (see Miller's experiment). These compounds are readily dissolved in rainwater and brought down to the primitive ocean. There these compounds are protected from destruction from the same agents (electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation) that created them. As the ocean accumulated these compounds, it slowly became a dilute "primordial soup" The dehydration process needed for polymerization most likely took place on the beaches and in tidal pools of the ancient ocean. Experiments have shown that RNA is autocatalytic, which means that an RNA stand once formed by accidental dehydration can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short stands of RNA were probably the first self duplicating systems to come into being on the young earth. In those viruses that use RNA as genetic material, the RNA strand is protected by a sheath of specific proteins. the association of RNA with proteins may have led to protein synthesis, and eventually to Primordial Life. Mr Davidylan and co might argue that life could not have evolved on earth because the earth was too young. According to them 4.6 billion years is too short a time to make all the various type of proteins and nucleic acids needed to make even the simplest bacteria. But they forget the extreme power of natural environmental selection. Evolution was also operating at the molecular level: compounds that were not stable would not survive, leaving only the most stable compounds. It happens that nucleic acids are very stable compounds. Let me give you an example how natural selection works. Imagine you want the entire King James Bible types by a wild monkey. What are the chances that such a monkey, typing at random will come up with the bible neatly typed without any error. The king James bible is said to contain about 6 million letter. The chances of success is almost nil. But if i introduce a control (the environment) what deletes any wrong letter the monkey would type, the probability would certainly be 1. And typing at one letter per second and assuming an average of 13 errors per letter, the monkey would produce the English Bible in 13 X 6,000,000 seconds, which equals 2 yrs and 6 months. That is how evolution by natural selection works. i hope you people understand the origin of life and Evolution better now as i am exhausted. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 2:19pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
wirinet: Hello Wirinet, I made the comment which you have highlighted huxley: in part to yield some ground to the fact that a lot remains unknow about the origins of life although scientist now have very plausible explanations for how life came about. Almost every step through which life is thought to have undergone is being tested and replicated in labs, which good result. I think some teams have even succeeded in producing proto-cells in the lab, which represents a tremendous progress from the Miller experiments of some decades ago. As scientist, we still have to have some measure of provisionality about our work/theories. It is conceivable that we could reproduce life in the form of cells with complex behaviour, but we may never know (I think ) if this was exactly the same way that life originated on the planet. There may indeed be many routes that lead to this thing called life, and our planet may just have taken one of many routes. What we might end up doing in the lab may just be another route. This concept is called convergence, which I guess you are already aware of. Yes, I made the consertion to Davidylan because I want the debate to move onto EVOLUTION rather than ABIOGENESIS, which incidentally, the creationists are not adequately mentally equiped to make the distinction. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by noetic(m): 3:57pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
wirinet: Rubbish. You simply described the behaviours of RNA without sheding light of the origin or evolution of life. U are discusing the self replicationg nature of RNA, while we are asking the pioneer formation of this RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure? the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology butresses this. Yet evolution claims that the first substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". or am i wrong? RUBBISh, . . . . . Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor. Whats ur explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor? I am asking very simple straight forward questions here. Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consesus or common denominator to whom life might can be traced to between these three? as seen in d image below Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are the last traces of life. Me the creationist is asking u the evolutionist, what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life? and what were the substances that made up this reaction? what was the structure of the first living things? i eargerly await ur response.
|
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by noetic(m): 3:58pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: is this ur way of saying thank you for correcting ur rubbish and unintelligent posers about Genesis account of creationism?. by asking simple cogent questions, we will collectively come to the overall conclusion of the untenability of the evolution lie. And once again i ask u, how does me answering ur posers elucidate on either the theory of evolution or the creation belief. I refuse to be distracted. PS: I have educated ur concerns on the Genesis account of creation, why dont u do the same on the origin and evolution of life. by doing that we might make progress here. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by noetic(m): 3:59pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
While the evolutionists find it impossible educate us on the origin and pioneer elements that evoluted life, I will proceed to highlight the second part of the creation story. Moral lesson: Never postulate what u dont understand (evolutionist as in evolution). google and wikipedia can be very unreliable when analytical and intellectually driven debates happens. The second part of the creation story. 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. Adam and Eve 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." 18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, [j] ' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 4:20pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
noetic: Forget about Genesis and try and answer simply questions rather deploying evasive tactics. How could you possibly criticise something that you do not understand? What are your scientific criticism for evolution? To be able to criticise it you need to at least demonstrate an understanding of what is the target of your criticism. Just checking - have you ever been to any establishment to learning - like a school, college, university? Did you pay attention to lessons while there? Or are you a product of one of the myriads of bible colleges in Nigeria? |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Badriyyah(f): 4:47pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
Ummmm, I have a problem here. Why are you using the Bible as evidence? |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by noetic(m): 5:14pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: I am happy u said this, can u please forever [b]shut up [/b]then on the alledged "holes" of the bible u always google up. WHAOOOO. . . . . . . this is the height of delusion. Have my questions about evolution being misinformed? if they have. . . . . .please make clarifications. u cant even answer them, yet u ascribe infinite knowledge to urself about evolution. I m convinced u r confused. what does my qualification has to do with ur apparent lack of understanding? bible colege?? So now u see ur folly and lack of understanding. If u have intelligent issues please raise them. otherwise. . . . . back off. Badriyyah: On the contrary the bible is not used as an evidence. I have simply put forward certain basic contradictory concepts of the evolution madness, and the self proffesed evolution genius cannot answer them. . . , , . . . .showing his folly. By presenting the Genesis 1 and 2 account of the creation, I choose to present to him and others, my beliefs on creationism. So while I raise posers on the fallacy of evolution, anyone can do the same on creationism. But of course he wouldnt, cos in the words of a man . . . . . his wisdom or lack of it is known. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 5:54pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
noetic, on a sidenote i suggest you ignore Baddriyah. I think she's simply looking for attention. I'd wager you also ignore wirinet, he hasnt read a biology textbook in 25 yrs yet he is here bleating about what he doesnt know about. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 6:49pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
KAG: In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely speculating what may have been WITHOUT VALID PROOF. Where did the rocks that became meteors come from? thin air? Why was earth chosen of over 9 planets? How did these extraterrestrial bodies form? How was the earth formed? What brough oxygen here? And you dare accuse us of basing our beliefs on mere faith? KAG: Can you show us JUST ONE of such "many examples" pls? We are getting tired of verbose claims that have no basis in reality. Why are transitionals RARE but more complex life forms of even unicellular organisms are common place in the fossil record? KAG: You've been bleating about this for the last 4 threads . . . are there NO SIMPLE EXAMPLES? Where are the horse transitionals? where are the goat, human, ape, fish, kangaroo transitionals? KAG: In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely grasping at straws . . . and you accuse us of basing our entire beliefs on faith alone? KAG: to be expected when you run into the brickwall of your own denial. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 7:01pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Davidylan, Many thanks for the links to the New Scientist article. I like it when people reference respected material in such debates and I have learned a lot from that material. Many thankz. But I have got one important reservation and it is the following: Why should I trust the work of these Chinese scientist? Is it conceivable that they have got their methodology all wrong and have fed the world with wrong and misleading data about the alleged age of these crustaceans. Can we be sure that the figure of 525 millions is in the correct ball-park? I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 7:21pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead. 1. That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published. 2. Only one of 4 of the researchers was Chinese, the other 3 were British. Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected. DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794 |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 7:25pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: I'm glad you're begining to realise that EVEN SCIENCE is casting major doubts on the lies that TTE is gradually turning out to be. And this was the same ignorant fool accusing me of being dishonest . . . take your time to read the VERY SCIENCE you worship and tout before posting here next time. lol shrimps have "not not not" been around for 400 million yrs indeed! The clueless ones like wirinet would simply have lapped up his false claim, assuming because he posts tons of youtube links he must know what he is saying. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 7:38pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Thanks for that again. I think we are getting somewhere now. So you agree that this is a very scientifically credible work and the dates of 525 MYA is very plausible? It that were not the case it would have been challenge by the peer-review process. Now, 525 MYA ago happen to fall right in the middle of the cambrian period, which spans 543MYA - 495MYA, and you agree with the scientist of your reference article that crustaceans roamed the earth then. What other animals roamed the earth alongside the crustaceans? Why have human, rabbits, elephants, dogs fossils NEVER been found in rocks dating this period, circa 525 MYA? Why do they only appear in much later rock strata? Can you show me scientific articles, peer-reviewed as the one you cited, that show these mammals to have existed in the cambrian? |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 7:54pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: Dude . . . you cant keep recycling around your own stupidity and forcing us to answer your own queries. You are the one who swears by the gods of science not me, you're the one who claims fossils prove evolution is true not me . . . answer your own question. Thou hypocrite, stop bothering to ask for scientific peer-reviewed articles when all you can provide is talkorigins and youtube.com |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 7:55pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: The above response need to be noted by ALL and saved and immortalised for posterity, as it displays Davidylan in his dishonest duplicity about the scientific process. Firstly it shows him agreeing with a very old earth view of the world, and secondly it shows him displaying confidence in the scientific reseach, peer-review, publications process. Note - I predict that it will NOT be long before he tries to detract or withdraw his overall approval of these processes and their result. Just keep watching this space. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 8:06pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: dude, your own duplicity makes me sick. You who swears by the gods of science DID NOT know that there were crustaceans during the cambrian period . . . infact you labelled me dishonest and fraudulent for even suggesting what had already been published since the summer of 2008. You're merely trying to mitigate the disaster that your own ignorance has exposed you to. I dont disaprove of science in general if not i wont be in the field at all. What i find despicable is the fact that many of you clueless bufoons who cant EVEN READ THAT SCIENCE instead prefering to rummage through youtube links stay here bellowing hot air. Science is not flawless . . . but slowly it is begining to prove wrong the very pillars that you hold unto. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by wirinet(m): 8:22pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: I think you are suffering from youthful exorbitance as you probably only started learning science and you suddenly feel you can challenge almost all establish scientist dating back 3 centuries, especially in the field of paleontology, microbiology and genetics. When i said I have not read Biology since secondary school, I meant general biology, I did not tell you i do not read aspects that is of concern to me. i have studied everything that has to do with evolution, from astronomy to anthropology, from physics to geology, etc. I made the statement because i was not sure that scientist had agreed that cancer is hereditary, i know the last time i read about it, there were sharp disagreements among scientist as to the degree hereditary plays in cancer and the degree environmental factors plays. That was why i asked you for links or sources. I have read your answer and i will research the veracity when i have time. I have been on nairaland for a while and i never talk of what i do not understand, i will tell you as far as i understand any topic. I never google or cut and past. You can try all my post on all the search engines, you will find my arguments in any website because i write from my head. You asked a simple question of the origin of life, I answered the way the scientific community understands it, and instead of discussing the merits of my arguments, you simply ran away by saying i do not understand what i am talking about. If beats me how an educated person can compare a few line of conjecture from the bible, to the myriads of materials detailing the formation and evolution of life by numerous men who devoted their whole life to deciphering the mysteries of life. And someone will tell us that the few assertion of the Bible is more reasonable and sensible than science. That is the first time i am hearing such. Theist usually tell us that the Bible is accepted on faith and not on logic. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by huxley(m): 8:24pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Has my catching you so easily rile you? Do you now have to resort to insult instead of making arguments withs facts and data? I know this was gonna happen? This is not a debate about who knows more than whom, but a debate about getting to the truth about the reality concerning the diversity of life on the planet. Nobody can claim to know everything there is to know about a given subject. Even experts who work on their select field daily can never claim to know everything about their subject. Least of all me, you is not an expert, but an interested layperson. If I do not know a fact and its relation to the grand scheme of things, chances are good that I may know where and how to inform myself about that fact - I go to the learned sources, the experts, the likes of the scientific journals, books, etc, etc, to inform myself. I do not come here to parade knowledge or ignorance - I come so that we can together try to arrive at credible knowledge. So it does not bother me in the least if you call me ignorant. In fact, if you point at my ignorance of a fact, I am generally quite happy because it give me the opportunity to go bone up of the knowledge concerning that fact. [size=15pt]Why do you inform yourself about evolution?[/size] |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by wirinet(m): 8:30pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Do you have to tell deliberate lies to support your myth. please read my post. I had never posted a youtude link in my life. In fact i have never visited the youtube website. I even avoid youtube links because my server is extremely slow, and i will take too long to open. \so please stop telling lies, it will land you in hell. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Badriyyah(f): 8:34pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: The question was not directed at you. And what attention would I hope to get on a FORUM? Tsk Tsk David. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 8:34pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
wirinet: First its "youthful exhuberance", or did you also read a dictionary last 25yrs ago? wirinet: 1. I started learning science in 1995. You do the maths. 2. I am not challenging "establish (sic) scientists" . . . i am challenging YOU ignorant folks who parrot talking points from youtube and talkorigins (those are NOT established scientists!) and suddenly think you know. I used the same established scientists to debunk Huxley's false claim that crustaceans didnt exist 400 million urs ago. 3. Paleontology has shown us that there are NO intermediate life forms to support evolution as a theory. 4. Microbiology has shown us that bacteria has remained the same for millions of yrs . . . why hasnt it evolved? 5. Genetics shows us that it is mathematically impossible for genes to have appeared simply by mutations . . . for instance we know that certain portions of ERV (alleged) LTRs control the p53 regulatory network - that begs the question - which came first? The ERV or the p53 network? wirinet: and you didnt know that mutations are the basis for cancer? Fat chance. wirinet: You been living in a cave all along? This has been common knowledge for yrs . . . that is why women whose mothers had breast or cervical cancer are especially urged to have hospital checkups once a yr. wirinet: that must have been 25 yrs ago. wirinet: Dont bother "researching the veracity" . . . those things i said are common knowledge that ordinary high school students are taught here. wirinet: which is why i wonder why you are here. If you dont understand cancer then what are you doing on topics like this? wirinet: we thank God. At least u're better than bawomolo, huxley and KAG. If they didnt have google or youtube i wonder what they would have done. wirinet: The scientific community cannot be basing their claims on speculations, hypothesis, non-verifiable premises and then turn around to accuse the creationists of depending on faith alone. wirinet: This is purely disgraceful falsehood. The "myriad of materials" you claim DO NOT DETAIL THE FORMATION OF LIFE AT ALL!!! Neither do they detail the evolution of life. There is NO SINGLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to show us how we evolved and from what? your claims on evolution are NOT based on logic but on irrational faith in science. If it is based on logic, why has man or even protists failed to evolve into more complex creatures in the last 1000 yrs alone? |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 8:36pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
Badriyyah: which is why i specifically was speaking to noetic not you. wirinet: Read that post of mine you quote - where did i say you posted from youtube or even viewed it? Get some common sense. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Badriyyah(f): 8:37pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Then don't include me in your conversation. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by Nobody: 8:38pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
huxley: I already do and you know that . . . that is why i refer you to Science papers instead of youtube like you do. Where you arguing from facts and data earlier when you LIED IN BOLD that crustaceans didnt exist 400 million yrs ago? huxley: much of the expert links has come from me . . . of course unless you consider youtube "learned sources". |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by ilaugh1: 8:41pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
we dont discuss evolution because it is simply rubbish. |
Re: Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution? by wirinet(m): 8:44pm On Mar 24, 2009 |
davidylan: Sorry, for the misunderstanding, i thought you were referring to me when i saw my name. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
Share Your Sunday Sermon Topic And Text / "Would You Dare To Remove A Charm Placed On Your Doorstep?" / Ifa Of The Year 2010: Ose Obara
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 217 |