Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Maybe let me just do a fraction of your summary of the truth. Which i have NO PROBLEM with. o.k
First of all, TRUTH, has a multitude of meanings. DICTIONARY.COM is trying to explain. Then u got the THEORIES of TRUTH by intellectuals, philosophers and the likes desperately trying to theorarize the meaning and definition of TRUTH.
And here is YOUR primary school level definition of truth.
U equate true = truth. Which i again i have no problem, but its ur insistence that YOUR theory is THE TRUTH is what astounds me. Your inability to see past the word itself, the verb the noun... of it. You think those intellectuals and philosophers did not know that ? They have already seen BEYOND that and are on a higher level of understanding, while u are still stuck at its infancy level of comprehension.
Next, we have a simple concept of 1 + 1 = 2. I said, its true, its a mathematical truth, hence i say, its true, but may not be the truth. I totally understand your simple understanding of the primary level of maths, but YOU however cant understand anything BEYOND that, ONLY after i TEDIOUSLY EXPLAINED to you then u understood and start blaming me on the different context n trying to riddle you. How hard is it to understand ? DO i have to POINT OUT.. n EXPLAIN... that WHY i said it is because it can be refered to in a different context ? Again, shows just how stupid u are to not even able to see beyond my simple language used. It is VERY obvious tat i meant other 1 + 1 = 2 context. Because, its the truth. 1 +1 doesnt always equal 2. Its a mathematical truth YES, but not the TRUTH in a sense, as an overall 1+ 1 = 2.
Then we come to the issue of Theologians and Scientists. I already said, TWO DIFFERENT FIELDS . How hard is it to understand thier different domain ? U say double standard.. OF COURSE> They are BOTH different FIELDS.
I have already explained to you the meaning of TRUTH in my context is ACTUAL EXISTENCE. And i APPLIED it consistently in all my statements, and u just dont understand. That again, just shows how stupid you are.
Your version of the truth is extremely easy to comprehend, its baby's level, using only simple linguistics direct from the dictionary to justify, i again have NOproblem with that. And u are here claiming i am not making sense when u are just too stupid to understand. You stupidity knows no end. I TOTALLY understand your concept, and i accept it. I UNDERSTAND.
Have some humility and accept that u have misunderstood. I admit my mistakes and accept your simple understanding of the truth, but u refuse to understand mine, and instead, force ur compliance upon me.
Please, read carefully. And open ur mind, think outside the box, instead of inside the box, stuck in ur dictionary defined meanig of the truth from the word true. Or else u are no different then those conservatice religious fanatics that worships the simple worded meaning in the dictionary like the bible. And please advance from primary school level maths to have better understanding, if u believe that Science is the search for TRUTH, SO BE IT. I ACCEPT YOUR SIMPLE MINDEDNESS.
I wonder who is the one being arrogant, stubborn and extremely stupid.
Just let him live in his own delusion lah. He wants to believe that a human being can just popup from a pond of water then let him believe lor. If he wants to believe the universe can create itself, let him believe it also, no point fighting. =)
-
Let’s imagine that you happened to stumble upon a unique camera in a low profile and run-down camera store. This camera is better than any digital or film camera that you’ve ever known to exist. It captures a wider range of light in any given lighting condition than any camera you’ve ever heard of, and can capture pictures instantly even in extremely low light conditions. It has a wide angle view of almost 180° with no barrel distortion, and captures images at 30 frames per second, at higher resolution than any high definition video camera that exists. Despite all of these features, the camera is small enough to be concealed in a closed hand. You are so impressed by this device, you are ready to buy it no matter what the price. You ask the store owner, “Where did this absolutely amazing piece of equipment come from? What company made this?” The store owner replies, “Nobody made it... I had a box of scrap metal, glass, and plastic in my tool shed, and one day I shook the box around and this camera just fell together.”
Insulted, you demand the store owner explain why he would try to give you such an absurd explanation. He replies, “I don’t believe in camera companies.”
You are even more confused now. “You must be an idiot,” you state, “if you don’t believe that a camera company designed this.” The owner pauses, and then finally says, “If you think that is idiotic... one time a college professor told me that the human eye formed randomly, without a designer, as a result of evolution.”
Between rods and cones, the human eye has about 126 million photoreceptors. In terms of digital camera speak, this would be 126 megapixel, ten times as much as a high end digital camera. Not only that, but humans have 2 of these, that both capture images constantly and send signals to the brain regarding depth perception. This is nothing compared to birds though... birds eyes, since they depend much more on vision, can have roughly ten times as many photoreceptors as humans, making their eyes essentially higher than 1,000 “megapixel!” This presents impossibilities for evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs, being reptiles, relied on other senses much more than birds, and had inferior eyes compared to even humans (unless their extremely complex eye evolved impossibly faster than even evolutionists claim). So for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird, it had to shrink its legs, grow large arms, become light in weight, grow feathers, and increase the complexity of its sight by more than 1,000-2,000 percent! All without leaving a single trace of this transformation in the fossil record. Impossible? But wait... aren’t humans supposed to be more “evolved” than birds? Why are their eyes better? Ridiculous indeed.
But BADZMARO let me make it clear, I am pointing out faults in both creationism and evolution, I am not on anyone's side :D
-
Every experiment ever conducted that attempts to push the genetic limits of mutations and natural selection has resulted in the discovery that there are clear genetic limits for every organism
-
You can have your beliefs Larry Teo. Its all good in pointing out faults in both creationism and evolution. That is why we are here discussing in the first place.
I am open to all possibilities, I believe in science as much as i have my faith in religion.
I am not pointing any faults or whatsoever, i was merely stating my opinion of Science in regards to what is true and what is the truth, what the domain of science is and the difference of interpretations in my context and the theories surrounding it . Thats all.
Like i said again, i am all open to suggestions and possiblities and i can understand your point of view with your reasoning and all that. I got no problem with it. I am also still in the process of understanding the mysteries of the universe.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
You need to have better qualifications if you want to have a say in the grand scheme and prove things true or false. And in what way am I playing with words? Proof is not concrete, Evidence is. Evidence would be fossile records, proof would be those experiments made only to back up theories. Am I right, Mr Hybrid?
Heh, ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of someone who have little basis for his arguments.http://www.thefreedictionary.com
proof [pru�f]
n1. any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc., of somethingev·i·dence (
v
-d
ns)n.1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgmentYou tell me if there's any differences in their meaning.
And all the proof and evidence of what i've brought up have always been backed up by experiments and articles done by qualified professionals.
Aren't you professing you know the grand scheme by saying evolution is false ? In order for something to be claimed as false, you need to know what is considered Truth isn't it ?
Where is your evidence then?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Every experiment ever conducted that attempts to push the genetic limits of mutations and natural selection has resulted in the discovery that there are clear genetic limits for every organism
Where is your evidence of this? Where are the articles of such experiments?Describe what you mean by pushing the genetic limits. What exactly defines limits here?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Let’s imagine that you happened to stumble upon a unique camera in a low profile and run-down camera store. This camera is better than any digital or film camera that you’ve ever known to exist. It captures a wider range of light in any given lighting condition than any camera you’ve ever heard of, and can capture pictures instantly even in extremely low light conditions. It has a wide angle view of almost 180° with no barrel distortion, and captures images at 30 frames per second, at higher resolution than any high definition video camera that exists. Despite all of these features, the camera is small enough to be concealed in a closed hand. You are so impressed by this device, you are ready to buy it no matter what the price. You ask the store owner, “Where did this absolutely amazing piece of equipment come from? What company made this?” The store owner replies, “Nobody made it... I had a box of scrap metal, glass, and plastic in my tool shed, and one day I shook the box around and this camera just fell together.”
Insulted, you demand the store owner explain why he would try to give you such an absurd explanation. He replies, “I don’t believe in camera companies.”
You are even more confused now. “You must be an idiot,” you state, “if you don’t believe that a camera company designed this.” The owner pauses, and then finally says, “If you think that is idiotic... one time a college professor told me that the human eye formed randomly, without a designer, as a result of evolution.”
Between rods and cones, the human eye has about 126 million photoreceptors. In terms of digital camera speak, this would be 126 megapixel, ten times as much as a high end digital camera. Not only that, but humans have 2 of these, that both capture images constantly and send signals to the brain regarding depth perception. This is nothing compared to birds though... birds eyes, since they depend much more on vision, can have roughly ten times as many photoreceptors as humans, making their eyes essentially higher than 1,000 “megapixel!” This presents impossibilities for evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs, being reptiles, relied on other senses much more than birds, and had inferior eyes compared to even humans (unless their extremely complex eye evolved impossibly faster than even evolutionists claim). So for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird, it had to shrink its legs, grow large arms, become light in weight, grow feathers, and increase the complexity of its sight by more than 1,000-2,000 percent! All without leaving a single trace of this transformation in the fossil record. Impossible? But wait... aren’t humans supposed to be more “evolved” than birds? Why are their eyes better? Ridiculous indeed.
But BADZMARO let me make it clear, I am pointing out faults in both creationism and evolution, I am not on anyone's side :D
You profess disbelief in creationism, yet you eagerly grab the arguments of creationism without hesitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye fully explains the evolution of the eye.
Humans were never more evolved than birds, we're hardly more evolved than most organisms on this planet. I have no idea where you got the ridiculous notion that evolution means progress.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Heh, ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of someone who have little basis for his arguments.http://www.thefreedictionary.com
proof [pru�f]
n1. any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc., of somethingev·i·dence (v-dns)n.1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgmentYou tell me if there's any differences in their meaning.
And all the proof and evidence of what i've brought up have always been backed up by experiments and articles done by qualified professionals.
Aren't you professing you know the grand scheme by saying evolution is false ? In order for something to be claimed as false, you need to know what is considered Truth isn't it ?
Where is your evidence then?
And may I know what backups the so-called, ''examined'' proofs and evidence, mr hybrid religion?
If a fish with gills and no lungs leaves water, it:
a) Dies.
b) Possibly flops around, and then dies.
c) Grows legs and lungs, and proceeds to morph into monkeys and buffalos.
If you answered (c), you’re an evolutionist! However, the correct answers would be (a) or (b).
That ^ is still the best experiment around, complete with 3 options you would want to choose =)
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
You profess disbelief in creationism, yet you eagerly grab the arguments of creationism without hesitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye fully explains the evolution of the eye.
Humans were never more evolved than birds, we're hardly more evolved than most organisms on this planet. I have no idea where you got the ridiculous notion that evolution means progress.
ooo did I? Or are you too stuck up with evolution that just because I cross over from your side I am a creationist? Have you not read my criticisms towards creationism's ambiguos claims? Are you so mixed with the blood of the chimp and the blood of a human's that your blood is contaminated and you became partially blind too?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
You profess disbelief in creationism, yet you eagerly grab the arguments of creationism without hesitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye fully explains the evolution of the eye.
Humans were never more evolved than birds, we're hardly more evolved than most organisms on this planet. I have no idea where you got the ridiculous notion that evolution means progress.
Hardly evolved than any of the organisms from this planet. What hypocrisy, for awhile all of you say ''oh, humans rule this planet because of their smart brain, which evolved over millions of years''. Then you start to claim that humans are not even much more evolved than any other organism in this planet. If humans are able to form civillization, domesticate almost every common animal from the jungle, then this proves that humans are smart, and the complex brain would need to be VERY EVOLVED THAN ALL OTHER ANIMALS ON THIS PLANET. Aren't evolutionists supposed to be very logical people? Why are they speaking out of context now?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Where is your evidence of this? Where are the articles of such experiments?Describe what you mean by pushing the genetic limits. What exactly defines limits here?
Gentic limits are limits to the amount of code you can change in an animal's DNA. Too much editing will cause death due to the bad changes. Microevolution, which is minor changes in the body's immune systems, cells, etc do happen, but they are different from macro-evolution. Micro-evolution happens all the time, even to those insects that reproduce a few hundred generations a week, but they are still insects and not morphed into sparrows.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
And may I know what backups the so-called, ''examined'' proofs and evidence, mr hybrid religion?
If a fish with gills and no lungs leaves water, it:
a) Dies.
b) Possibly flops around, and then dies.
c) Grows legs and lungs, and proceeds to morph into monkeys and buffalos.
If you answered (c), you’re an evolutionist! However, the correct answers would be (a) or (b).
That ^ is still the best experiment around, complete with 3 options you would want to choose =)
Then there are fish with both lungs and gils...
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
Then there are fish with both lungs and gils...
Are you referring to the smelly mudskipper LOL
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Are you referring to the smelly mudskipper LOL
I think they call it the lungfish
-
seems the creationists arent giving much posts with substance
-
I am lost between creationism and evolution. Both are equally loopholed. Sigh... someone give me direction please?
-
Maybe u should go read more books. Study properly and enhance your own knowledge first.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Maybe u should go read more books. Study properly and enhance your own knowledge first.
One of the most realistic replies ever
-
dun flatter badzie
-
Dont be jealous Laurence.. i will give u plenty.
-
Maybe we should go and playa round at woodleigh station during midnight.. muahahaha
-
i dun want
i got enuff from kopi
-
U can never get enough of it.. just like love.. cant get enough of lurve ! unf~
-
unf and lurve are two diff things
-
Yes, and both u cant get enough of it too. unf unf