That hasn't stopped you so far in this thread...delay is NOT going to improve your chances of posting an honest, intelligent response.Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Transplanted Yankee
That hasn't stopped you so far in this thread...delay is NOT going to improve your chances of posting an honest, intelligent response.
Senior Member
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Nope yer a lazy researcher and don't read cites in my postsHmmmmm not only are ya a lazy researcher butt yer lazy in yer quotes as well. Here is exactly what I said:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Most theories start where the hypothesis attempts to describe observation. The Greeks, Chinese and Persans obsevered similarities in life and theorized that life evolved from organism to organism.
That particular part of the theory still has merrit.
As mankind learned from observation the theory obviously didn't explain the source, (the fundamental flaw from the onset), and also lacked a cohesive verifiable mechanism to develope new organisms from earlier ones, (the second major flaw).
Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.
Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.
The origin of life. (By design or random occurance), is fundamental to the success or failure of both very old competing theories no matter ho you and Missile dance with the written quotes in wiki and elsewhere of fellow believers.
The mechanism of change is the second profound weakness that SCIENCE, (advances in cellular technology has shown). Modificantions of Darwin still don't fit all observations or explain where life came from. Evolution is not a fact it is a theory in flux.Typical of yer lazy debate style: ya missquoted me as is obvious from a review of what I said, (directly preceding yer false characterization).Originally Posted by Missileman
Please provide a link where science has disproven natural selection.
N' now yer gettin' huffy n' calling me names based on yer own words not mine. What a clown.
Transplanted Yankee
What I am quoting:Hmmmmm not only are ya a lazy researcher butt yer lazy in yer quotes as well. Here is exactly what I said:
Typical of yer lazy debate style: ya missquoted me as is obvious from a review of what I said, (directly preceding yer false characterization).
N' now yer gettin' huffy n' calling me names based on yer own words not mine. What a clown.
<---AKA Natural SelectionDarwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.
Again...post a link where science has disproven natural selection as you claim.Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components
Senior Member
Yer bein' lazy. I never said what you claimed I said.
Transplanted Yankee
You've posted it twice now.
Senior Member
You have miss quoted me more then that.
Transplanted Yankee
I've quoted you word for word and in context...You have miss quoted me more then that.
Senior Member
Ya make chit up as yer doin' now.
Transplanted Yankee
Really? Am I mis-quoting you when I post that you wrote:Ya make chit up as yer doin' now.
Maybe you're confused. The first line in this quote is a simple explanation of evolution through natural selection. You claim in the next line that Darwin's proposal (evolution through natural selection) has been disproven by science.Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.
Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.
This leaves us with two possibilities:
1. You aren't familiar enough with the theory of evolution to recognize the first line is a simple explanation for evolution through natural selection AND posted the second line through an act of ignorance.
or
2. You ARE aware of what the first line is AND you have evidence that science has disproven natural selection as you claim in the second line.
Which is it?
Senior Member
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Ya make chit up as yer doin' now.
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.
Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.
If ya don't get current ideas about "evolution" then do ya: Clown? Yer buddy n' fellow true believer: Pete dug out this old quote I reposted fer ya a few posts back. You musta been tooooooo lazy ta read it. Try again.
"Many people, (Like Missile) do not understand current ideas about evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern consensus among evolutionary biologists."
"However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."
"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist, (or dumber like Missile) because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. (Missile certainly is superficial if nothing else) It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient." (fer dumbers)
"During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
or
3. You missquoted me by attampting ta plug in yer pedestrian kindergarten understanding of evolution, (yer religion), where I never stated "natural selection" was disproven. Re read the above statement (which I stand behind). Not yer rephrase of what I said.
Cites in this thread back up my statement as well n' you are to much of a lazy clown to read them.
Southern comfort!
What an interesting thread.
With all due respect to all and no offense intended to anyone, I personally
buy into the idea of "ancient aliens", Von Dani ken etc.
As we learn (which is a minute amount) how vast and unfathomable the universe is I just believe we are not the epitome of life or design...comparatively speaking that is.
The wonderful array of animals...well, I dont know about them but Im
glad we are here now and not living with dinosaurs.
What are reparations? Making me pay
for something I had nothing to do with compensates no one
who suffered an injustice therefore I would be penalized for
something I didnt do and someone else would receive a settlement
for an injury they did not suffer.
Transplanted Yankee
You can keep running around in circles if you want, but it's irrefutable that I quoted what you wrote you word for word and in context. It is irrefutable that due to context you were referring to :If ya don't get current ideas about "evolution" then do ya: Clown? Yer buddy n' fellow true believer: Pete dug out this old quote I reposted fer ya a few posts back. You musta been tooooooo lazy ta read it. Try again.
"Many people, (Like Missile) do not understand current ideas about evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern consensus among evolutionary biologists."
"However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."
"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist, (or dumber like Missile) because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. (Missile certainly is superficial if nothing else) It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient." (fer dumbers)
"During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
or
3. You missquoted me by attampting ta plug in yer pedestrian kindergarten understanding of evolution, (yer religion), where I never stated "natural selection" was disproven. Re read the above statement (which I stand behind). Not yer rephrase of what I said.
Cites in this thread back up my statement as well n' you are to much of a lazy clown to read them.
when you wrote:Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.
Darwin's proposed "mechanism" for evolution IS NATURAL SELECTION.Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.
If you are going to deny that you said science has disproven it, then it's irrefutable that the only person mis-quoting you is YOU...jackass!
Transplanted Yankee
Some scientists are toying with the idea that all life may have come perilously close to extinction a couple times billions of years ago and that the slate was wiped clean but for some bacteria trapped in salt crystals.
Senior Member
Those are YOUR WORDS: not mine, n' the bold doesn't change that fact.
I deny that "natural selection" was the specific mechanism in my statement: clown.
Last edited by OldMercsRule; 04-23-2010 at 01:06 PM.
Senior Member
None taken.
The discovery of chunks of Mars on Antartica, and the knowledge that bacteria can survive extremes, (including extremes in space) as learned from NASA trips back and forth with unintentional viral and bacterial specimens that survived re-entry, shows that life could transfer from one place in the universe to another life friendly place, (like earth).
I dunno that I could say that I "believe" what ya just said, butt: I accept the possibility, which doesn't cornflict with my belief in the fact that Jesus could have designed things that way as an all powerful GOD.
That is the whole point of my debate: nothing is "irrefutably" proven. The mechanisms of theories are in flux, (except Inteligent Design), which still fits all we see.
God may chose to let us see his face again prior to our death, or maybe not.
10-4
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote