RE: Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole
December 20, 2011 at 9:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2011 at 9:57 pm by chi pan.)
"I italicized the important bits, and bolded the bits which you seem to be completely ignorant of in your explanation of these theories. Feel free to apologize and retract your garbage misrepresentation whenever it's most convenient for you."
ok sorry for mistaking your typo for a misunderstanding of what i said but i still represented the theory quite well. i mentioned the theory of common thought that fly's arise from dead meat as listed in your wika quote and stated that if life cannot form from organic matter that is already assembled how much more likely is it to form from completely unconstructed raw materials by itself? and like usual you state i just don't understand the theory when it's not the theory i don't understand but the guessed process of the origin of life.
"It's not life from non-life that has been discredited by experimentation, it's the rather large body of beliefs that have nothing to do with life from non-life (ongoing, aphids from dew, flies from rotting matter, mice from dirty hay etc)."
last i checked Aristotle was in fact a scientist so i don't see where your statement applies. to say this was not thought to be science is to say Democritus' theory of the atom was not scientific. the only difference is that Democritus was right (sort of) and Aristotle was wrong. and not to mention people considered Aristotle's opinions very important at the time.
"No, anytime one invokes god, even to call him a moron, it isn't science"
sure i agree with that, but it is scientific to say things look like they were designed, just not scientific to name the designer. really i think there shouldn't be evolution or creation theories in public school except evolution that has been directly observed none of the speculation or connect the dots with widely spaced gaps sort of thing.
"What you need to do is use your connection to the interwebs for something other than arguing for abject ignorance. Google "autotroph", and "oxygen budget", then get back to me."
well what i found was a big thing on aquarium life saying all organism's need oxygen in order to survive. i know this is not exactly true b/c plants need CO2 in order to survive and oxygen but the oxygen they need can be durived from the CO2. and i know what an autotroph is. i'm just throwing out a guess that it's thought that archaeabacteria were the first organism's however they produce methane and i don't see how that can fill the atmosphere with oxygen. and on top of that why are there no 2 celled organisms? if single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms that does seam like the logical next step.
"not to mention w/o oxygen there's no ozone and nothing to protect amonia from harmful radiation that would be blocked by the ozone layer which it cannot evolve"
sorry this is a quote from myself and i meant to say organisms cannot evolve being exposed to the harmful radiation. my bad
"It's utter bullshit, and it can never be made science, no matter how much you complain about actual science."
i can say the same for evolution. evolution has always been scientists observing something in nature and making a claim blowing the observation way out of proportion. example: evolution started when Darwin went to the galapagos and observed 12 different kinds of finches and concluded that they must have had a common ancestor. well, i concur, they probably did have a common ancestor and it was a bird. then he later published something claiming all animals and plants have a common ancestor. WHAT? that's a bit of a jump isn't it? you get this from finches? just b/c kinds of animals can develope doesn't mean we are related to the bannana. and from my understanding there has never been an observed change in the species of an animal (not including wolves and dog's b/c they can interbreed) and in fact when you take those animals of different species and try to breed them you get hybrids such as mules that cannot reproduce (again excluding wolf dog hybrids).
"That would be "observe" and it was true in Aristotle's day but by the 17th century science had moved on."
yes i caught that mistake and tried to correct it before it was caught but i guess i was too late
ok sorry for mistaking your typo for a misunderstanding of what i said but i still represented the theory quite well. i mentioned the theory of common thought that fly's arise from dead meat as listed in your wika quote and stated that if life cannot form from organic matter that is already assembled how much more likely is it to form from completely unconstructed raw materials by itself? and like usual you state i just don't understand the theory when it's not the theory i don't understand but the guessed process of the origin of life.
"It's not life from non-life that has been discredited by experimentation, it's the rather large body of beliefs that have nothing to do with life from non-life (ongoing, aphids from dew, flies from rotting matter, mice from dirty hay etc)."
last i checked Aristotle was in fact a scientist so i don't see where your statement applies. to say this was not thought to be science is to say Democritus' theory of the atom was not scientific. the only difference is that Democritus was right (sort of) and Aristotle was wrong. and not to mention people considered Aristotle's opinions very important at the time.
"No, anytime one invokes god, even to call him a moron, it isn't science"
sure i agree with that, but it is scientific to say things look like they were designed, just not scientific to name the designer. really i think there shouldn't be evolution or creation theories in public school except evolution that has been directly observed none of the speculation or connect the dots with widely spaced gaps sort of thing.
"What you need to do is use your connection to the interwebs for something other than arguing for abject ignorance. Google "autotroph", and "oxygen budget", then get back to me."
well what i found was a big thing on aquarium life saying all organism's need oxygen in order to survive. i know this is not exactly true b/c plants need CO2 in order to survive and oxygen but the oxygen they need can be durived from the CO2. and i know what an autotroph is. i'm just throwing out a guess that it's thought that archaeabacteria were the first organism's however they produce methane and i don't see how that can fill the atmosphere with oxygen. and on top of that why are there no 2 celled organisms? if single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms that does seam like the logical next step.
"not to mention w/o oxygen there's no ozone and nothing to protect amonia from harmful radiation that would be blocked by the ozone layer which it cannot evolve"
sorry this is a quote from myself and i meant to say organisms cannot evolve being exposed to the harmful radiation. my bad
"It's utter bullshit, and it can never be made science, no matter how much you complain about actual science."
i can say the same for evolution. evolution has always been scientists observing something in nature and making a claim blowing the observation way out of proportion. example: evolution started when Darwin went to the galapagos and observed 12 different kinds of finches and concluded that they must have had a common ancestor. well, i concur, they probably did have a common ancestor and it was a bird. then he later published something claiming all animals and plants have a common ancestor. WHAT? that's a bit of a jump isn't it? you get this from finches? just b/c kinds of animals can develope doesn't mean we are related to the bannana. and from my understanding there has never been an observed change in the species of an animal (not including wolves and dog's b/c they can interbreed) and in fact when you take those animals of different species and try to breed them you get hybrids such as mules that cannot reproduce (again excluding wolf dog hybrids).
"That would be "observe" and it was true in Aristotle's day but by the 17th century science had moved on."
yes i caught that mistake and tried to correct it before it was caught but i guess i was too late
