Darwinists' ''Artificial Life'' Deception
- Thread starter acalltofaith
- Start date
- Replies 32
- Views 6K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
How so? that is a popular expedient for some around these woods..would love to discuss contents otherwise but the detour started pretty much with the second post.
all the best
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I had no idea what that sentence meant actually or of its relevance!
all the best
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I have already defined what 'Darwinism' is a few posts back, but I agree with your first statement above!
all the best
You didn't exactly define anything, you just criticized it. Is a Darwinist anyone who believes that evolution is real? Makes it sound like thinking a particular scientific theory likely to be true somehow automatically brands you with some nonexistent religion.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1385276 said:
I didn't see you discussing the original post much either beyond expressing your dismay with the term 'Darwinist' We have had otherwise several 'evolution' threads where the particulars were discussed at length. You may use the search feature, the third from your anatomical right for a more expansive view if that is your desire or direct scientific queries in a systematic fashion as pertains to the original post, not the term Darwinist and certainly not my person.
From the looks of it with the welcome mat all out the OP doesn't himself seem interested in much beyond a one post wonder!
all the best
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1385989 said:
I discussed the only thing that bore discussion, which was the OP's central premise of evolution somehow having to do with how life began. You can call it "unavoidable" if you wish (though to the extent that's true it's still seeing the matter selectively: all the sciences are interrelated), but that does not change the fact of the thing itself, which is like saying that the act of sculpting has anything to do with the question of where the substance we call clay originally came from.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
That is indeed an apropos example.. when you take up sculpting:
http://www.hinckleypottery.com/classes.htm
you'll need to learn all the basics before you sit at the wheel and mold your clay, the material for molding doesn't simply come from the store unless you are a professional amateur. Sciences are indeed interrelated-- there is no point starting so middle of the road to dodge all the familiar unanswerable questions..
all the best
"Professional amateur"?
I'm sure there are classes out there which go into unnecessary detail about the scientific origins of clay. Officiousness is always one of the larger parts of academia. Pretense that there is more to something than there is. Probably there are a lot of people who insist that it's crucial to study up on the history of the guitar before learning to play one--but how many guitarists know anything about that? Besides, the very act of sculpting was the active part of my analogy. The thing itself and the thing's origin are two different subjects, and to say otherwise is to make the genetic fallacy.
What is there for me to dodge? The OP didn't say very much of anything at all about evolution itself despite that ostensibly being the subject and all I did was point that out. How very evasive of me. I am not the least bit interested in how life came about, how it became what it is now after it had come about, or whether the universe is six thousand or six billion years old--and I suspect that the only reason anyone is interested is a combination of needing an irrelevant scapegoat upon which to take out your anger about other things and simply believing anything is important which the media or zeitgeist says is. A sculpture is still a sculpture whether it is clay or ice, hand-made or carved, made in a day or made over the course of a lifetime. The signs of design in it are just as evident any which way.
I'm sure there are classes out there which go into unnecessary detail about the scientific origins of clay. Officiousness is always one of the larger parts of academia. Pretense that there is more to something than there is. Probably there are a lot of people who insist that it's crucial to study up on the history of the guitar before learning to play one--but how many guitarists know anything about that? Besides, the very act of sculpting was the active part of my analogy. The thing itself and the thing's origin are two different subjects, and to say otherwise is to make the genetic fallacy.
What is there for me to dodge? The OP didn't say very much of anything at all about evolution itself despite that ostensibly being the subject and all I did was point that out. How very evasive of me. I am not the least bit interested in how life came about, how it became what it is now after it had come about, or whether the universe is six thousand or six billion years old--and I suspect that the only reason anyone is interested is a combination of needing an irrelevant scapegoat upon which to take out your anger about other things and simply believing anything is important which the media or zeitgeist says is. A sculpture is still a sculpture whether it is clay or ice, hand-made or carved, made in a day or made over the course of a lifetime. The signs of design in it are just as evident any which way.
Last edited:
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
You like that? I should coin it..
I concur.. and go so far to say, we really have no idea how that design came about:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا (18:51)
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]18:51 (Asad) I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own selves; [56] and neither do I [have any need to] take as My helpers those [beings] that lead [men] astray. [57] -
perhaps in the beginning and the end we should enable everyone to post their own definition of 'evolution' and take it from there..
all the best[/FONT]
acalltofaith
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1
Abiogenesis
This is the theory that lifeless matter came together to form a living organism. Also known as the theory of Spontaneous Generation, this idea has persisted since the Middle Ages. (Also see Spontaneous generation.)
In Medieval times, it was widely accepted that maggots were generated from food scraps, clothe moths from wool and mice from wheat! Interesting experiments were devised to prove this belief. One 17th-century physicist by the name of J.B. Van Helmont thought that if he spread a few grains of wheat on a dirty cloth, mice would be generated. And when maggots appeared in rotting meat, they were regarded as proof that life could arise from lifeless matter.
Only later was it understood that maggots did not come about spontaneously, but from the nearly microscopic eggs that adult flies laid on the meat.
The theory of spontaneous generation was shown to be totally false by the famous 19th-century French scientist, Louis Pasteur, who summarized his findings in this triumphant sentence:
Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.
Today the theory of abiogenesis has been discarded in favor of the theory of biogenesis, which holds that life comes from only from life. (See: Biogenesis.) But some evolutionist circles that still defend the idea that life was formed long ago from some chance combination of lifeless matter. But they have been unable to prove their claims scientifically, and their attempts to do so have been inconclusive. (See Miller Experiment, theand Fox Experiment, the.)
1 Ozer Bulut, Davut Sagdic, Selim Korkmaz, Biyoloji Lise 3, (“Biology High School 3”) MEB Publishing, Istanbul, 2000, p. 182.
2 From Rene Vallery-Radot, The Life of Pasteur, 1920, Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., p.109.
This is the theory that lifeless matter came together to form a living organism. Also known as the theory of Spontaneous Generation, this idea has persisted since the Middle Ages. (Also see Spontaneous generation.)
In Medieval times, it was widely accepted that maggots were generated from food scraps, clothe moths from wool and mice from wheat! Interesting experiments were devised to prove this belief. One 17th-century physicist by the name of J.B. Van Helmont thought that if he spread a few grains of wheat on a dirty cloth, mice would be generated. And when maggots appeared in rotting meat, they were regarded as proof that life could arise from lifeless matter.
Only later was it understood that maggots did not come about spontaneously, but from the nearly microscopic eggs that adult flies laid on the meat.
The theory of spontaneous generation was shown to be totally false by the famous 19th-century French scientist, Louis Pasteur, who summarized his findings in this triumphant sentence:
Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.
Today the theory of abiogenesis has been discarded in favor of the theory of biogenesis, which holds that life comes from only from life. (See: Biogenesis.) But some evolutionist circles that still defend the idea that life was formed long ago from some chance combination of lifeless matter. But they have been unable to prove their claims scientifically, and their attempts to do so have been inconclusive. (See Miller Experiment, theand Fox Experiment, the.)
1 Ozer Bulut, Davut Sagdic, Selim Korkmaz, Biyoloji Lise 3, (“Biology High School 3”) MEB Publishing, Istanbul, 2000, p. 182.
2 From Rene Vallery-Radot, The Life of Pasteur, 1920, Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., p.109.