₦airaland Forum

AgentOfAllah:
A dog is a dog and an animal at the same time, a bonobo is a bonobo and an animal at the same time, a fish is a fish and an animal at the same time, but a dog does not behave like a fish and a bonobo certainly doesn't behave like a dog. You can dispute this all you want, if it makes you feel good, but biology evolution says we are human animals, and human animals we are!

Fixed.

dalaman:
My friend why do you like running meaningless commentaries over simple issues?

The act is wrong because the act is a violation of an agreement. That makes the act wrong. Nothing will be considered wrong if it doesn't violate a principle. Stealing is wrong because it violates a principle, racism is wrong because it violates a principle, murder is wrong because it violates a principle, adultery is wrong because it violates a principle. If no principle is violated then nothing can be said to be wrong.

I believe you're saying that violation of agreement is wrong IN YOUR OWN OPINION, not that it is necessarily wrong.

Which principle do racism, murder and adultery violate?

If moral relativism is the case, then rape isn't necessarily wrong.

Ranchhoddas:
Are you unintelligent. Are you not a product of nature?

No. GOD created me. I don't believe that my ancestors were single cells in the ocean. I don't have enough faith to believe that.

I think you always confuse definitions. Nature might be different from natural forces. Man, for example is part of nature. But man is not a force of nature.

Ranchhoddas:
Why do you keep insisting that nature is unintelligent?

Is the force of gravity intelligent? Is the first law of thermodynamics intelligent? Was Nature trying to create an eye, according to evolutionists, or did it just happen that the eye appeared?

Ranchhoddas:
I did not see it. Please tell me the difference I beg you.

Biological evolution is driven by blind forces of nature, we are told. They said also that evolution wasn't trying to create anything in particular. Things which we don't observe now, biological evolutionists tells can happen if given enough time. LOL.

Evolution in the mere sense of the word can apply to anything, including technology. But we know that the evolution of technology is being driven by intelligent man. Nokia 3310 did not suddenly become a touchscreen phone, nor could it have.

Ranchhoddas:
I don't see any "points" in the article. All I see is a biased writer feigning incredulity.

You mean you can't refute any point made in the article? Don't worry, no one can.

felixomor:
Of course, Argumentum ad hominem is the only hope of the atheist.

Pathetic.

Ranchhoddas come and read o.

About your intelligent natural selection.

Ranchhoddas:
Your OP is a cut and paste from answersingenesis. It reminds me of those Awake magazines I read when I was younger.
Natural selection does not make the ''impossible possible" because we can't possibly determine what is impossible.
You should create your threads from less skewed sources.

Argumentum ad hominem again. Refute with evidence any of the points made in the article or hold your peace. Don't attack the person.

We can determine what is impossible, friend. It is impossible for a triangle to have anything more or less than three sides. It is also impossible for evolution to produce an eye.

Ranchhoddas:
They are the same thing really. You'd see it if you took the blinders off. Nature isn't unintelligent.

The blind forces of nature are unintelligent. Things naturally tend to get scattered rather than coordinated.

Ranchhoddas:
You should not spin falsehood to advance your position. Nobody claims the bold.
Natural selection is neither random nor unintelligent. It also moves in a direction. The direction of the fittest and most favourable traits for survival.

Here is a claim by evolutionists in the OP:

"Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible."

Why don't you read the OP?

Ranchhoddas:
Evolution is not a "chance occurrence of impossible events". It is a stepwise process involving gradual incremental changes over an an extended period of time.
Think about the IBM analogy again. From the large and slow mainframe computers all the way to the pocket-sized devices we have today. Computers have changed drastically over time to get to the fastest and most efficient possible systems. It's not chance. It's not random. It's evolution.
I know you'll get it.
Felix won't.

I see that the problem here is definitions. Well, my article addresses biological evolution, not just evolution in the mere sense of the word.

AgentOfAllah:
I feel hurt when someone lies to me and/or cheats me, so yes! Strictly from my experience!

So while you see the person who lied to and/or cheated you as having done wrong, the person has not necessarily done wrong.

Good.

[s]

plaetton:
This post above, for anyone who understands the theory of evolution, is actually a good argument FOR the theory of evolution.
What an irony.

Think deeply.
You're thinking in very shallow, very unscientific terms.
And this is the reason understanding the theory of evolution is difficult, if not impossible for you folks.

The point is that cognitive dissonance , which by the way, is a real psychological phenomenon, would not allow you to even try to understand the basic ideas about evolution.

It baffles me why you guys commit this incredible folly of trying to argue against something for which you lack the basic understanding.
It really baffles me.

Let's be honest here.
You're here to preach and promote your skydaddy, not to discuss or possibly learn anything new about the theory of evolution.
If you really wanted to learn, everything you need to learn about the theory of evolution is in the public domain.

[/s]

How does the intelligent design of the IBM Computer demonstrate evolution which claims to be propelled by blind, unintelligent forces of nature in no particular direction?

AgentOfAllah:
Fornication and adultery is only wrong when lying and cheating is involved. I believe humans are naturally polygamous (both men and women), but we are extremely pretentious, so we hold ourselves up to stupid ideals. My wife gets my full, unqualified consent to seek sexual pleasure elsewhere, if I'm ever unable to satisfy her carnal needs. This way, she'll never have to cheat or lie to me. Likewise, if I ever feel sexual attraction towards another woman, I'll also be upfront with my wife. When consent is established between all parties involved, then it's a free world.

I believe you're saying that in your own opinion, lying and cheating is wrong, not that they are absolutely and necessarily wrong, yes?

plaetton:
And this is how fools reason.
They skip many critical thoughts, and arrive at foolishness.

Now to the subject.

Actually an IBM computer is a simple example of the process of evolution.

I challenge you, if you're smart enough, to think deeply about the IBM Computer and how it demonstrates the processes of evolution.

How does IBM computer, which was intelligently thought out, and consciously assembled by an intelligent Designer demonstrate evolution which claims that systems a billion times more complex and balanced than the IBM Computer came out of the chance occurrence of impossible events?

sonofthunder:
in many of these so called 'proofs' they are fully aware of all the variables and their implications but choose to spread a 'bigoted' summary of their findings.

Pathetic!

DeSepiero:
How can one know the truth if the truth is possibly distinct from ones strongly held preconceived notions?

I believe the truth is attested to by evidence. One is bound by a moral obligation not to deny the truth, provided that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubts to be the truth.

scaler345:
AIG
I pass.

This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem which means attack on the person and not on his argument. Why don't you refute with evidence any of the points made in the article?

sonofthunder:
thinking back on all I discovered on the grand canyon, there really was no fossil evidence though most of their conclusions seemed to have been authentic and logical... nice op.

They indoctrinate our children with evolution in schools without pointing out all these detail. The way they sound so certain, you'd never guess evolution had any loophole at all, not to talk of being a badly concocted piece of fairytale

If you're a moral relativist, there is no basis for you to condemn Hitler's holocaust!

"To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:25-26

butterflyl1on:
Mind blowing my bro. Can I copy this?

Yes o, bro. Just remember to give credit to the author by including the link to the article.

felixomor:
Evolution propaganda keeps pointing to mutations.
When it is obvious that almost 100 percent of all mutations results in diseases, shortened life span and death.

Failed reasoning.

Gbam!

source: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-and-macroevolution/

Darwin’s only observable evidence for “evolution in action” was the great variation that occurs within species of animals and plants under domestication. Darwin, who knew nothing of genetics, assumed that there was virtually no limit to this variation among the individuals of a species, though any breeder could have told him otherwise. In the first edition of his book On the Origin of Species, Darwin said that he had no difficulty imagining a race of bears entering the water to catch fish and then slowly developing wider mouths, shorter legs, and longer tails, until they evolved by chance into the great whales. Thus, Darwin extrapolated the observable but limited variation that occurs among the individuals of a species, into the unobservable evolution of fundamentally new animals.

Darwin reasoned that if pigeons and dogs can be selectively bred by man to produce certain desired traits, then nature itself can select for limitless traits by a process called natural selection. While breeders use intelligence to select for desired traits (such as physical appearance or strength), nature, in Darwin’s view, selects for those traits that promote survival itself. Since evolution selects by the simple expedient of life and death, without death there could be no evolution. On a recent Phil Donahue show, the well-known evolutionist Carl Sagan said that it took “lots of deaths in order to get us to where we are now. The secrets of evolution are time and death.” Christians might give some thought to the implications of this for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Darwin saw nature as a very hostile place where there was an overproduction of animals and a limited supply of food. He believed this led to a bloody struggle for existence among animals in which only the most fit survive. Thus, natural selection came to be defined as survival of the fittest. One of the problems with this “explanation” is that it is a tautology. A tautology is a circular statement such as “deafness causes loss of hearing”—while true, it adds nothing to our understanding. Which animals survive?—why, those that are fit. What do we mean by “fit”?—why, those that survive!

The classical Darwinian view of natural selection as survival of the fittest was later modified to mean differential reproduction. This interpretation of natural selection became popular in the 1950s under the name of neo-Darwinism. In the neo-Darwinian view, nature does not merely select for animals that survive, but for animals that leave the most offspring. Think this one through—according to Darwin the reason we are supposed to have evolution in the first place is that animals leave too many offspring, and there isn’t enough food to feed them. Now we are told by neo-Darwinists that the animals that leave the most offspring insure the continued survival of their species. Ironically, neo-Darwinists (like Paul Ehrlich) stridently insist that we humans must severely limit the number of our offspring if our species is to survive!

Almost all biology textbooks give the example of the peppered moth as observable evidence of natural selection. Peppered moths of the species Biston betularia range in color from mostly white with a peppering of black specks to nearly all black. At one time, it is claimed, the lighter colored moths of this species were the most numerous because they blended in with the light-colored bark of the trees they favored, and thus, were nearly invisible to their bird predators. Several years ago, air pollution caused the bark of these trees to darken, exposing the lighter moths to the birds. It is assumed that the birds ate the more visible white variety, leaving behind mostly the darker variety of the species, which lay hidden on the soot-darkened trees. To the evolutionist, this is observable evidence of evolution in action! But while the peppered moths may be an example of natural selection, they do not show the evolution of a fundamentally new kind of animal, or even a new species of moth.

Evolutionists like to refer to the sort of variation we see among individuals of a species as microevolution, implying that this is somehow related to the chance formation of fundamentally new animals by a process known as macroevolution. There is, in fact, no known relationship between so-called microevolution and macroevolution. Most evolutionists are quite aware of this (although you would never guess it from the explanations of evolution in the media, textbooks, and in the classroom). A report in the journal Science (210:883–87) on a recent macroevolution conference held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, summarized the views of participating evolutionists as follows:

"The central question of the Chicago Conference was whether the mechanisms of microevolution could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. At the expense of doing violence to the positions of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear NO."

If this conclusion alone was shared with students in our schools, it would go a long way toward addressing the concern that evolution be critically evaluated in the classroom, rather than dogmatically indoctrinated.

One of the great achievements of modern science is the discovery of how it is possible for animals of the same species to show an immense range of variation without changing into completely different kinds of animals. Genetic analysis shows that the individuals of a species do not share an identical set of genes, but rather have a small number of alternative versions of many genes called alleles. Only clones have the same genes and are essentially identical—including the same sex. It would be a boring (and short-lived!) world if all the individuals of a species were identical clones of one another. The fact that each individual inherits allelic versions of genes from both parents insures that no two individuals will be exactly alike. Thus, we say that all the individuals of a species comprise a gene pool from which selection (either artificial or natural) can select. The important point is that we cannot select for genes that are not in the gene pool of the species.

Consider the remarkable species Canis familiaris, which includes over 150 varieties of dogs recognized by the American Kennel Club. Dogs as different as a 125-pound St. Bernard and a 3-pound Chihuahua are all the same species of animal! Still, there are limits to what can be achieved by dog breeders. They can breed for long legs and short legs (within limits), but they can’t breed for a flying dog with wings. The reason for this is simple: there are no genes in the entire gene pool of the species Canis familiaris that would produce wings, or any of the other countless specializations necessary for flight. For this, the evolutionist must look to mutations, their most ludicrous mechanism of all.

felixomor:
Darwin wanted morality dead by all means.

Ah! Bro, antispam bot deleted the remainder of the article sef. Here it is:

No discussion of the devastating impact of Social Darwinism on society would be complete without considering its strong influence on the development of Marxism and communism. Frederich Engels and Karl Marx (cofounders of Marxist communism) were exceedingly enthusiastic over Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species. Karl Marx wrote a letter to Engels in December of 1860 declaring that On the Origin of Species was “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.” In another letter to Engels in January of 1861, Marx declared:

Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in history . . . not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to “Teleology” in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is emphatically explained (as quoted by Conway Zirkle in Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, p. 86).
The three things for which Marx was most indebted to Darwinism are as follows: 1) an atheistic explanation for the origin of the Cosmos (Marxism doesn't recognize anything as being higher than the state, so it demands atheism); 2) the struggle for existence; and 3) the progressive development and improvement of man (Marxism insists that man’s well-being is inevitably and progressively improved through a blind process of class struggle and revolution). Indeed, Karl Marx was so deeply indebted to Darwin that he wanted to dedicate his book Das Capital to him, but Darwin declined the “honor.”

The close affinity between Marxism and Darwinism continues to be evident in the currently popular evolutionary speculation called “punctuated equilibrium.” (This declares that evolution occurs by sudden lucky leaps forward, separated by long periods of essentially no change.) Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who first popularized this notion, recently pointed out that:

Hegel’s dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official “state philosophy” of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation, much like our own, but devoid of references to synthetic evolutionary theory, has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us learned his Marxism, literally, at his daddy’s knee. (Paleobiology 3:145–146)
When man ceases to give credit to God as Creator, he generally gives the credit to nature (evolution). Not only is nature then perceived as “creator,” but also man’s guide for morality and behavior. The “nature god” declares that anything that is “natural” may be considered “moral.” (Thus, elective abortions are moral because spontaneous abortions occur in nature.) As we have seen, the fruit of this religion of nature (in the form of Social Darwinism) has been untold suffering and death. The Bible tells us that this sad state of affairs results from the fact that many have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped the creature (nature) rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

Bump.