Evolution 'not established truth'

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Is Creationism falsifiable?

That's for you to wrestle with.
Along those lines, did Hoyle actually write this?:
"...as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life could not have arisen by chance." (The **Intelligent** Universe, pp. 11-12, Astronomer Fred Hoyle)
If he really did write this, what do you think he meant?
Hoyle was not a creationist! In fact, he says bluntly: "I am not a Christian, nor am I likely to become one as far as I can tell (p. 251)."
There is obviously no anti-evolution sentiment in this writing so far, even though it could be interpreted as an indictment of atheism, so don't go scourging his character and searching for skeletons in his closets. You have already demonstrated that your hatred for dissenters of evolution is so intense that you saw nothing wrong with plagiarizing that piece about Pierre-Paul Grasse.
Don't worry, I have more disturbing material for you.

EVOLUTION IS EVIL!

Wilson

Wilson wrote:

>>
Wrong! They see only what the want to see. Never, in the annals of human history, has so much hope been placed in so little substance. That was no “great breakthrough.” Variation within a family line is something with which all living organism are endowed by their Creator. Lenski was not observing evolution when he saw a mutation in the E.coli bacteria. He is only observing a variation within a family of living things. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new. Absolutely nothing was added to the physical structure of the bacteria.
... removed for space
>>>Wilson

And yet once again you show how little you know about evolution. I am amazed you still argue against something and you still haven't learned what it actually consists of.

Lenski's experiment is evolution in action. You can take any other interpretation you want, but you have yet to offer any proof of another interpretation. Whereas Lenski defined his expectations -- based on the theory of evolution -- and his experiment proved the predictions based on the ToE. And it just pisses you off!

If what we were seeing was just variation within a family line, why didn't other groups exhibit the same change? Why was it replicable only in certain strain lines at the same point in their generational life?

I recall you whining that no one has seen evolution in a lab. Now you are backpedaling claiming that what we were seeing was not evolution. See, you still have no clue, do you! If you actually understood what was in evolutionary theory -- and read the intentions and predictions of Lenski's experiment, you would have shut up a long time ago. But you aren't that bright.

In other words not only do you not understand Evolution and the Theory, but you failed to actually read any detail about Lenski's experiment. Yea, typical wee-willie, read the headlines and make unsupported comments.

You go right ahead and keep it up. You are living proof how wrong you are, and the best advertising for science education! Anyone who reads your posts realizes how little you actually know. And once they get a load of your abusive nature, they probably run screaming from a religious indoctrination. See everyone, you can grow up and be just as ignorant and abusive as wee-willie here. LOL! Nothing teaches like a negative example, and you are a such a negative example. What an example of being a Christian are you? You better hope there is no God, or wee-willie will find he can't hide behind the anonymity of the Internet from God. So keep up the good work.

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is that Miller/Urey prebiotic synthesis experiment transformed the study of the origin of life into a respectable field of research call abiogenesis.

Irrelevant! Stop shuckin' and jivin'! Since you feel the need to inject your opinion, I turn the question over to you:
What if Miller/Urey had been successful in their efforts to create life in a lab? What would that have proved?

EVOLUTION IS EVIL!

Wilson.

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
That's for you to wrestle with.

Nope, that would be you. If it's not falsifiable, it ain't scientific. Therefore, you can kick and scream and preach and cry "EVILUTION IZ TEH EVIL!" all you like, but you'll never get creationism to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
Remember the question: What if Lenski had managed to create life in his lab? What would that have proved?
Wilson.

He. wee-willie. Lenski's experiment started with life, and he witness life changing! He wasn't trying to create life, he was witnessing evolution in action. There is no "What if", so as usual, you are trying to make unsupported claims.

Don't take my word for it ..READ the papers by Lenski and co. You might even understand the summaries, since I am sure the details are well beyond your education level. But actually read them. Look at his expectations and look at what he started with. Look at his methodology and look at his results! If you were a biologist, you could even request samples of his work and perform your own analysis.

But he wasn't creating life, he simple observed it and recognized when it was feeding on a new food source, one still not available to the other sets of E.Coli in his tests. One group changed, not all of them. He was also able to go back to an earlier generation and repeat that the mutation didn't occur ...yet take a later generation and saw the proof again. It was an amazing 20 years worth of effort. You just have no actually understanding of what he did.... like normal, huh wee-willie?

TedHOhio
And yet once again you show how little you know about evolution. I am amazed you still argue against something and you still haven't learned what it actually consists of.
+++Wilson
Same old song-and dance:“You just don’t understand…” I’ve been hearing that a lot lately - from the political struggling for power. Means nothing. Just a ploy when all else fails.
+++Hohio
Lenski's experiment is evolution in action.
+++Wilson
Nonsense! Just more wishful thinking.
+++Hohio
You can take any other interpretation you want,
+++Wilson
Already have.
+++Hohio
but you have yet to offer any proof of another interpretation.
+++Wilson
Variation needs no interpretation.
+++Hohio
Whereas Lenski defined his expectations -- based on the theory of evolution -- and his experiment proved the predictions based on the ToE. And it just pisses you off!
+++Wilson
Why should it bother me? I already know what the truth is.“You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.””(Revelation 4:11)
+++Hohio
If what we were seeing was just variation within a family line, why didn't other groups exhibit the same change? Why was it replicable only in certain strain lines at the same point in their generational life?
+++Wilson
That is for you to ponder.
+++Hohio
I recall you whining that no one has seen evolution in a lab. Now you are backpedaling claiming that what we were seeing was not evolution.
+++Wilson
Mister, I will take no more time to refute all the things you say below.
+++Hohio
See, you still have no clue, do you! If you actually understood what was in evolutionary theory -- and read the intentions and predictions of Lenski's experiment, you would have shut up a long time ago. But you aren't that bright.
In other words not only do you not understand Evolution and the Theory, but you failed to actually read any detail about Lenski's experiment. Yea, typical wee-willie, read the headlines and make unsupported comments.
You go right ahead and keep it up. You are living proof how wrong you are, and the best advertising for science education! Anyone who reads your posts realizes how little you actually know. And once they get a load of your abusive nature, they probably run screaming from a religious indoctrination. See everyone, you can grow up and be just as ignorant and abusive as wee-willie here. LOL!

Nothing teaches like a negative example, and you are a such a negative example. What an example of being a Christian are you? You better hope there is no God, or wee-willie will find he can't hide behind the anonymity of the Internet from God. So keep up the good work.
+++Wilson
I strongly advise you to stop reading what I write. Signs of emotional instability are reappearing. You started in on me with your personal insults from the very day I joined this thread. Since then, the majority of these posts of yours directed to me contain evidence where you hurl an insults at me. I have sought to keep this dialogue on an impersonal basis but that would not do for you. If you want proof that you are the one attacking me on a consistent level, then just go back over the posts you have directed towards me. Start with # 205, then move on to # 206, 222, 223 and on and on.

Take a good, long look at your posts and the tenor of this entire post and then tell me who exhibits the abusive nature.
Get this straight - I will continue to oppose evolution - no, not in public protests nor lobbying for anything against it, but in forums like this - and there lots of them.

Its very strange, your techniques are chock full on insults, as though that method can discourage anti-evolutionists from criticizing it. You tried intimidation, insults, abuses, sarcasm - they don’t work on me. I do not hide my views in anonymity from anybody. I let me anti-evolution views be known every day and everywhere I go. Now you, the one who denies God’s creative works now threatens me with - what? Hell? Adverse judgment? Don’t be ridiculous.
So - to keep your sanity, STOP READING MY POSTS.(if you can)

Wilson.

Creationist wrote:

What proof is there for evolution?
NONE!

Well, that settles that then. I guess all the scientists in the world are wrong.

Good thing this home school fry cook sorted it all out for us.

Man, 150 years of advancement in medicine down the drain. Guess we'll have to go back to praying for cancer patients.

Wilson wrote:

EVOLUTION IS EVIL!
Wilson.

How do you possibly expect us to take you seriously?

"evil"? Come on.

Does "evolution" order the death of children? No, that's GOD.

Does "evolution" drown millions and millions of innocent people? No, that's GOD.

Does "evolution" order it's followers to murder every man, woman and child in a town where ONE person doesn't believe in it? No, that's GOD.

Frankly, on the "evil" scale, evolution doesn't hold a candle to the red hot burning inferno a thousand suns wide which is Yahweh Blood God of the Jews.

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
He. wee-willie. Lenski's experiment started with life, and he witness life changing! He wasn't trying to create life, he was witnessing evolution in action. There is no "What if", so as usual, you are trying to make unsupported claims.
Don't take my word for it ..READ the papers by Lenski and co. You might even understand the summaries, since I am sure the details are well beyond your education level. But actually read them. Look at his expectations and look at what he started with. Look at his methodology and look at his results! If you were a biologist, you could even request samples of his work and perform your own analysis.
But he wasn't creating life, he simple observed it and recognized when it was feeding on a new food source, one still not available to the other sets of E.Coli in his tests. One group changed, not all of them. He was also able to go back to an earlier generation and repeat that the mutation didn't occur ...yet take a later generation and saw the proof again. It was an amazing 20 years worth of effort. You just have no actually understanding of what he did.... like normal, huh wee-willie?

Hohio
Miller/Urey were trying. I make no claims on this. The object of their experiment was a duplication of life in the lab. Their efforts produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, they got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Here's my "What If?" What if they had got them all? What if they had succeeded in producing life in the lab? What would that have proved.
You refuse to answer - Why?- because your answer would render your position untenable?
Stop sniveling and be man enough to show the courage of your convictions.

Wilson.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, that settles that then. I guess all the scientists in the world are wrong.
Good thing this home school fry cook sorted it all out for us.
Man, 150 years of advancement in medicine down the drain. Guess we'll have to go back to praying for cancer patients.

It about to go down the drain anyway.
Funding will soon dry up. Keep watching.

Wilson.

Wilson wrote:

Here's my "What If?" What if they had got them all? What if they had succeeded in producing life in the lab? What would that have proved.

It would have proven that all the components for life were capable of arrising from chemicals without the help of "magic!".

There. Now you get to answer my unrelated question:

This God of yours NEVER heals amputees. Why?

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
It about to go down the drain anyway.
Funding will soon dry up. Keep watching.
Wilson.

Yeah, there's no one out there funding medicine. LOL. You are seriously reality deficient, Willie

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
Moot point my moot foot! You can't reach very far from the mat. Here - I'll make it a bit easier for you. Miller/Urey were trying.
What if Miller/Urey had been successful in their efforts to create life in a lab? What would that have proved?
Wilson.

It would have suggested that life could have started in conditions found in some environments on the ancient Earth...

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
That's for you to wrestle with.
Along those lines, did Hoyle actually write this?:
"...as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life could not have arisen by chance." (The **Intelligent** Universe, pp. 11-12, Astronomer Fred Hoyle)
If he really did write this, what do you think he meant?
Hoyle was not a creationist! In fact, he says bluntly: "I am not a Christian, nor am I likely to become one as far as I can tell (p. 251)."
There is obviously no anti-evolution sentiment in this writing so far, even though it could be interpreted as an indictment of atheism, so don't go scourging his character and searching for skeletons in his closets. You have already demonstrated that your hatred for dissenters of evolution is so intense that you saw nothing wrong with plagiarizing that piece about Pierre-Paul Grasse.
Don't worry, I have more disturbing material for you.
EVOLUTION IS EVIL!
Wilson

Gee...Hoyle is not a chemist but an astronomer and he is wrong about the probability of life by chance too....been refuted time again on this board by many posters. Doesn't matter if he is a creationist or not..he is wrong.

I took the liberty of plagarizing but forgot the put the link on the post since my problems at time is due to my photographic memory which I can remember things verboten ..so bite me.

Again, Is Creationism falsifiable? Do you know what this means?

TedHOhio:
“If what we were seeing was just variation within a family line, why didn't other groups exhibit the same change? Why was it replicable only in certain strain lines at the same point in their generational life?”
Hohio,
You asked the question. Here is my opinion for all its worth. You have placed great trust in the value of mutations to the process of evolution. In nature mutations are random occurrences. In the fruit-fly experiments, mutations were induced. In the Lenski experiments, under careful control, they were also induced. It is clear that the stimuli were selective and artificial, hence the mutations in one group as opposed to another.

You have your opinions, errors and all. I am entitled to mine, errors and all. I respect your right to your opinions. You have no respect for my right to the same, and I suspect that you would force me to change it if you could. You are going to have to alter your attitude on that.

Why does my opinions bother you so much? Are you afraid that some of the readers of this forum just might believe what I write? If your beloved ToE is so well documented and proven as fact, why try to stifle those who object to it?
To accept the ToE is to deny the creative work of the Almighty. If you really expect me to deny that humans were created by God, your wait will be a long one.

Wilson.

hexene:
Gee...Hoyle is not a chemist but an astronomer and he is wrong about the probability of life by chance too....been refuted time again on this board by many posters. Doesn't matter if he is a creationist or not..he is wrong.
+++Wilson
So when eminent chemists and biochemists disagree with evolution, then you accept their conclusions - right?
+++hexene
I took the liberty of plagarizing but forgot the put the link on the post since my problems at time is due to my photographic memory which I can remember things verboten ..so bite me.
+++Wilson
That could not be the case because you altered the wording of the copied text to make it look like it was your own idea. That is evidence of deliberate falsification.

Anyway, I understand this weird sentence to mean that if you had put the link on the post you would still be taking the liberty of plagiarizing - right?
+++hexene
Again, Is Creationism falsifiable? Do you know what this means?
+++Wilson
Again - that is for you to wrestle with. Your photographic memory does not serve you well in this case. I told you long ago that I do not accept "creationism" because it is a human philosophy. Creation is not. Standards of verification set by humans are not the most reliable guides that determine what is true and what is not.

Wilson.

I took a hundred pounds of clay

And then I said, "hey listen"

I'm gonna fix this world today

Because I know, what's missing

Then I rolled my big sleeves up (I used to wear shirts back in the day)

And a brand new world began

I created a woman

And lots of loving

For a man.

Yes I did.

The apes did not share a common ancestor with a human. The apes had their own ancestor different from a human. Human was created later than apes but not being evolved from an ape granddad. God had created a human to form a new line of evolution into a smart human being. If an ape had shared the common ancestor, there would be no more monkey today as all of them had evolved into human beings.
Evolutionist today who believes that an ape was the ancestors of a human is totally wrong and I regard him as thinking like a monkey. If one wants to be more human, one has to think like a human and claim that a monkey is a descendant of a human ancestor.

God wrote:

I took a hundred pounds of clay
And then I said, "hey listen"
I'm gonna fix this world today
Because I know, what's missing
Then I rolled my big sleeves up (I used to wear shirts back in the day)
And a brand new world began
I created a woman
And lots of loving
For a man.
Yes I did.

I keep a monkey for long in a zoo and it gradually becomes a human OR
I put a human in a jail and he gradually becomes a monkey. One could see how hairy a human is who has been staying long enough in a jail, Huh!