[_ Old Earth _] 'Pull the plug on the Darwin Delusion'

[Slevin]

Do you have an absolute definition for anything?

Yes, if you use what you mean in a certain context, then it's an absolute definition.

I'm curious as to how you gauge highly intelligent?

Is a wolf "more complex" than a cactus?

 

[blunthitta4life]

Well then, a one celled organism is only going to pass on the genetic information for one celled individuals forever----or, don't you get that implication.

I get your implication, but that is not how it works.

 

[LittleNipper]

I get your implication, but that is not how it works.

So what you are saying is that single celled organisms never evolved into multi celled organisms. What else can't evolution do...? You see, it is very easy to say, "That's not how it works." It is much harder to prove exactly what does work or what you suppose did work.... The reality is, if you cannot cause single celled organisms to become multi celled organisms, then "nature" could not have done it arbitrarily given a billion lifetimes.....

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, if you use what you mean in a certain context, then it's an absolute definition.

I'm curious as to how you gauge highly intelligent?

Is a wolf "more complex" than a cactus?

If man is not highly intelligent, why do we have intelligence tests? I would say a wolf is more complex then a cactus. The wolf can walk and seek food and seek help.

 

[Slevin]

If man is not highly intelligent, why do we have intelligence tests? I would say a wolf is more complex then a cactus. The wolf can walk and seek food and seek help.

Ok, but your definition of more complex is:

"Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful.............."

So, obviously a wolf is not more complex than a cactus since a wolf nor a cactus are able to do many of those things.

Man defines himself as highly intelligent, then uses intelligence tests to gauge his own intelligence based on his own presuppositions that he is highly intelligent.

 

[LittleNipper]

Ok, but your definition of more complex is:

"Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful.............."

So, obviously a wolf is not more complex than a cactus since a wolf nor a cactus are able to do many of those things.

Man defines himself as highly intelligent, then uses intelligence tests to gauge his own intelligence based on his own presuppositions that he is highly intelligent.

I've owned both a cactus and a dog. I'd disagree with you.

 

[blunthitta4life]

So what you are saying is that single celled organisms never evolved into multi celled organisms.

No what I am saying is that there is A LOT more at work than simply passing on genetic information. What you keep failing to understand is that an organism's genome is constantly changing. There are so many factors that can cause an organism to gain new "information," which are then passed on.

You see, it is very easy to say, "That's not how it works." It is much harder to prove exactly what does work or what you suppose did work....

Actually it is well documentated how evolution works. However, I don't think it matters what evidence I throw at you because your mind is not open.

The reality is, if you cannot cause single celled organisms to become multi celled organisms,

You could in some crazy genetic engineering mad scientist experiment.

then "nature" could not have done it arbitrarily given a billion lifetimes.....

It only took one lifetime.

 

[LittleNipper]

It only took one lifetime.

Unless intelligent scientists can develope an entirely new species through their own experimentation and selective breeding, then a theory of evolution that supposes that man developed over long years of random happenstance, amounts to biblical slander and clearly nothing scientific of the sort

 

[blunthitta4life]

Unless intelligent scientists can develope an entirely new species through their own experimentation and selective breeding, then a theory of evolution that supposes that man developed over long years of random happenstance, amounts to biblical slander and clearly nothing scientific of the sort

You are entitled to your own opinion. However, you stepped over the line in saying it is "clearly nothing scientific of the sort. I understand though that you have no solid scientific evidence against evolution and had to result to spurting ignorance from your mouth.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are entitled to your own opinion. However, you stepped over the line in saying it is "clearly nothing scientific of the sort. I understand though that you have no solid scientific evidence against evolution and had to result to spurting ignorance from your mouth.

And you have nothing scientific against CREATION and you had to resort to human arrogance.

 

[blunthitta4life]

And you have nothing scientific against CREATION and you had to resort to human arrogance.

Are you serious? Is it a coincidence that the only "scientific community" that believes in a young earth are Christian creationists? There are both Christian and non-Christians biologist, geologists, physicists, astrologists, astro physcists, etc. that conclude the earth is over 4 billion years old and the universe is over 14 billion years old. There is no arrogance involved in trying to understand the world and universe that we inhabit.

You have resorted to nothing but rhetoric when you should be using evidence.

 

[Slevin]

I've owned both a cactus and a dog. I'd disagree with you.

So you're saying that a dog is:

Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful..............

 

[LittleNipper]

Are you serious? Is it a coincidence that the only "scientific community" that believes in a young earth are Christian creationists? There are both Christian and non-Christians biologist, geologists, physicists, astrologists, astro physcists, etc. that conclude the earth is over 4 billion years old and the universe is over 14 billion years old. There is no arrogance involved in trying to understand the world and universe that we inhabit.

You have resorted to nothing but rhetoric when you should be using evidence.

Is it a coincidence that the only "scientific group" that will not accept a young earth boasts of "learned" atheists among their ranks? There is plenty of arrogance involved where atheism is prevalent.

 

[LittleNipper]

So you're saying that a dog is:

Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful..............

Compared to a cactus, what is it that you don't understand? Have you never owned a dog? Have you never owned a house plant? Some dogs are smarter then others. That hardly make them human, but it hardly reduces them to the level of a plant.....

 

[blunthitta4life]

Is it a coincidence that the only "scientific group" that will not accept a young earth boasts of "learned" atheists among their ranks?

If by "learned" athiests you mean those people that have gotten PhDs in their respective then yes.

Creationism isn't science, so of course no group of scientists will accept it as a scientific fact.

There is plenty of arrogance involved where atheism is prevalent.

There is plenty of arrogance involved where (insert any religion here)is prevalent. I can think of a certain Christian who no less "arrogant" than me.

 

[Slevin]

Compared to a cactus, what is it that you don't understand? Have you never owned a dog? Have you never owned a house plant? Some dogs are smarter then others. That hardly make them human, but it hardly reduces them to the level of a plant.....

Ok, so then you're saying a dog is:

"Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful.............."

But you're also saying a human is:

"Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful.............."

Based on your definition of more complex, a dog is just as complex as a human.

 

[LittleNipper]

Ok, so then you're saying a dog is:

"Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful.............."

But you're also saying a human is:

"Highly Intelligent, aware of itself and its surroundings----Aware of other organisms and their function in relation to itself... Can interact with other organisms for the sake of enjoyment or pleasure.... Interactions beyond mere survival. Thoughtful.............."

Based on your definition of more complex, a dog is just as complex as a human.

The Bible tells me that humans have a soul and the LORD JESUS CHRIST came into the world to save whosoever will belive on HIM (not whatsoever). Humans are eternal beings and animals are but temporal. Man was make in GOD's TRIUNE image ---- not so with animals and other organisms

 

[LittleNipper]

There is plenty of arrogance involved where (insert any religion here)is prevalent. I can think of a certain Christian who no less "arrogant" than me.

There are CREATION scientists who would disagree with you. They are NOT looking to impress the world. They are interested in only supporting the truth.

 

[blunthitta4life]

There are CREATION scientists who would disagree with you. They are NOT looking to impress the world. They are interested in only supporting the truth.

Yes those Creation "scientist."

Actually they are only interested in supporting the bible and disregard any evidence that doesn't support the bible.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how evolution is mathematically impossible. Perhaps you should check with some of those creation "scientist."

 

[Slevin]

The Bible tells me that humans have a soul and the LORD JESUS CHRIST came into the world to save whosoever will belive on HIM (not whatsoever). Humans are eternal beings and animals are but temporal. Man was make in GOD's TRIUNE image ---- not so with animals and other organisms

So then your definition of "more complex" is inadequate.