[Illuyankas]

Wow, I HAVE been gone for a while - Gem does this often enough to count as a joke, now?

[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

Wow, I HAVE been gone for a while - Gem does this often enough to count as a joke, now?

No, she wasn't joking, but she gets frustrated when she isolates herself which makes her lash out a bit. She's still a vital part of these discussions so it doesn't bother me at all

ETA: She'll partially recant whilst contradictorily claiming that she stands by her position, however confused that position may be

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 04 January 2009 - 04:02 AM

[Illuyankas]

What, her position of "All the massive amounts of insightful information you wrote about evolution really means sometime mindbreakingly stupid, and you're too scared to admit it!" is confusing now?

[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

What, her position of "All the massive amounts of insightful information you wrote about evolution really means sometime mindbreakingly stupid, and you're too scared to admit it!" is confusing now?

Not confusing, just confused. Sweden is actually quite a secular country (i lived there for 6 months in 2006), with even the religious being quite well informed and respectful of modern science, especially among the young and well educated. It's not easy to marry this respect with a deep faith, and it seems to make at least some want to push the boundaries of different attitudes. Wouldn't you rather her be doing this and engaging in these discussions than simply believing outright?

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 04 January 2009 - 06:27 AM

[Shinrei]

Am I weird in that I accept evolution but I'm Christian? I think there are lots of "dont take the bible literally" Christians like myself...

[Cold Iron]

The 20th, on Jan 4 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

Am I weird in that I accept evolution but I'm Christian? I think there are lots of "dont take the bible literally" Christians like myself...

Nobody takes all of the bible literally, because parts of it are traditionally accepted as allegory. But where to draw the line is a decision all christians must make (see what I did there??? )

[Gem Windcaster]

Suddenly I was lashing out and CI was not? (after all he called me retarded, though subtly)

Anyway, I think you should read my post again. It's quite thought out - unless it's too hard to follow? I guess I should rewrite the whole thing as a list, as that should be easier - or better yet, with symbolic logic. But meh.

Also, how is 'life came from a rock' statement not in agreement with the theory of evolution, again? No really. Yes, I was being a bit obtuse on purpose, but please, enlighten me how I am wrong. (<---added smilie to not sound as arrogant )

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 04 January 2009 - 12:04 PM

[Dolorous Menhir]

I think you should all leave Gem alone. She has actually made a deep insight here that we can all benefit from.

The real shame is that she wasn't around to point this out to Darwin - he wouldn't have had to go to the effort of writing that book and explaining his ideas if he'd realised his theory could be summarised as "Life came from a rock. QED."

I look forward to Gem's distillations of other scientific theories.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 04 January 2009 - 02:00 PM

[Illuyankas]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Suddenly I was lashing out and CI was not? (after all he called me retarded, though subtly)

You called everyone who believed in evolution retarded. He called the way you worded your statement of misunderstanding retarded.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Anyway, I think you should read my post again. It's quite thought out - unless it's too hard to follow? I guess I should rewrite the whole thing as a list, as that should be easier - or better yet, with symbolic logic. But meh.

OK! Oh, I wouldn't say it's too hard to follow, though, just too utterly misguided to believe you actually meant it.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof.

So, you're saying here that your version of the theory of evolution, 'life came from a rock', is retarded. But, you're also saying that it's our version too, just that we've reworded it to sound more palatable, therefore it's more right.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

And here you've put that we dare not say 'it's really life came from a rock, and we fully admit we were wrong' because you think this rewording is the only thing between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea, not that 'life from a rock' is woefully incorrect in the first place.

You're going to have to give me an example or an analogy or something for what the hell you mean by "how you say it" making a blind bit of difference.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Also, how is 'life came from a rock' statement not in agreement with the theory of evolution, again? No really. Yes, I was being a bit obtuse on purpose, but please, enlighten me how I am wrong. (<---added smilie to not sound as arrogant )

I suppose you could have meant rock to mean just-cooled Earth about 3.4 billion years ago, but next time mention that earlier.

I've got to admit here, Gem, that your latest posts here have really pissed me off due to how you've proven to everyone in this thread who's made the effort to write, post and link reams of information about evolution, mostly for you, in answer to your questions and to help you understand where they're coming from, that you've ignored all of it completely. Partly due, of course, to how you've mixed up evolution with abiogenesis, but the link should help you out on that score. Oh, and if you're one of those people who think that everything on wikipedia is incorrect by default and not worth your time, just skip to the references and external links.

Besides, wasn't the bibbical Adam made from mud?

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

Also, how is 'life came from a rock' statement not in agreement with the theory of evolution, again? No really. Yes, I was being a bit obtuse on purpose, but please, enlighten me how I am wrong.

All this bullshit you've been spouting about how "I have studied the science and I don't agree with the conclusions drawn" etc. has just been shown for what it is - a baldfaced fucking lie. You don't even know that evolution makes no attempt whatsoever to explain where life came from? Why don't you just admit now that you don't believe in evolution for no other reason than that it conflicts with your faith in god? Because whether or not you admit it, it is now perfectly clear to everyone.

Illy said:

Besides, wasn't the bibbical Adam made from mud?

Dust. Just add water...

This post has been edited by Terez: 04 January 2009 - 02:15 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

First, apologies if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. Secondly, I got completely annoyed by Cause's post - his argument about "it hasn't been proven blah blah" - I have engaged (or tried to engage) similar argumentation when discussion the theory of evolution, but then been discarded because it's not the PC thing to say. He doesn't have any proof that what the bible says doesn't happen either, but apparently it's scientifically okay to call it a lie. Now, I am okay with Cause having that opinion. However, I should be able to do the same thing with the theory of evolution without being called unscientific. The attitude in this thread really provokes me. So I made a little generalization and a simplification of my own. Not very seriously meant, I might add. I don't really take myself that seriously. I giggled when I wrote it. But your replies speaks volumes. It illustrates that you are not prepared to do what I do all the time in these threads. It is beginning to piss me off.

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 4 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

I think you should all leave Gem alone. She has actually made a deep insight here that we can all benefit from.

The real shame is that she wasn't around to point this out to Darwin - he wouldn't have had to go to the effort of writing that book and explaining his ideas if he'd realised his theory could be summarised as "Life came from a rock. QED."

I look forward to Gem's distillations of other scientific theories.

I couldn't care less what Darwin wrote or didn't write. But I doubt very much Darwin would disagree with me. Also, why don't you call me on what was wrong with my statement instead of ridiculing me?

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Suddenly I was lashing out and CI was not? (after all he called me retarded, though subtly)

You called everyone who believed in evolution retarded. He called the way you worded your statement of misunderstanding retarded.

I did not call anyone retarded. I said 'life comes from a rock' sounds retarded. It seems you agree that it does sound retarded? Why don't you say that instead, and tell me that isn't what evolution is about? That's all I waited for actually.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Anyway, I think you should read my post again. It's quite thought out - unless it's too hard to follow? I guess I should rewrite the whole thing as a list, as that should be easier - or better yet, with symbolic logic. But meh.

OK! Oh, I wouldn't say it's too hard to follow, though, just too utterly misguided to believe you actually meant it.

With that post I didn't mean you should reread my reply to Cause's post. I meant you should reread the post that was an answer to your answer. On reread though, I can see how you misunderstand me, I was being ambiguous. But yeah, i had a point with my post, but it might needs some clarification.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof.

So, you're saying here that your version of the theory of evolution, 'life came from a rock', is retarded. But, you're also saying that it's our version too, just that we've reworded it to sound more palatable, therefore it's more right.

Actually, I didn't mean it was your version - I meant that you use arguments with similar proof level, and still think your arguments are more valid than mine. But mostly I was teasing you for making a worse mistake than my post was. That's okay though, because I think you were being obtuse on purpose too.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

And here you've put that we dare not say 'it's really life came from a rock, and we fully admit we were wrong' because you think this rewording is the only thing between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea, not that 'life from a rock' is woefully incorrect in the first place.
You're going to have to give me an example or an analogy or something for what the hell you mean by "how you say it" making a blind bit of difference.

Man, I don't think you really believe life came from a rock, but depending on who you ask, it sounds very much like that. I was simply 'misunderstanding' you on purpose as to illustrate how my believing in the bible gets misunderstood all the time. But yes, I do believe that the difference between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea sometimes is just the wording. I thought that was obvious by now that I am very skeptical of certain parts of the scientific community.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Also, how is 'life came from a rock' statement not in agreement with the theory of evolution, again? No really. Yes, I was being a bit obtuse on purpose, but please, enlighten me how I am wrong. (<---added smilie to not sound as arrogant )

I suppose you could have meant rock to mean just-cooled Earth about 3.4 billion years ago, but next time mention that earlier.

As I said, it's a very very rough simplification.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

I've got to admit here, Gem, that your latest posts here have really pissed me off due to how you've proven to everyone in this thread who's made the effort to write, post and link reams of information about evolution, mostly for you, in answer to your questions and to help you understand where they're coming from, that you've ignored all of it completely. Partly due, of course, to how you've mixed up evolution with abiogenesis, but the link should help you out on that score. Oh, and if you're one of those people who think that everything on wikipedia is incorrect by default and not worth your time, just skip to the references and external links.

Sorry to piss you off, but I get pissed off most of the time, and I don't take it personally. I have not, however, ignored anything. But your replies certainly proves you have ignored what I have been saying. I appreciate the effort people have put into trying to ridicule me though, throughout this thread, it warms my heart. I should really be grateful that so many people are being so creative in not letting me have my own opinion without taking it personally and overreacting on everything I say. Really, I'm impressed. (<---me impersonating people taking it personally - recognize the tone?). Thankyou for the link though, I wil definitely take a look at it. See, it wasn't that hard to bring actual arguments to the table, now was it?

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Besides, wasn't the bibbical Adam made from mud?

Your point being? I have never denied this fact, nor do I wish to. I would indeed have a problem if I did wish to deny it - or possibly if I wanted to claim it was reasonable or even proven.


@ Terez, you're so cute when you do that, jumping to conclusions. Remember to breathe. To me, the fact that the theory of evolution can't explain where life comes from, is one of the main reasons I think it sucks. It is kind of a big hole to build an entire theory on.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 04 January 2009 - 05:22 PM

[Cause]

I did what now? Will respond in more detail when I catch up with what just happened

[Gem Windcaster]

You're welcome to comment, Cause, but please don't think that I think you've done anything that anyone else haven't done around here. Your post was just the one I happened to react on; in truth it could have been a number of posts by a number of people. And again, it wasn't meant that seriously, but the comments after it made it serious. Man, I'm so tired of this thread right now.

[bubba]

You cant rebuke a mocker.........lol

[Gem Windcaster]

lol BUbba.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 04 January 2009 - 06:15 PM

[Illuyankas]

My comments will be in bold.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

First, apologies if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. Secondly, I got completely annoyed by Cause's post - his argument about "it hasn't been proven blah blah" - I have engaged (or tried to engage) similar argumentation when discussion the theory of evolution, but then been discarded because it's not the PC thing to say. He doesn't have any proof that what the bible says doesn't happen either, just as much as you can't prove it does, but apparently it's scientifically okay to call it a lie. Now, I am okay with Cause having that opinion. However, I should be able to do the same thing with the theory of evolution without being called unscientific. Attempting to say evolution, which has so much proof it's ridiculous how you're ignoring it on principle, is wrong scientifically when you're using religion to justify your opinion is what is pissing people off. You can't deny a scientific theory on the grounds that a book says so, a book that is impossible to prove isn't fiction. The attitude in this thread really provokes me. Frustration at you ignoring everything that isn't 'GOD IS GREAT LOLOLOLOLOL'? That attitude? So I made a little generalization and a simplification of my own. Not very seriously meant, I might add. I don't really take myself that seriously. I giggled when I wrote it. But your replies speaks volumes. It illustrates that you are not prepared to do what I do all the time in these threads. What, ignore the other person's posts? It is beginning to piss me off.

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 4 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

I think you should all leave Gem alone. She has actually made a deep insight here that we can all benefit from.

The real shame is that she wasn't around to point this out to Darwin - he wouldn't have had to go to the effort of writing that book and explaining his ideas if he'd realised his theory could be summarised as "Life came from a rock. QED."

I look forward to Gem's distillations of other scientific theories.

I couldn't care less what Darwin wrote or didn't write. But I doubt very much Darwin would disagree with me. I feel otherwise. Also, why don't you call me on what was wrong with my statement instead of ridiculing me?

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Suddenly I was lashing out and CI was not? (after all he called me retarded, though subtly)

You called everyone who believed in evolution retarded. He called the way you worded your statement of misunderstanding retarded.

I did not call anyone retarded. I said 'life comes from a rock' sounds retarded. You also said that everyone who believes in evolution believes in 'life comes from a rock', something which you would need to be retarded to believe. Quit beating around the bush, you came out and said that if we believe in evolution we're retarded. It seems you agree that it does sound retarded? Why don't you say that instead, and tell me that isn't what evolution is about? That's all I waited for actually. Did you reread this before looking at the abiogenesis link?

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof.

So, you're saying here that your version of the theory of evolution, 'life came from a rock', is retarded. But, you're also saying that it's our version too, just that we've reworded it to sound more palatable, therefore it's more right.

Actually, I didn't mean it was your version - I meant that you use arguments with similar proof level, I'm sorry, I didn't think the schools of geography, biology, paleontology, oh, and physics, too, were all on the same level as the Bible now. and still think your arguments are more valid than mine. SPOILERS: they still are. But mostly I was teasing you for making a worse mistake than my post was. That's okay though, because I think you were being obtuse on purpose too.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

And here you've put that we dare not say 'it's really life came from a rock, and we fully admit we were wrong' because you think this rewording is the only thing between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea, not that 'life from a rock' is woefully incorrect in the first place.
You're going to have to give me an example or an analogy or something for what the hell you mean by "how you say it" making a blind bit of difference.

Man, I don't think you really believe life came from a rock, but depending on who you ask, it sounds very much like that. If you ask someone who doesn't understand it, doesn't want to understand it and wants everyone he speaks to not to understand it either, then it might. I was simply 'misunderstanding' you on purpose as to illustrate how my believing in the bible gets misunderstood all the time. But yes, I do believe that the difference between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea sometimes is just the wording. I forgot that recorded evidence doesn't matter anymore, it's all in the initial press statement nowadays. I thought that was obvious by now that I am very skeptical of certain parts of the scientific community. I would appreciate if not a description of these scientific community parts, then at least which month you last listed them in this thread.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

I've got to admit here, Gem, that your latest posts here have really pissed me off due to how you've proven to everyone in this thread who's made the effort to write, post and link reams of information about evolution, mostly for you, in answer to your questions and to help you understand where they're coming from, that you've ignored all of it completely. Partly due, of course, to how you've mixed up evolution with abiogenesis, but the link should help you out on that score. Oh, and if you're one of those people who think that everything on wikipedia is incorrect by default and not worth your time, just skip to the references and external links.

Sorry to piss you off, but I get pissed off most of the time, and I don't take it personally. I have not, however, ignored anything. I can't believe you haven't been informed of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis in this thread before. But your replies certainly proves you have ignored what I have been saying. I appreciate the effort people have put into trying to ridicule me though, throughout this thread, it warms my heart. I should really be grateful that so many people are being so creative in not letting me have my own opinion without taking it personally and overreacting on everything I say. You're stating gross inaccuracies about theories you've never really had a need to investigate before, people have corrected your inaccuracies, and if these last posts have shown anything it's that you can misread intentions online ridiculously easily. They might be patronising, they might be trying to help. Really, I'm impressed. (<---me impersonating people taking it personally - recognize the tone?). Thankyou for the link though, I wil definitely take a look at it. See, it wasn't that hard to bring actual arguments to the table, now was it? Hope it helps.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Besides, wasn't the bibbical Adam made from mud?

Your point being? I have never denied this fact, nor do I wish to. I would indeed have a problem if I did wish to deny it - or possibly if I wanted to claim it was reasonable or even proven. Come on, life came from mud/life came from a rock?


@ Terez, you're so cute when you do that, jumping to conclusions. Remember to breathe. To me, the fact that the theory of evolution can't explain where life comes from, is one of the main reasons I think it sucks. It is kind of a big hole to build an entire theory on. Again, read the wiki link, it's a competent summary. Evolution does NOT deal with the beginnings of life, it deals with what happens to life once it exists. If you have a problem with the scientific alternative to creationism, the alternative you have issues with is abiogenesis.

Please. Evolution, from the very beginning, had nothing to do with the formation of life on this planet. I'm really beginning to think this should be retitled Creation Vs Abiogenesis at this point.

[Gem Windcaster]

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 08:32 PM, said:

My comments will be in bold.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

First, apologies if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. Secondly, I got completely annoyed by Cause's post - his argument about "it hasn't been proven blah blah" - I have engaged (or tried to engage) similar argumentation when discussion the theory of evolution, but then been discarded because it's not the PC thing to say. He doesn't have any proof that what the bible says doesn't happen either, 1 just as much as you can't prove it does, but apparently it's scientifically okay to call it a lie. Now, I am okay with Cause having that opinion. However, I should be able to do the same thing with the theory of evolution without being called unscientific. 2 Attempting to say evolution, which has so much proof it's ridiculous how you're ignoring it on principle, is wrong scientifically when you're using religion to justify your opinion is what is pissing people off. You can't deny a scientific theory on the grounds that a book says so, a book that is impossible to prove isn't fiction. The attitude in this thread really provokes me. 3 Frustration at you ignoring everything that isn't 'GOD IS GREAT LOLOLOLOLOL'? That attitude? So I made a little generalization and a simplification of my own. Not very seriously meant, I might add. I don't really take myself that seriously. I giggled when I wrote it. But your replies speaks volumes. It illustrates that you are not prepared to do what I do all the time in these threads. 4 What, ignore the other person's posts? It is beginning to piss me off.

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 4 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

I think you should all leave Gem alone. She has actually made a deep insight here that we can all benefit from.

The real shame is that she wasn't around to point this out to Darwin - he wouldn't have had to go to the effort of writing that book and explaining his ideas if he'd realised his theory could be summarised as "Life came from a rock. QED."

I look forward to Gem's distillations of other scientific theories.

I couldn't care less what Darwin wrote or didn't write. But I doubt very much Darwin would disagree with me. 5 I feel otherwise. Also, why don't you call me on what was wrong with my statement instead of ridiculing me?

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Suddenly I was lashing out and CI was not? (after all he called me retarded, though subtly)

You called everyone who believed in evolution retarded. He called the way you worded your statement of misunderstanding retarded.

I did not call anyone retarded. I said 'life comes from a rock' sounds retarded. 6 You also said that everyone who believes in evolution believes in 'life comes from a rock', something which you would need to be retarded to believe. Quit beating around the bush, you came out and said that if we believe in evolution we're retarded. It seems you agree that it does sound retarded? Why don't you say that instead, and tell me that isn't what evolution is about? That's all I waited for actually. 7 Did you reread this before looking at the abiogenesis link?

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof.

So, you're saying here that your version of the theory of evolution, 'life came from a rock', is retarded. But, you're also saying that it's our version too, just that we've reworded it to sound more palatable, therefore it's more right.

Actually, I didn't mean it was your version - I meant that you use arguments with similar proof level, 8 I'm sorry, I didn't think the schools of geography, biology, paleontology, oh, and physics, too, were all on the same level as the Bible now. and still think your arguments are more valid than mine. 9 SPOILERS: they still are. But mostly I was teasing you for making a worse mistake than my post was. That's okay though, because I think you were being obtuse on purpose too.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

And here you've put that we dare not say 'it's really life came from a rock, and we fully admit we were wrong' because you think this rewording is the only thing between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea, not that 'life from a rock' is woefully incorrect in the first place.
You're going to have to give me an example or an analogy or something for what the hell you mean by "how you say it" making a blind bit of difference.

Man, I don't think you really believe life came from a rock, but depending on who you ask, it sounds very much like that. 10 If you ask someone who doesn't understand it, doesn't want to understand it and wants everyone he speaks to not to understand it either, then it might. I was simply 'misunderstanding' you on purpose as to illustrate how my believing in the bible gets misunderstood all the time. But yes, I do believe that the difference between a provable thesis and a crackpot idea sometimes is just the wording.11 I forgot that recorded evidence doesn't matter anymore, it's all in the initial press statement nowadays. I thought that was obvious by now that I am very skeptical of certain parts of the scientific community. 12 I would appreciate if not a description of these scientific community parts, then at least which month you last listed them in this thread.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

I've got to admit here, Gem, that your latest posts here have really pissed me off due to how you've proven to everyone in this thread who's made the effort to write, post and link reams of information about evolution, mostly for you, in answer to your questions and to help you understand where they're coming from, that you've ignored all of it completely. Partly due, of course, to how you've mixed up evolution with abiogenesis, but the link should help you out on that score. Oh, and if you're one of those people who think that everything on wikipedia is incorrect by default and not worth your time, just skip to the references and external links.

Sorry to piss you off, but I get pissed off most of the time, and I don't take it personally. I have not, however, ignored anything. 13 I can't believe you haven't been informed of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis in this thread before. But your replies certainly proves you have ignored what I have been saying. I appreciate the effort people have put into trying to ridicule me though, throughout this thread, it warms my heart. I should really be grateful that so many people are being so creative in not letting me have my own opinion without taking it personally and overreacting on everything I say. 14 You're stating gross inaccuracies about theories you've never really had a need to investigate before, people have corrected your inaccuracies, and if these last posts have shown anything it's that you can misread intentions online ridiculously easily. They might be patronising, they might be trying to help. Really, I'm impressed. (<---me impersonating people taking it personally - recognize the tone?). Thankyou for the link though, I wil definitely take a look at it. See, it wasn't that hard to bring actual arguments to the table, now was it? 15 Hope it helps.

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Besides, wasn't the bibbical Adam made from mud?

Your point being? I have never denied this fact, nor do I wish to. I would indeed have a problem if I did wish to deny it - or possibly if I wanted to claim it was reasonable or even proven. 16 Come on, life came from mud/life came from a rock?


@ Terez, you're so cute when you do that, jumping to conclusions. Remember to breathe. To me, the fact that the theory of evolution can't explain where life comes from, is one of the main reasons I think it sucks. It is kind of a big hole to build an entire theory on. 17 Again, read the wiki link, it's a competent summary. Evolution does NOT deal with the beginnings of life, it deals with what happens to life once it exists. If you have a problem with the scientific alternative to creationism, the alternative you have issues with is abiogenesis.

Please. Evolution, from the very beginning, had nothing to do with the formation of life on this planet. I'm really beginning to think this should be retitled Creation Vs Abiogenesis at this point.

Answering your comments - numbering them (see numbering above):
1. True and I've never said otherwise.
2. a. No it doesn't have that much proof, which is my point. Nobody in this thread have come up with proof on any level. b. I don't use religion to justify my opinion - but when I argue for something all you guys see is my faith - that is not my fault. c. Again, I do not think the theory of evolution sucks because I believe in the bible - it just gives me an incentive to criticize it - if the theory of evolution indeed had proof, then I would have to go from there.
3. Once again, it's you reading stuff into what I am saying. Also you can't possible have read my posts if you think that is my attitude. You read my faith into my answers even if it's not there.
4. Fair enough.
5. I never ignore anyone, so if it seems that way, I am truly sorry.
6. I never said that everyone that believes in evolution believes that life came from a rock - I clarify this in my previous posts. Please point to where I stated that. And I never said you were retarded, it was you who took it to heart that way.
7. What's your point?
8. I never said they were.
9. What arguments was that again?
10. Yes, simplifications are horrible aren't they? Makes you feel really humiliated, doesn't it? Welcome to my world.
11. what is this magic 'recorded evidence' you speak of?
12. LOL. I'm not writing a paper. I was being descriptive - I respect most scientists - but some seem to think it's still really cool to interpret data to fit an outdated theory. Whoooa!
13. I can't believe that too. Never said I was all knowing - I welcome any real information - always will.
14. a. So far, very little has been actual information, and more about bashing the bible and such. And opinions are not inaccuracies. As for the recent stuff, I was simplifying on purpose, to make a point. b. I might be misreading people's intentions, but I am pretty sure that I have the right to be annoyed by someone patronizing me if they are annoyed by me patronizing them. I don't really take any of this personally. I am well aware that I am rattling the cage, so to speak.
15. Well, that depends on what you think I have a problem with.
16. Yes? Both those statements are heavy simplifications, they don't really mean anything beyond the regular faith/theory bashing.
17. a. Again, I was heavily simplifying, like many have been simplifying my opinions. I am setting my foot down and showing people the similarities. You don't like when I post inaccuracies, heavily simplified, so you should expect me to go through the roof next time you simplify my opinions, my faith or the bible. b. I like neither creationism not the theory of evolution - in whatever forms they take.

[Morgoth]

well, though you disagree tremendously about this issue, and should by no means stop the discussion, please try to keep the personal attacks down all right?

[Terez]

Gem said:

Terez, you're so cute when you do that, jumping to conclusions.

I didn't jump to any conclusions - you very clearly stated that you believe that evolution, boiled down, says that life came from a rock, which makes it very clear that you have not studied the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. It's not an oversimplification of the theory of evolution - it's conflation of the theory with a different theory altogether. Which makes all of your statements about having studied the theory and discarded it based on its merits laughable (not that they weren't laughable before - it's obvious to anyone with a brain that you have discarded the theory for no other reason than that you think it conflicts with your faith).

Gem said:

To me, the fact that the theory of evolution can't explain where life comes from, is one of the main reasons I think it sucks.

Why? It's a scientific theory that explains evolution. It's not a religion that's intended to provide the answers to everything.

Gem said:

It is kind of a big hole to build an entire theory on.

This is backwards religious thinking. The theory is not built on that "hole" - it's built on the evidence that supports it.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Jan 4 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

Gem said:

Terez, you're so cute when you do that, jumping to conclusions.

I didn't jump to any conclusions - you very clearly stated that you believe that evolution, boiled down, says that life came from a rock, which makes it very clear that you have not studied the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life.

I was oversimplifying, and I have explained why.

Terez, on Jan 4 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

It's not an oversimplification of the theory of evolution - it's conflation of the theory with a different theory altogether.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the perspective. But I'll take your word for it, I guess. I didn't actually think you believed that when I wrote it either, which I also explained.

Terez, on Jan 4 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

Which makes all of your statements about having studied the theory and discarded it based on its merits laughable (not that they weren't laughable before - it's obvious to anyone with a brain that you have discarded the theory for no other reason than that you think it conflicts with your faith).

So, you are saying that your view point is the only one viable? That, if nothing else, is indeed very arrogant. Not even scientific community as a whole is that single minded.

Terez, on Jan 4 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

Gem said:

To me, the fact that the theory of evolution can't explain where life comes from, is one of the main reasons I think it sucks.

Why? It's a scientific theory that explains evolution. It's not a religion that's intended to provide the answers to everything.

Explanation is not the same as proof. I hope you don't mean that Explanation is not the same as proof. And no, it doesn't have to provide answers to everything, but it should be expected to have at least an idea of the very thing it is supposed to explain. Whatever else is the purpose of the theory of evolution? Have I missed something?

Terez, on Jan 4 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

Gem said:

It is kind of a big hole to build an entire theory on.

This is backwards religious thinking. The theory is not built on that "hole" - it's built on the evidence that supports it.

The theory is build on conclusions drawn from data, which is filtered through expectations of what fits the theory. It's the oldest philosophical dilemma in the book. And again, explanations are not the same as proof. Expectations even less so.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 04 January 2009 - 11:12 PM