{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Chilly S0ul:
7/19/2015 11:17:27 PM
13
Man... This is absurd. It's like some people never progressed beyond 1999 when they talk about the origins of humanity. Dawinism has been disproven several times. They have simulated the basic building blocks to create human life and failed several times. Many great scientific minds have diverted their attention elsewhere to find the answers and some have been cited for feeling like its a waste of time and resources to chase the theory of evolution also stating evolution is becoming more like a religion now. Give it up. Look elsewhere. Most of the scientific community is.
English
-
[quote]Citation needed for everything you just said.[/quote]
-
Citation needed for everything you just said.
-
I'd love to! However, I've been down this road many times with various faiths and theories. If you aren't ready to accept the idea that a theory has been proven to be unable to explain something I do not feel its worth much time and effort to cite my experiences with data contrary to ones beliefs. It leads to argumentative and rash behavior. I'm not a debater. I'm a architect. I deal in a lot of absolutes so I'm not keen to keep up with a heated discussion especially in terms of how impactful and deep this one seems to get. I'd be glad to point you to some references that could start you on your journey to discover and observe for yourself how the evidence of Darwinism grows more thin by the passing day! Be sure to investigate people as well as theories. Don't leave any question unanswered.
-
[quote]Citation needed for everything you just said.[/quote]
-
Edited by Jack: 7/19/2015 11:25:35 PM[quote]Dawinism has been disproven several times. [/quote] When? [quote]Most of the scientific community has diverted from Evolution[/quote] Not true at all
-
Not evolution. Darwinism. There are differences. I replied to another fellow. I feel like the reply could apply to you as well.
-
Well if you are talking about something that you feel isn't evolution, I don't see how it's relevant.
-
Edited by Chilly S0ul: 7/20/2015 12:21:41 AMEvolution can be applied in many different ways. From the tone and content it seems that you are referring to Darwinism. The idea that it has taken a lot of time to create sentient life from a single cell organism. There was someone else that claimed to separate the differences with the prefix micro and its antonym macro. Would you like me to point you towards some people that believe Darwinism is unable to be the alpha facto explanation for sentient life on earth?
-
I just don't see your point, if you are saying change over time isn't a thing because some scientists don't believe that I would disagree with you. Maybe that's not what your saying but I'm not sure.
-
My point has always been to say what others have already said but in a less abrasive way. Ive been saying that Darwinism/ macro evolution/ the notion that we came from another species under the pretense that it took roughly over 4.5 billion years of evolution to get to where we are now is not a infallible fact. That your idea of fact is twisted and morbid to the point of extremist indoctrination. My point is to contradict what you know as fact and to try to determine if you're willing to accept an alternative or if you will just degrade to a point of unreasonable anger. I will not debate because that is not a skill I feel is necessary in my life. I can only inform. That is the best course of action imo.
-
[quote]My point has always been to say what others have already said but in a less abrasive way. Ive been saying that Darwinism/ macro evolution/ the notion that we came from another species under the pretense that it took roughly over 4.5 billion years of evolution to get to where we are now is not a infallible fact. That your idea of fact is twisted and morbid to the point of extremist indoctrination. My point is to contradict what you know as fact and to try to determine if you're willing to accept an alternative or if you will just degrade to a point of unreasonable anger. I will not debate because that is not a skill I feel is necessary in my life. I can only inform. That is the best course of action imo.[/quote] Macro and micro evolution aren't real things. And even if they were, they are the same thing over different periods of time. Micro, is small changes over short periods of time. Macro is large changes over large periods of time. If you don't thing those small changes would accumulate into greater changes as a whole, that's absurd. We know the age of the Earth, we have observed that life changes over time. So its only logical to think life has changed from the beginning to where we are now. I don't think my "idea of fact is twisted and morbid to the point of extremist indoctrination" and I'm sorry you feel that way. I just care if what I believe is true, I don't see how that is morbid, or was the result of indoctrination. Especially since I was raised presbyterian not without a religion. I would accept an alternative, that's what science is about. Like I said I only care about truth. But seeing as what I currently believe is backed up and is the basic foundation of almost all of science, I'm sticking with it until someone brings something forward that debunks the scientific community. I'm fine with not debating, I just don't agree or like the things you said.
-
Edited by Chilly S0ul: 7/20/2015 5:20:14 AM[quote]I would accept an alternative, that's what science is about. Like I said I only care about truth. But seeing as what I currently believe is backed up and is the basic foundation of almost all of science, I'm sticking with it until someone brings something forward that debunks the scientific community.[/quote] Here is my problem. I'm going to ignore the fact that publications in the science community have come forth stating that the way we date things is unreliable for a moment and talk to you about the above quoted text. Firstly, it sounds like you are using science as a scape goat by claiming its the alternative. As if Darwinism is evolution and the only other theory is that of religion. Darwinism as I've said time and time again is a theory that states over a large amount of time a species can in fact evolve into another species. It is unproven and more over it seems to be debunked quite easily and often. Just Google search Darwinism debunked by science. You'll acquire thousands of results by the science community. There is no observable case of Darwinism actually being a fact. Birds beaks change you say? That is called an adaptation. They never change into another species. I could go on but that requires a lot of back tracking and research for me. Im on a tablet so its not so easy to list everything with an answer to it. Every instance where they could prove Darwinism as the explanation for where humans came from has failed miserably. The problem with this theory is that Darwinism is backed up much in the way Christian scholars back up their ideals as truth. With no observable evidence. They believe they are right because they would hate to be wrong. The fundamentals of science are not at all relatable to Darwinism. I do hate to tickle your testies but that is just plain ignorant to say. Science has been available and used way before Mr. Darwin was even born so to say its the basic foundation of science as we know it is false in every way you could spin that statement.
-
It's been within the last 3-5 years since they've run simulations that determined Darwinism is the most unlikely explanation for the origins of humanity.
