- Oct 2, 2001
? - They do. They just don't agree with it.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"But, that's OK."
No it isn't. If you are going to make a case against evolution, you better understand it yourself. [/B]
This was just a statement that there is more contesting than you think. There are debates that go on all the time. Aren't you aware of them? There are articles written against it.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"There's more of it than you know."
Oh yes, blame it on something else. "Those scientist are just brainwashed and won't let any new ideas in."[/B]
People who are in a specific field often get caught up that their field is the most important and it is, of course, fact to them. But the world still calls it a theory for a very good reason. And there are many top notch scientists who still acknowledge it as theory, too. We would get along a lot better if you would just allow the simple fact that you fully believe in it, but it's still not established law. Am I asking for too much? Laws are accepted as laws. Theories have a way to go, and they may even get scrapped.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It is a well known fact that it is still the "Theory of Evolution" vs. the "Law of Evolution." And it's still that way for very good reasons. There are many scientists with grave doubts about it.
I'm glad you have it down that its a theory to lay people, but to a majority of scientist with knowledge in this field, it isn't. It's a fact.[/B]
I've read the links. I don't believe you can classify what happens as "self-replication." It's no more self-replication than a gravity inducing a big rock falling down and making smaller rocks. I would like you to put this in your own words so I can see where you're coming from. I don't see how it could contribute to real life any more than gravity induced earthquakes & falling rocks could eventually bring about the Great Pyramid.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Now you're calling it genetic material? Wow. Hydrocarbons are genetic material?
OK, I want you to explain to me what YOU believe this process to be. Give me your explanation of this self-replicating process."
Once it begins to self replicate, that is genetic material, its passing instructions onto its copies.
Hydrocarbons are not genetic material. They need to organize and begin to self replicate first. In order to do this, they need certain conditions around them and a spark.
I am not expert on the process itself. As I have told you, I deal mostly with cosmology. I have linked sites in my post however that detail the process. [/B]
I'm pursuing that you told a lie. Therefore it is perfectly equal. 86, you need to admit this one. You have no right to determine if it is meaningless or not. The receiver does. You told the statement to me/the board. It wasn't a statement you never made or only pondered in your own head. You made a plain & direct declaration and then intentionally violated it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, which is the worse type of lie. But, it's a fact it meets the criteria of one of the definitions of a lie.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"So now lies are only lies when you interpret the situation to be where someone else shouldn't be "freaking out"?
I'm not freaking out. I'm just not letting you off the hook until you count it as a lie."
No, its not a lie beause it's meaningless and, just because I changed my mind after you made another stupid post doesn't quite equal what you are pursuing.[/B]
1. to make an untrue statement
2. to create a false or misleading impression
Since your statements were untrue, and they definitely created a false or misleading impression to me & others, it was a lie.
Well, then you can sympathize with me. You said I could count on it. What am I supposed to now think?Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It's still possible for you to put it there. You're just not willing to keep your word on it. It's a couple clicks away, but "you can count on me" is not really doing it for me right now."
Yes it is, but I'm not going to go out of my way to put it in every post. I'd just assume not having a quote in my sig. Mr. Hawk stalkerish feeling to me. [/B]
No, it is not the exact same argument. Again, you don't have the right to determine what MY argument is. You've already been informed I think that is another step. You surely don't talk this way in class or in discussions with your friends, do you? Do you mutate their arguments for them, too? When they tell you they like very rich ice cream do you tell them they then certainly must like Coldstone's ice cream, even when they plainly say they don't? After all, they are one in the same to you? Do you have any teeth left, 86?Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"But the point is that it's not up to you to determine my argument. It's MY argument, not yours. I don't have to make YOUR connection. You have to connect to what I AM saying when it is MY argument. You don't get to jump to the next logical step and claim I'm using it already."
The argument that the brain is too complex to have formed through evolution is exactly the same as the argument against consciousness. So I'm not in error in my interpretation. That was a logical jump. They are one in the same. [/B]