Journey Inside The Cell

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more mere opinion masquerading as some type of truth, you know i very rarely give credence to your posts, all they are is mere opinion, never substantiated. I dont think that in my time at RHP i have learned anything from your posts. I know not what you do, but if you are a teacher, please think of retraining for a different career.

And several of your posts in this thread are mere lies. You essentially admit it, but cant admit it directly because doing so would conflict with your religion. Sad really.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And several of your posts in this thread are mere lies. You essentially admit it, but cant admit it directly because doing so would conflict with your religion. Sad really.

oh really, we are still waiting for you to tell us the difference between soul and spirit, after all, you were, how did you put it, perfectly aware of the difference, yet unable to explain it, what happened, cat get your tongue? Next time you want to hurl your unfounded and pathetic excuses for a post at someone, make sure they just dont call you our for the dishonest and disreputable liar that you are!

A spiritual leech, unable to provide anything positive or constructive you are content to suck the life out anyone with an ounce of faith, all you can do is tear down and destroy, get away from me this instance! Vampire!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
point number one! fail! that is not the basic theme which runs from genesis through to revelation! Honestly Cat dude, these are the same type of comments that one is subject to from day to day by persons who have never read the books. Do i dare to call out, ignorant, insane, wicked, nope, for that would be to bring one down to the level of the se ...[text shortened]... d by the Christ. Indeed, as Gandhi himself stated, it would solve all the worlds problems!

point number one! fail! that is not the basic theme which runs from genesis through to revelation!

There is no basic theme. It is a collection of stories and sermons. If there appears to be a theme this relates only to the selection criteria involved in it's compilation. That is the point I was failing to get across to you.

Honestly Cat dude, these are the same type of comments that one is subject to from day to day by persons who have never read the books. Do i dare to call out, ignorant, insane, wicked, nope, for that would be to bring one down to the level of the seething Dawkins.

And yet you do it anyway.

Whether i am smarter or not, is not the point, please try to remain objective. One must evaluate the evidence with ones own mind. Have you read Origin of the species? In my copy, chapter IX, On the imperfection of the fossil record (chapter heading), p.213,

You do enjoy resorting to patronising implied insults don't you? I'm not claiming that Darwin had the entire picture. Darwin never claimed that. I'm trying to point out to you that the process of evolution does take place. If you didn't have so much invested in your religion, you'd see that, but sadly your faith has your mind tightly shut.

'the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediary links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (you dont say!) the explanation lies, as i believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

So Darwin, rather than objectively facing the scientific facts, attacks the fossil record. Well ok, that was then, what about today, for there are more than one hundred million extant and catalogued fossils.

Darwin included a lot of doubts as he didn't want to attract the sort of mindless knee-jerk attacks from religious zealots that you appear to be so comfortable with.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: 'It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.'

Herbert Nillson? I googled him, and still couldn't find anything he actually published as a scientific paper.

We could of course talk of the sudden appearance of complex life forms, without precedent and cite many other noble and learned individuals. I dont think that Hindus truly are more happy and purposeful, after all, there are some that are quite militant and who loath Muslims etc etc. That is not the credentials of a person or group at peace with themselves.

I'm still waiting for you to cite one noble and learned individual. Hindus? Who mentioned Hindus?

If you have examined the scripture you shall be able to explain the portion, it was after merely one verse, one out of thousands, and look how your preconception (i was going to say prejudice, but felt it too harsh) would not allow you to do it and thus the verse remains a mystery. 'Its propaganda!, its propaganda!', its cries, I find that incredibly interesting, i really do.

Not preconception. I read the verse that you quoted and what leapt out at me was the message that only through religion will you find happiness.

I resent your term fairy tales! They are as much factual as life having emerged from non life or finding a fully functional jet in a junk yard. In fact did not French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrate that you cannot get life from a sterile environment. . . . just saying.

Again, for the umpteenth time, we're talking about EVOLUTION! Not the origin of life. You keep trying to widen this discussion to incorporate the origin of life, but it's simply not relevant to what we are discussing, don't you get that?

One final thing i will say, you may study all you like, however, its not in the cerebral assimilation of principles that one finds joy, but in the practical application of the principles. I have yet to find a materialist yet who could argue that self sacrificing love is not the greatest pinnacle of human ethics! as embodied by the Christ. Indeed, as Gandhi himself stated, it would solve all the worlds problems!

Gandhi also rejected the vast mass of what you believe. I'm also quite happy with almost all of what Jesus espoused. How that closes your mind to a demonstrable natural process eludes me, however.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah yeah, we know what you think dear Noobster, unsubstantiated opinion it is as well.

i am reading Darwins book at the moment, it is after all, the basis of the theory, or perhaps there was another? Have you read it? i bet you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting half the stuff you do! Is a person not allowed to evaluate these things ian? shall I tell them? [hidden]you can fit them on a small coffee table, no joke![/hidden]

Is a person not allowed to evaluate these things with his own mind? If not, why not?

Of course you can, but you freely admit you haven't read any books about the 'evidence' for evolution. So how can you evaluate something you admit you've never never read anything about?! That's just nonsense Rob. Again i go back to point your view is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, and in the pages that have followed since i made the accusation you have said nothing to prove me wrong. In fact you keep further making my point for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What evidence that cells evolved from non living matter? what genetic evidence? do tell! i dont read Hamiltons posts, he has no interest in spirituality. If they have evolved synthetically, why are you unable to recreate said life today? please explain?

Stay on track Rob, we're talking about evolution.

Do you have anything to say about the genetic evidence for evolution? You've just dismissed the fossil record out of hand, how does the genetic evidence fair in your view?

The analogy of the jumbo jet that you like to continually bring up is redundant as it wrongly assumes that the cells we see today just popped into existence in the form they are today. As i've said before, a little reading on this subject and you would know that this is not what evolutionary theory states. So please stop with the misrepresentation.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
point number one! fail! that is not the basic theme which runs from genesis through to revelation! [/b]

There is no basic theme. It is a collection of stories and sermons. If there appears to be a theme this relates only to the selection criteria involved in it's compilation. That is the point I was failing to get across to you.

Honest ow that closes your mind to a demonstrable natural process eludes me, however.

There is a theme, because you dont know what it is, does not mean that it doesn't exist. Its your homework, hand it in or your getting a punni exercise!

I did it out of mere parody! No ill intent whatsoever.

oh dear, not one objective reason as to why the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transmutation of one species to another and yet you have the audacity to claim that others are closed minded. Have you read Darwins book? Infact, i wonder how many have in fact read Darwins book. Its would just be like the materialist to spout his creed without actually having read what it is based upon. I mean, they make the most outrageous assertions with regard to scripture without actually having examined its contents, can we expect anything less elsewhere.

Heribert Nilsson was a Swedish botanist who researched his work for over forty years.

It is clear that you cannot account for the anomalies of the system that you profess, neither could Darwin funnily enough. If you are seriously going to advocate a system, you should be aware of the weaknesses in that system and can voice no objection to others when they point them out. Already we have established that mutations do not form a sound basis as verified by Dobzhansky and the Drosophila melanogaster experiments, we have seen that the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transition as Darwin predicted but that life forms appear, whole and complete without precedent. Despite the fact that there are over a hundred million fossil, those which are used to support the link between humans and simians are scant (whole skeletal structures have been formed from nothing more than a lower jaw bone and two teeth), Pasteur himself established that you cannot get life from non life and yet here you are, denying it all in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. It is to laugh!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Stay on track Rob, we're talking about evolution.

Do you have anything to say about the genetic evidence for evolution? You've just dismissed the fossil record out of hand, how does the genetic evidence fair in your view?

The analogy of the jumbo jet that you like to continually bring up is redundant as it wrongly assumes that the cells we see toda ...[text shortened]... that this is not what evolutionary theory states. So please stop with the misrepresentation.

Let me ask you an honest question dear Noobster, have you read Darwins book? It matters not to me, whether you have or you have not, its just a point of interest.

As for DNA evidence, well, until one deals with previous anomalies its pointless to assume the basis for others. Fossil evidence is damning against your theory dear Noobster, absolutely damning!

believe it if you want, i will treat is a pure metaphysics and you cannot cry about it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah yeah, we know what you think dear Noobster, unsubstantiated opinion it is as well.

i am reading Darwins book at the moment, it is after all, the basis of the theory, or perhaps there was another? Have you read it? i bet you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting half the stuff you do! Is a person not allowed to evaluate these things ...[text shortened]... ian? shall I tell them? [hidden]you can fit them on a small coffee table, no joke![/hidden]

No, well then, lets not talk of indoctrination if we are not prepared to use our own minds.

But you don't use a free mind, you've already stated you don't wish to read any books on the evidence for evolution and will never accept the theory. Explain to me how that is a free mind? Your mind is made up regardless of what anybody says to you, you are the exact opposite of a 'free mind'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]No, well then, lets not talk of indoctrination if we are not prepared to use our own minds.

But you don't use a free mind, you've already stated you don't wish to read any books on the evidence for evolution and will never accept the theory. Explain to me how that is a free mind? Your mind is made up regardless of what anybody says to you, you are the exact opposite of a 'free mind'.[/b]

i am reading Darwins book, am i not, in order to make a re-evaluation. Have you read it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am reading Darwins book, am i not, in order to make a re-evaluation. Have you read it?

I have not read Origin of the Species Rob, my brain doesn't get on with Victorian 'speak', i have tried but it just doesn't happen.

Rob, i suggest you read a modern book on evolution, i am more than willing to send you one in the post (as long as you send it back).

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I have not read Origin of the Species Rob, my brain doesn't get on with Victorian 'speak', i have tried but it just doesn't happen.

Rob, i suggest you read a modern book on evolution, i am more than willing to send you one in the post (as long as you send it back).

While i appreciate your kindness, and really i do, it would be wasted on my dear Noobster, absolutely wasted on me.

It is the equivalent of me sending you a bible and a copy of , You can live forever on a paradise on earth and expect you to read it and become a Christian. I know that you are sincere in this regard, that you really do think that i am indoctrinated and ignorant, but i love my religion and its principles and would not give it up for anything. Including life itself. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is a theme, because you dont know what it is, does not mean that it doesn't exist. Its your homework, hand it in or your getting a punni exercise!

I did it out of mere parody! No ill intent whatsoever.

oh dear, not one objective reason as to why the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transmutation of one species to another and ...[text shortened]... here you are, denying it all in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. It is to laugh!

As I said, if there is a theme, it can only be consequent to selection criteria.

oh dear, not one objective reason as to why the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transmutation of one species to another and yet you have the audacity to claim that others are closed minded.

Goodness me, do you actually read what I write? I repeat, there are many examples of fossilized transitional species. Further, the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis has now become widely accepted in evolutionary studies.

Have you read Darwins book? Infact, i wonder how many have in fact read Darwins book. Its would just be like the materialist to spout his creed without actually having read what it is based upon. I mean, they make the most outrageous assertions with regard to scripture without actually having examined its contents, can we expect anything less elsewhere.

Yes I have read Darwin's book. I've also read the bible. Darwin's work is clearly the more credible of the pair, since one advances a scientific theory based on observed facts and open to falsification while the other involves fanciful stories of magic, miracles and the numinous. And you keep trying to paint me as a materialist, and I keep telling you I'm not.

Heribert Nilsson was a Swedish botanist who researched his work for over forty years.

You say that, but can you point me to a paper he wrote? Do you know what he studied, precisely? He doesn't appear to be have published anything as far as I can determine.

It is clear that you cannot account for the anomalies of the system that you profess, neither could Darwin funnily enough. If you are seriously going to advocate a system, you should be aware of the weaknesses in that system and can voice no objection to others when they point them out.

I am entirely aware of the weaknesses in the Darwinian view of evolution. He also doesn't allow for horizontal transfer of genetic material, but we now know that this takes place. You seem to be of the opinion that a scientific theory needs to be an exact and complete reflection of reality in order for it to be considered. This is not how science works. Others have built on the foundations that Darwin laid, but you seem unwilling to allow this.


Already we have established that mutations do not form a sound basis as verified by Dobzhansky and the Drosophila melanogaster experiments,

You may be satisfied with this. Personally I find your conclusions based on these experiments to be unsound.

we have seen that the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transition as Darwin predicted but that life forms appear, whole and complete without precedent.

Not so. I repeat again that there are many transitional fossils, and again that Darwin's work is the basis for modern evolutionary theory, not the entirety thereof.

Despite the fact that there are over a hundred million fossil, those which are used to support the link between humans and simians are scant (whole skeletal structures have been formed from nothing more than a lower jaw bone and two teeth),

If you're prepared to dismiss the body of evidence - fossil, skeletal and genetic - linking humans and the great apes then I can only shake my head in wonder.

Pasteur himself established that you cannot get life from non life and yet here you are, denying it all in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. It is to laugh!

Damn, you're like a broken record! EVOLUTION! We can have a pointless exchange of views on abiogenesis another time, for now, what we're talking about is EVOLUTION!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...as for the old sperm or egg trick, which one evolved first, the male or the female or did they both evolve simultaneously in order to reproduce? ...”

they did not “evolve simultaneously in order TO reproduce” because the living organisms could reproduce just fine before there was any male/female distinction.
FIRST there was only asexual repro ...[text shortened]... n on land. ...”

don't be silly, the land-bound ancestors of whales did not feed on plankton.

robbie

does that answer your question on what you referred to as “the old sperm or egg trick “ ?
(forget the whales part)

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
As I said, if there is a theme, it can only be consequent to selection criteria.

[b]oh dear, not one objective reason as to why the fossil record does not demonstrate a gradual transmutation of one species to another and yet you have the audacity to claim that others are closed minded.

Goodness me, do you actually read what I write? I rep of views on abiogenesis another time, for now, what we're talking about is EVOLUTION![/b]

im good but i am gone, another pointless and fruitless debate. with materialists who cannot see the difference between postulation and established scientific fact so as to make a distinction with their own minds and who are ready at a moments notice to condemn a book that they have neither read nor understood!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
im good but i am gone, another pointless and fruitless debate. with materialists who cannot see the difference between postulation and established scientific fact so as to make a distinction with their own minds and who are ready at a moments notice to condemn a book that they have neither read nor understood!

I am not a materialist. I really don't know how to say this more clearly.