|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: Re: Justin this is where you made a mistake |
 |
|
| truthfulchat wrote: |
| First of all I am not a hagwon teacher I work for the public school and I hold a Masters Degree in Business Management. In my Bachelors I have taken general sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics but I also took microbiology, which in microbiology I did better than any of the biology or medical majors, I got a 100% overall. By the way with my Masters degree my gross income without reductions is 2,100,000 won a month. |
Plenty of ad hominem potential there, but nevertheless you're not a biologist and that's sufficient. Neither am I, but I'm not attempting to posit base, erroneous, lay discourse in opposition to a scientific consensus.
| truthfulchat wrote: |
| Finally, when I looked on the search engine I looked for reputable scientists by their titles and descriptions in the articles. Furthermore, I was trying to prove that not all scientists including reputable scientists agree with evolution. |
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated and the historical evidence for it in the past is overwhelming. Why disbelieve the consensus ('Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields; there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one' say these mainstream scientists) in favor of some fringe folks who believe the universe is a celestial stalinist regime that can convict you of thought crime when you die, a clearly primitive and obscene belief?
In your own words, what do you personally advocate that proponents of evolution (largely via the process of natural selection) conclude from the above link? Our understanding of how evolution works continues to be refined by new discoveries. Evolution is a simple fact. How it works is where theory comes in, with natural selection (which is non-random) a high-hitter for perfectly obvious, commonsensical reasons. Individuals with advantageous traits reproduce more successfully and the next generation inherit these traits. Who on earth disputes that? Well, I suppose a few dispute it, but who cares what McJobbers think? These people also believe that, prior to Moses on Mt Sinai, rape, theft and murder were all considered kosher. Theists unwittingly admit that they would rape and kill were it not for their beloved dictator. Well, why not? There's plenty of it in the Bible.
| Junior wrote: |
| twg wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Especially when you realise that there are millions of lifeforms out there, the majority, which clearly have not changed? |
A lie
|
Its always an emotional process when confronting evolution victims with reality. 
Do you want to play spot the difference all over again?
240 Million years ago
Today.
 |
You're the most pathetic individual to have ever walked this 4540 million year old planet (so you're up against some stiff competition). Your views serve as a truly chilling reminder how a mixture of TEFL and religion makes the human brain rot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Justin this is where you made a mistake |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
You're the most pathetic individual to have ever walked this 4540 million year old planet (so you're up against some stiff competition). |
Would that be your good self?
I'm still waiting for directions to
http://www.millionsoftransitionalfossils.com
400 Million year old chambered nautilus.
And today..
Shouldn't have wings already?
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossilsliving.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Re: According to evolution theory |
|
|
It's one of the theories of eukaryote evolution. However the best we can say from genetic evidence is all higher life forms have evolved from eukaryote cells. Prokaryotes cells are not known for their ability to evolve beyond prokaryotes cells. Hence, wondering why bacteria have not evolved is a silly question.
In any regard, do you now agree creationist site is wrong about the genetic evidence and its bizarre claim about thermodynamics. The last claim I always find a little odd. It's like saying science has failed to notice the sun rises once a day. Thermodynamics is one of the most basic fundamental laws we have. You would certainly think Einstein or Fermi or Pauli would have gone "hey, wait a second, thermodynamics makes all of this impossible". Frankly, any scientific paper that proposes the formation of complex molecules anywhere in the universe would first have to pass a peer reviewer going "well, no, sorry, thermodynamics means everything breaks down. I can't see how you can claim order emerging in your system since this law means what you observed is impossible."
Please, science ain't that dumb that it can over look a dead obvious contradiction. Now either science is just conveniently ignoring this contradiction and it's taken some creationists to point it out OR the creationists are operating from a faulty premise. I've laid out them out. Where are my assumptions faulty? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Truthfulchat, you're late and you haven't down your homework. Bad boy!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthfulchat
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: Justin, Mindme, and Ed |
|
|
Justin, Mindme I don't believe in the prokaryotic to eukaryotic transformation but their is a consensus between major evolutionists that it did happen. It is exactly what I was taught that the simplest of lifeforms (Bacteria) became more complex lifeforms (Plants, Animals, Humans, etc). To still point out I know I did this many times but there really was no clear indication why primitive people and animals coexist in the same environment while living in the same environment (Just to state there are people living in the grasslands and jungles) but still only one group of common ancestor evolved while the other did not. As I said logical thinking would say that if they lived in the same environment and using adaptation every one would have evolved, this is considering not one group seperated from the other. I will state Mindme you provide more sufficient information than Justin, you clearly would have a case.
Oh for Ed it is done not down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: Re: Justin, Mindme, and Ed |
|
|
| Quote: |
| To still point out I know I did this many times but there really was no clear indication why primitive people and animals coexist in the same environment while living in the same environment (Just to state there are people living in the grasslands and jungles) but still only one group of common ancestor evolved while the other did not. |
Because two organisms can live in the same environment but occupy different ecological niches. What is so hard to grasp about this? The grassland primates evolved into humans. Humans were able to use their big brains to return to the jungles. No mystery.
| Quote: |
| As I said logical thinking would say that if they lived in the same environment and using adaptation every one would have evolved, this is considering not one group seperated from the other. |
No evolutionary biologist says that. You're the only one. For the nth time, can you cite an evolutionary biologist that says evolution should work like that?
Again, monkeys and lizards and bird call all occupy a tree but all can take advantage of their own special niche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Justin this is where you made a mistake |
|
|
Get it straight, Buster.
I will not give the time of day to anything put forth by a TEFL teacher or Intelligent Design 'scientist' in opposition to a scientific consensus. Say something in favor of the consensus by all means, since that's entirely appropriate, but otherwise, kindly spare me the unpleasantries of being sullied by your intellectual malfeasance and contamination. You morons believe the universe to be a sadistic totalitarian regime and, as such, all concerned are to be pitied and ridiculed with ad hominem. You clowns believed man and dinosaur lived side by side at the time the Chinese writing system can be demonstrated to have been invented. Of course, a world with T-rex and Spinosaurus is wholly compatible with human flourishing.
Read proper science papers. Read Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence (How did they know that?) available from Amazon. Read the countless papers, publications, articles, external links on Wiki's Theory of Evolution page. Get your DNA mapped by National Geographic. Until then, your every assertion just all the more affirms what utter poison religion is. If you want to create a better impression of your primitive, obscene faiths, don't go near evolution, because to deny evolution as fact is akin to denying the round Earth fact or denying the dinosaurs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthfulchat
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: Mindme I hate to give bad news |
|
|
| An ecological niche has nothing to do with one species evolving into another. The ecological niche first termed by zoologist George Evelyn Hutchinson was how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors. Examples would be changes in the species not turning into another species. Simply put modifications in the body structure but still being the same species (adaptation). No way when Hutchinson explained this was he referring to a transformation to another species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: Mindme I hate to give bad news |
|
|
| truthfulchat wrote: |
| An ecological niche has nothing to do with one species evolving into another. The ecological niche first termed by zoologist George Evelyn Hutchinson was how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors. Examples would be changes in the species not turning into another species. Simply put modifications in the body structure but still being the same species (adaptation). No way when Hutchinson explained this was he referring to a transformation to another species. |
Goodness, you've learned how to Google. Unfortunately it remains a poor substitute for an actual scientific education -- uh, I mean, multi-year indoctrination camp on how to spread the Communist atheist fascist anti-Jesus lie of evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Justin, Mindme, and Ed |
|
|
| truthfulchat wrote: |
Oh for Ed it is done not down. |
You know what I meant! Down with homework!
Sorry, thank you 
Your vocation as an EFL teacher is well chosen. But it does still look like you slept through science class. I freely admit to poor spelling, grammar and proof reading. The mistakes in your understanding of evolution(and I'm not asking if you believe in it or not) are outstanding. Those glaring mistakes jumped on by MM2 and Justin just go to show you don't even know what evolution is. You are arguing against something none of the main proponents of evolution believe and to my knowledge no serious biologist believes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthfulchat
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: Retard I knew what it was |
|
|
| But I believe it is better to use a resource than just to go just by memory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthfulchat
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Hey Ed I know what evolution is |
|
|
| I know what evolution is but because I show criticisms you evolutionists lovers are going to try to say I know nothing. I think I have proved many points I stated by the resources I showed. You and other evolutionists may not believe in the resources I showed even though I did choose reputable scientist; however, you must understand the true criticisms of it. Also, you should realize that sometimes logic outwits scientific evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthfulchat
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: Slight typo |
|
|
| scientist=scientists |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MM2 has already shown you that your understanding of what evolutionist believe is not what evolutionist actually believe or state. It's not about a 'no true Scotsman' definition. It's about your silly straw-men. You are not reporting what scientists actually believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthfulchat
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: Ed you really dont read closely |
|
|
| Many of the points I said I don't agree with MM2 said biologists believe, he even stated why it does exist, that is why I counteracted with criticisms against it. I think you need to really read all I wrote and you will see that too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
