Octopus And Squid Evolution Is Officially Stranger Than We Could Have Ever Imagined

[scudsucker]

Let us consider the things you have posted in this thread. There are broadly five areas.

1) Intelligent Design is responsible for octopus evolution.

Claim made here:

Yes it's called Intelligent Design. They were designed that way.

You have provided no form of evidence for this.

2) Dawkins' comments on Intelligent Design.

Claim made here:

Heck even Dawkins said we could have been created by aliens so I guess he's talking complete nonsense too......

...(Dawkins) says that it is possible that intelligent design (aliens) could be responsible for the creation of life on earth.

..the die hard Dawkins admit that DNA and the origins of life could have been created by an intelligent creator.

Evidence provided: an edited clip of an interview from a Youtube channel called "ScienceVsEvolution", no further details nor the name of the interviewer.

Dawkins did hypothesize (in your heavily edited clip) that aliens could have been responsible for the beginning of life on earth, immediately after he stated that no one actually knows how the first molecule replicated. This is in no way an 'admission' of anything, it is not the 'gotcha' you want it to be.

He also stated that, in the case of these hypothetical aliens, that they themselves would have evolved via some form of Darwinian evolution. You can see Dawkins making his primary point at 00:30 to 00:35 where he says "I've told you, we don't know.. No no .. not, nor has anybody else".

There is simply no way to tell how life started. This claim may be dismissed as a disingenuous attempt to validate Intelligent Design.

3) Atheism is a religion / Evolution is a religion

Claim made here:

Yeah I agree, the religion of atheism is about as strong as that of any other religion

evolution is like a religion for some atheists. There was one of the famous evolutionists who was actually brave enough to admit that it was like a religion him and others like him.

... and evolution's very founder himself admits to evolution being a religion for some.

Evidence provided: opinion of Dr. M. Ruse stating that "Evolution is a religion", an unattributed quote claiming Darwin "admitted" that his thoughts became a religion, further opinion of Dr. M. Ruse stating that "evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions".

Notwithstanding the bizarre conflation of evolution and atheism, this claim may be dismissed as the supposed evidence makes no attempt to prove the premise. It relies solely on the opinion of one person and anonymous hearsay.

4) Atheism is the same as Evolution

Claim made here:

One and the same.

Atheism and evolution are like peanut butter and jam, they go hand in hand for some atheists

You have provided no form of evidence for this.

5) Statues are erected of Darwin, and people follow the figureheads with a level of fundamentalism seen mainly in religions.

Claim made here:

Statues are erected of Darwin, and people follow the figureheads with a level of fundamentalism seen mainly in religions.

You have provided no form of evidence for this.



While I would have opened up the KJV version of the new testament to choose something juicy for you to read on the subject of misinformation and lies; I decided instead to refer you to the following message:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.​

 

[SoldierMan]

@scudsucker
Wow, just wow you are a complete nut job.

You're like a robot that has come across something that contradicts its programming, you just don't know what to do. I can't debate with illogical nonsense like that.

But let me try one last time, you said:

Dawkins did hypothesize (in your heavily edited clip) that aliens could have been responsible for the beginning of life on earth, immediately after he stated that no one actually knows how the first molecule replicated. This is in no way an 'admission' of anything, it is not the 'gotcha' you want it to be.

There the bold bit, YOU ACTUALLY SAID IT. You actually said what I have been saying over and over and over and over and over, but it just doesn't compute in your brain when I say it because you think I am implying something else when I'm not. Wake the **** up man you are making up stories in your head that just aren't true.

It's not meant to be a gotcha you utter fool, it's meant to say that even Dawkins admits the Intelligent Design COULD, I repeat COULD COULD COULD be responsible for the creation of life on earth. Not that it IS but that it COULD. But according to him we don't know. But it COOOOOOOULD.

Get it. My *** Marilze maar jy is n ander soort ding jy.

I've met some hard head cases in my life but you are right up there.

 

[scudsucker]

@scudsucker
Wow, just wow you are a complete nut job.

You're like a robot that has come across something that contradicts its programming, you just don't know what to do. I can't debate with illogical nonsense like that.

But let me try one last time, you said:



There the bold bit, YOU ACTUALLY SAID IT. You actually said what I have been saying over and over and over and over and over, but it just doesn't compute in your brain when I say it because you think I am implying something else when I'm not. Wake the **** up man you are making up stories in your head that just aren't true.

It's not meant to be a gotcha you utter fool, it's meant to say that even Dawkins admits the Intelligent Design COULD, I repeat COULD COULD COULD be responsible for the creation of life on earth. Not that it IS but that it COULD. But according to him we don't know. But it COOOOOOOULD.

Get it. My *** Marilze maar jy is n ander soort ding jy.

I've met some hard head cases in my life but you are right up there.

I'm a little concerned, did you pray enough today? You seem rather... odd. A bit flustered. Out of sorts.



May I recommend Proverbs 3:5?

 

[SoldierMan]

I'm a little concerned, did you pray enough today? You seem rather... odd. A bit flustered. Out of sorts.



May I recommend Proverbs 3:5?

You know if you make an effort to get out of your rigid 1990s evolutionary way of thinking you will find that the world has moved on.

Even Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA itself found it a little too hard to believe that chance happenings were responsible for the magnificence that is life on earth and DNA.

He proposed Directed Panspermia as a result, like I said the world has moved on from your dogmatic views. Come out of your cave and be exposed to the light

Directed Panspermia

profiles.nlm.nih.gov

 

[scudsucker]

Still no evidence, eh, @SoldierMan ?

I notice you are now avoiding the subject of the "religion" of evolution.

Why is that? Your little homily about panspermia is delightful but has nothing to do with the evolution of octopi, nor with a so-called "religion" that you think exists.

 

[SoldierMan]

Still no evidence, eh, @SoldierMan ?

I notice you are now avoiding the subject of the "religion" of evolution.

Why is that? Your little homily about panspermia is delightful but has nothing to do with the evolution of octopi, nor with a so-called "religion" that you think exists.

Not avoiding anything, just done with the topic. Debating with you is like talking to a brick wall so no point in continuing.

Unlike you who is clearly avoiding the topic of panspermia. Does it not compute with your Darwin-or-die worldview (or is that religion ) so you just ignore it hoping it will go away?

 

[scudsucker]

Not avoiding anything, just done with the topic. Debating with you is like talking to a brick wall so no point in continuing.

I'll take that as a concession; a less than gracious one, but a concession that you were wrong nonetheless. Well done, SoldierBoy.

Unlike you who is clearly avoiding the topic of panspermia. Does it not compute with your Darwin-or-die worldview (or is that religion ) so you just ignore it hoping it will go away?

If this thread was about panspermia - and if you were not "done with the topic" - then you might have had a point. It is not, so, bad luck there, SoldierBoy.

 

[SoldierMan]

I'll take that as a concession; a less than gracious one, but a concession that you were wrong nonetheless. Well done, SoldierBoy.

If this thread was about panspermia - and if you were not "done with the topic" - then you might have had a point. It is not, so, bad luck there, SoldierBoy.

Ah my baby boy making up stuff as usual, not having the wisdom to just quite get it. Shame. Your wife or girlfriend must get enough of you at times hey scuddy

 

[LD50]

 

[scudsucker]

Ah my baby boy making up stuff as usual, not having the wisdom to just quite get it. Shame. Your wife or girlfriend must get enough of you at times hey scuddy

OK SoldierBoy. Be a good christian, now.

 

[SoldierMan]

OK SoldierBoy. Be a good christian, now.

Nah LD50 is right, this little train smash of ours has run it's course.

 

[scudsucker]

Proverbs 28:26

 

[Prom]

Yeah sure.

"Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory, and, in an article in the National Post, he wrote:"

The funny thing is he only said that in one of his books after he claimed the opposite in court. If he had admitted to what he knew the truth was evolutionists may never have won that court case.

 

[scudsucker]

The funny thing is he only said that in one of his books after he claimed the opposite in court. If he had admitted to what he knew the truth was evolutionists may never have won that court case.

Hmm. In which situation is someone more likely to tell the truth? Under oath in court - with the jeopardy of perjury, or in a book written for the fans?

 

[Prom]

Hmm. In which situation is someone more likely to tell the truth? Under oath in court - with the jeopardy of perjury, or in a book written for the fans?

You really want an answer to that? Don't think so but just in case, the latter. Especially knowing the backlash he could get from them. Yet there he is admitting to something that everyone has denied but everyone has known to be the truth.

 

[scudsucker]

Don't think so but just in case, the latter. ...
...
... everyone has known to be the truth.

Ah, so lying in court is admirable to you.

And "everyone"? No, Prom, only the ignorant believe your "truth". Certainly not everyone.

Anyone who is not amongst the ignorant (wilfull or not) will have examined the facts and come to the conclusion that Mr. Ruse is talking nonsense.

 

[SoldierMan]

Ah, so lying in court is admirable to you.

And "everyone"? No, Prom, only the ignorant believe your "truth". Certainly not everyone.

Anyone who is not amongst the ignorant (wilfull or not) will have examined the facts and come to the conclusion that Mr. Ruse is talking nonsense.

Hahahaha what do you know of "facts". Ruse has more clout and knowledge on the topic right now than you will have gathered in your whole life. I think Ruse wins out by quite the margin over Mr Abiogenesis-Doesn't-Affect-Evolution.

 

[Prom]

Ah, so lying in court is admirable to you.

And "everyone"? No, Prom, only the ignorant believe your "truth". Certainly not everyone.

Anyone who is not amongst the ignorant (wilfull or not) will have examined the facts and come to the conclusion that Mr. Ruse is talking nonsense.

Where did I say lying in court is admirable, quite the opposite so stop with your usual tactics of putting words in my mouth.

And nice imaginary pedestal you have there.

 

[scudsucker]

Hahahaha what do you know of "facts". Ruse has more clout and knowledge on the topic right now than you will have gathered in your whole life.

You are still using a single person's opinion as "proof". Facts do not work that way, SoldierBoy.

I think

Ah.. now you are getting somewhere. Baby steps, but starting to think is a good start. Well done.

Mr Abiogenesis-Doesn't-Affect-Evolution.

Abiogenesis is not necessary to prove evolution; evolution provides some insight into some theories of how life started but it does not rely on any of them in itself.

Of course, for you, abiogeneis must be linked to evolution in your strawman; because you rely on the goddunnit model of the start of life as your basis for arguing Intelligent Design (not that you have provided any evidence yet...)

 

[scudsucker]

Where did I say lying in court is admirable, quite the opposite so stop with your usual tactics of putting words in my mouth.

And nice imaginary pedestal you have there.

So you think lying in court is not admirable? But then, you are supporting Mr. Ruse lying in court because he might otherwise receive a "backlash" for telling the "truth".

Poor guy, his fans might not like what he is telling the court, so better he perjure himself.

I'm not sure if you recall what happens in court, but this is where you religious dudes swear on a bible - make an oath - that you are telling the truth. I have no idea if Mr. Ruse used a bible, but he would have sworn a solemn oath that he was telling the truth.

I just don't understand you religious people. Your god says, "do not lie" but yet you lie and support lies. Yet you still think you are following the words of this god. There is a fundamental dichotomy here that you do not see.