Notices
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 497

Thread: 7 Fatal Flaws of Evolution

  1. #1 7 Fatal Flaws of Evolution 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    this is a rough draft, one that is just fleshing out a theme and needs some more work. This will not be upgraded for here as it would take up too much space on this forum.

    Quotes and scriptures would be added later along with more resources (done properly with footnotes) but these will have to suffice for this place. It is not showing disrespect to other posters, i just wanted to get thison the board in its simplest form for my own reasons.

    Fatal Flaws of Evolution

    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.

    With no answers to these important issues, they havenothing to offer the world

    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?

    Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.

    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.

    Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same. Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.

    Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.

    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

    This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’ as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.

    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
    At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.

    With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions. Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.

    Evolution doesn’t know anything thus it could not instill in its species any desire for a moral life for no one would know what morality was? With no concept of God or a god, there would be no religions whatsoever and no reminder of that one is living a less than stellar life. It would be total anarchy.

    CONCLUSION:

    It is clear that 'the process of evolution' has no idea that humans exist, does not care if they live or die and provides very little in the way of guidance and information to help people live better lives.

    Yet many choose this path over someone who does care if they live or die, does know that they exist and does provide information to guide humans along with providing hope, love and eternal life after death, if they make the right choice.

    Unfortunately, the adherents of 'the process' will reject this person because 1. the information comes in an ancient book; 2. provides little physical evidence; 3. doesn't put man at the top of the 'food chain'; 4. allows them free choice

    Obviously, those who believe in God are not the ones chasing a fairy tale or being irrational but are making a better choice.


    RESOURCES:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

    http://www.uncg.edu/psy/courses/calo...t/ModelsBE.htm

    http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...inoflife.shtml

    http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/...arth_final.pdf

    http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

    http://thankgodforevolution.com/blog...ity-and-ethics

    http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/S...maldino598.php

    http://www.twoorthree.net/2007/08/fossil-evidence.html

    http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html

    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/w...sing-link.html

    http://www.iend.org/dad/dna.html


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    archaeologist,

    Where did you dig this up from?

    It looks fascinating, I think you are on to something here, please, please tell us more.


     

  4. #3 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Fatal Flaws of Evolution

    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.
    The theory of evolution also doesn't explain gravity. Does this mean it fails on this count, too?

    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?
    Again, this is not actually a matter of evolution; this is a matter of the origins of life.

    However, there are a number of reasons why Earth is special;

    -Habitable zone of temperature so that temperature is right for life to survive

    -Disproportionately large moon hugely reduces impact fo meteors

    -atmosphere has correct composition to absorb most harmful frequencies of EM radiation

    -Located in a quiet part of the universe, in a quiet part of the galaxy.

    Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.
    Not so. Everything of relevance to the theory of evolution can be explained. Other theorys, such as biogenesis, may be less sound, but evolution is pretty much a given.

    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.
    ???????

    Wait, how exactly does time disagree with evolution? You lost me there.

    Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same.
    Yet cats have never discovered fire...

    Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.
    Uh..... yep pretty much. Are you denying that the average level of inteligence has increased over the past, say, 2000 years? No? Then clearly we evolved from less inteligent individuals, even in the short-term.

    Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.
    Evidence for evolution is in the general traits of a species, not the day-to-day activity of a single organism. You show a fundamental misunderstanding.

    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded.
    Correct. Just as hydrogen and nitrogen in the haber process are not aware what the yield % is at a given temperature, yet they manage to form the relevant %.

    It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    Your point?

    My oven doesn't know about cooking, what of it?

    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.
    It reveals your lack of understanding of fairly simple concepts, and also of the theory of evolution.

    This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’
    Nothing to do with evolution; however very much to do with creationism.

    as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.
    I suggest you actually try to understand before embarrasing yourself further.

    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    Natural selection is why. Sexual reproduction allows faster change in a species, and a greater number of mutations.

    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
    At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
    a) Why does evolution, being a process not a sentient being, need to know? Just like there is no reason why my oven would need to know about cooking for me to make a cake.
    b) Mortality is a seperate issue to evolution.

    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans.
    Not so. An imagination can produce things which are not true.

    Equally, evolution could be a process started by god.

    Either way, you have made yet another incorrect assumption.

    Evolution produces traits by trial and error, not by design.

    There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.
    This is a negative trait developed by humans; slowly it is killing the species. How many wars, bombings and attacks have been caused by religion?

    With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions.
    Welcome to politics.

    Incidentally, are you saying cows believe in god? That's a wild and random assumption.

    Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.
    Evolution to a rescue: a species that kills itself will die out, whereas one that preserves its members will have a much better chance of survival.

    Evolution doesn’t know anything thus it could not instill in its species any desire for a moral life for no one would know what morality was?
    Read the above. Species which kill themselves die out, or would never develop to start with into a species larger than a small group.

    With no concept of God or a god, there would be no religions whatsoever and no reminder of that one is living a less than stellar life. It would be total anarchy.
    Does any species but humankind believe in a god?

    Clearly religion is not fundamental to the survival of a species.

    CONCLUSION:

    It is clear that 'the process of evolution' has no idea that humans exist
    No shit, sherlock. When did anyone suggest evolution was a sentient being?

    Help! Help! The evolution monster is coming.....

    does not care if they live or die and provides very little in the way of guidance and information to help people live better lives.
    Once more: evolution is not sentient.

    The suitably fit survivel those who are not capable of surviving die. This is called natural selection.

    Yet many choose this path over someone who does care if they live or die
    Possibly because of the overwhelming evidence.

    By the way, most people choose to believe in evolution caused by god.

    does know that they exist and does provide information to guide humans along with providing hope, love and eternal life after death, if they make the right choice.
    I can believe in the flying spaghetti monster than will grant me eternal pasta. Belief is irrelecant; it does not necessarily correlate with truth.

    Unfortunately, the adherents of 'the process' will reject this person because 1. the information comes in an ancient book
    You missed out unreliable, mistranslated an incomplete.

    2. provides little physical evidence
    NONE, you mean.

    3. doesn't put man at the top of the 'food chain'
    I am yet to see god eat a man, therefore I can only assume that man is more powerful than god.

    Before you quote me, I mean this figuratively; I am yet to see god punish a human, but this post I am making is effectively puishing god.

    4. allows them free choice
    No, free choice exists to start with. What belief in a god does is make one of the options punishable by infinite torture.

    Obviously, those who believe in God are not the ones chasing a fairy tale
    Yeah, believing in a magical flying invisible man is not at all like believing in fairies.

    Also, most theists believe in evolution. You are part of a minority, and you actually dissociate yourself from that minority. So, you are the ONLY person who believes what you do.

    It's getting more reliable all the time, no?

    Ah well. At least I didn't copy and paste all your comments and make you look like a moody retard again.....
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Archaeologist has posted a suite of 'flaws' that provide an interesting and revealing insight into his thought processes. Let us look at 'Flaw' 1.

    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from.
    There is a recurrent teleological theme in archaeologists postings. For archaeologist purpose is essential and it is paramount. Anything without purpose, according to archaeologist, is false or evil.

    There is a clear failing in this demand for purpose: he is blind to the possibility that evolution can emerge, as a process, from the laws, forces, particles and constants of nature. Science, working from a methodologically naturalistic base, has no problem accepting this. Moreover science does not exclude the possibility that these very laws, forces, particles and constants were established by some supernatural entity, it simply declares that investigating supernatural entities is outwith its scope.

    Archaeologist, science has a very clear idea where evolution came from. Evolution arises as the natural consequences of how the universe is and how it functions. The genius of Darwin and Wallace was to put together the growing observations and developing ideas of the previous half century or so, and demonstrate the power and logic of a simple and elegant idea.

    Just in case you missed something archaeologist, that idea was (as per the Reverend Thomas Malthus) that populations tend to grow geometrically, while their resources are limited. Consequently, in general more offspring will be produced than will reach maturity and reproduce themselves. Events within the environment will tend to 'weed out' those that are less fit for that environment and thus, overtime, will produce a change in the general character of the population.

    It was an idea both elegant and potent. The source of both the idea and the process are clearcut. Your inability to see this is a reflection on you, not on the theory.

    Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.
    I can never decide whether this commonplace misinterpretation is down to ignorance or duplicity.

    Clearly there is a connection between the origin of life and the subsequent generation of life. There is also a connection between the evolution of life and the production of the heavier elments in stellar nucleosynthesis. However, we do not need to understand the latter to develop theories for the former. If tomorrow our ideas on the formation of phosphorous and nitrogen in the heart of a star were shown to be faulty it would have no effect whatsoever on the theory of evolution.

    In the same way a change in perception of how life began would have no effect upon the theory of evolution. Evolution is here and now. Abiogenesis was there and then. (Indeed, it is possible - though not plausible - that the first life was created by design and then became subject to evolutionary processes. Archaeoloigst is unable to countenance this.)

    Couple this with the fact that they have no idea ...... what the ‘common ancestor was’
    Another facet of archaeologists mind set is that truth comes only as a complete package. If knowledge is partially lacking in a field, then all knowledge is lacking in that field. (However, this stricture applies only to secular knowledge. In the case of revealed knowledge it is acceptable for God to withold knowledge for his own reasons.)

    Science, in contrast, recognises and even revels in the unknown. Scientists are often attracted to the field by the opportunity (some would say the God given opportunity) to add to our knowledge, to extend our understanding.

    As to the common ancestor, evolutionists have some good ideas as to its character. These ideas are being refined, adapted and advanced all the time. We have been working on such things for less than half a century. When you are trying to probe four billion years into the past it will take a little time. Archaeologist accuses science of arrogance, then fails to appreciate the humility of researchers who devote a lifetime to one small area of research that may take us closer to the goal of characterising the common ancestor. (And though he has not done it here he routinely accuses these same committed researchers of lying about evolution in order to promote atheism. I leave it to you to decide what that tells you about either his mental state or his character.)

    Flaws? The only flaw here is in archaeologists thinking.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i thought more people would be attacking me and having hissy fits. keep in mind i was summarizing a lot for the forum needs and i was not making an definitive list. i am sure i left some ore fatal flaws out.

    Where did you dig this up from?

    It looks fascinating, I think you are on to something here, please, please tell us more
    until i get more information i am putting this down to sarcasm.

    galt falls so short as he cannot provide one credible source to back up his statements and relies on the old evolutionary two step by saying certain things are the responsibility of other fields.

    in other words, he cannot refute the 7 flaws i published and avoids the issues by attacking me, which is another old and tired evolutionist strategy. so we know that evolution is false just by his failure to provide evidence, credible explanations and refutations.

    maybe later i will go through his post point by point to show you where he is doing everything but answering the challenge.

    drowsy turtle did a better job but failed miserably bu comparing evolution tohis oven:

    My oven doesn't know about cooking, what of it?
    an oven, even gravity, does not come close to being similar to what evolutionists describe the process of evolution to be.

    an oven needs to be built by someone, designed would be the operative word here, then it has to be turned on and food placed inside of it to cook. the oven needs an outside source tomake it work and toput food inside of it.

    thus are evolutionists saying that there is a superior being who had to design evolution to work in its way, then place 'life' within its authority so it could work?

    if so, then they are saying that there is a supreme being out there that designed everyting towork in a certain manner and evolution was just the 'oven'.

    but of course, evolutionists still can't prove that evolution actually exists, unlike the oven which we can see in action everyday, we do not get to see evolution at work. it is merely the say so of an 'elite' group of people who are bestowing their 'findings' upon an unsuspecting population.

    who knows if the are telling the truth or not, we are not allowed to see dissenting opinion because they want all such contrary thought banned from the classroom. access to experiemnts and findings are also very limited and left to 'peer review'. in other words they are saying we are rightbecause my fellow evolutionist says i am right.

    this 'elite' group of people basically are sayiong we believe something came from nothing and that the masses must 'take our word for it'. sorry but that just doesn't cut it.

    with the Bible allpeople have access to its words and all people can test the words to see if they are true. they do not need an elite group to tell them what is right, they get to go to the source, God or Jesus, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and see for themselves. plus they can look at the evidence and make their own minds up.

    as i said for galt, i may do for drowsy turtle if i get the energy up.
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    have you heard of an analogy?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    @ Drowsy Turtle:
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    archaeologist,

    Your blatant dishonesty disappoints me. Let me know when your eyesight has improved well enough to actually read what I wrote. Your response clearly indicated you didn't. I shall not waste time addressing your other six points.

    John.
     

  10. #9 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Fatal Flaws of Evolution

    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.
    The process of evolution comes from the facts that things reproduce, vary, and die. All these make natural selection unavoidable. Where these originated has little to do witht the fact that it happens, where does gravity come from. This is a problem for the origin of life: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abio...ginoflife.html

    Evolution states that the common ancestor would have most traits that we see today in all organisms, like a DNA sequence containing T, A, C and G. It says more about more recent ancestors like those of apes and humans and of reptiles and mammals.

    'the blind leading the blind' makes no sense, evolution has a blindspot, everyone does, is everyone blind?
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i thought more people would be attacking me and having hissy fits. keep in mind i was summarizing a lot for the forum needs and i was not making an definitive list. i am sure i left some ore fatal flaws out.

    Where did you dig this up from?

    It looks fascinating, I think you are on to something here, please, please tell us more
    until i get more information i am putting this down to sarcasm.

    galt falls so short as he cannot provide one credible source to back up his statements and relies on the old evolutionary two step by saying certain things are the responsibility of other fields.

    in other words, he cannot refute the 7 flaws i published and avoids the issues by attacking me, which is another old and tired evolutionist strategy. so we know that evolution is false just by his failure to provide evidence, credible explanations and refutations.

    maybe later i will go through his post point by point to show you where he is doing everything but answering the challenge.

    drowsy turtle did a better job but failed miserably bu comparing evolution tohis oven:

    My oven doesn't know about cooking, what of it?
    an oven, even gravity, does not come close to being similar to what evolutionists describe the process of evolution to be.

    an oven needs to be built by someone, designed would be the operative word here, then it has to be turned on and food placed inside of it to cook. the oven needs an outside source tomake it work and toput food inside of it.

    thus are evolutionists saying that there is a superior being who had to design evolution to work in its way, then place 'life' within its authority so it could work?

    if so, then they are saying that there is a supreme being out there that designed everyting towork in a certain manner and evolution was just the 'oven'.

    but of course, evolutionists still can't prove that evolution actually exists, unlike the oven which we can see in action everyday, we do not get to see evolution at work. it is merely the say so of an 'elite' group of people who are bestowing their 'findings' upon an unsuspecting population.

    who knows if the are telling the truth or not, we are not allowed to see dissenting opinion because they want all such contrary thought banned from the classroom. access to experiemnts and findings are also very limited and left to 'peer review'. in other words they are saying we are rightbecause my fellow evolutionist says i am right.

    this 'elite' group of people basically are sayiong we believe something came from nothing and that the masses must 'take our word for it'. sorry but that just doesn't cut it.

    with the Bible allpeople have access to its words and all people can test the words to see if they are true. they do not need an elite group to tell them what is right, they get to go to the source, God or Jesus, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and see for themselves. plus they can look at the evidence and make their own minds up.

    as i said for galt, i may do for drowsy turtle if i get the energy up.
    So God created evolution? Some suggest this. Our problem is your denying it. No one is saying you should take our word for it. We're just asking you to LISTEN. The facts are overwhelmingly in our favour.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Double post
     

  13. #12 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?

    Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.
    I'll admit I don't quite undertand this objection.

    My textbook, Biological Science, by Scott Freeman, defines natural selection as "The process by which individuals with certain heritable traits tend to produce more surviving offspring than do individuals without those traits, often leading to a change in the genetic makeup of the population. A major mechanism of evolution." (emphasis added). This means that all life on this planet (since all life has heritable traits and offspring) is subjected to evolution. Why does evolution affect life, because life, by definition, is anything capable of evolving. This answers the planet question as well, evolution got here when life did.
     

  14. #13 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.

    Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same. Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.

    Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.
    Science can't tell what you did last week? Don't ask me for a source as it contradicts our entire justice system and forensic science. It is by far the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Actually I will give a source to amuse you: http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/index1.htm

    Also for further back in time: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

    Also the first claim assumes that humans required

    There is evidence that Homo Erectus used fire:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs...s.html#erectus

    Besides this pigs do not have hair (or fire) they are perfectly capable of surviving. (Especially in tropical areas such as Africa) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_..._modern_humans

    The cat metaphor makes little sense, everyone knows that our supposed ancestors were smarter than cats.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i thought more people would be attacking me and having hissy fits.
    Yes the more people learn about your habits in a discussion the more your threads will simply bore them and they will not bother to reply to them.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    galt falls so short as he cannot provide one credible source to back up his statements and relies on the old evolutionary two step by saying certain things are the responsibility of other fields.
    ...
    so we know that evolution is false just by his failure to provide evidence, credible explanations and refutations.
    ...yawn... Which is more absurd, the implication that archaeologist supplies any credible sources to back up his statements or the implication that he will actually read and address any sources that are provided. We have already seen this pattern before...... boring!


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    in other words, he cannot refute the 7 flaws i published and avoids the issues by attacking me
    Baloney!

    The simple fact that there are unanswered questions (let alone those which are not even valid scientific questions) are not flaws in a scientific theory. This applies to every supposed flaw he gives even though in many cases the claim that no there is no answer to the question is plain wrong.

    Some like 4 are just a declaration of archaeologist's ignorance and inability to understand the theory. The fact that archaeologist does not understand the theory is not a flaw in the theory but a flaw in him. The fact is that the theory does explain these and its ability to do so is the greatest strength of the theory. Part of the problem may be that usefulness is really the bottom line in an explanation and the question we need to ask is, useful for what? What makes a scientific explanation is its usefulness for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. I have no doubt that archaeologist does not find the kind of usefulness he is looking for in scientific explanations, for there is nothing in them that will serve the interest of his cult in power, manipulation and control.

    Others like 6 and 7 are really foolish, for although these kinds of question are not really part of the theory and do not really belong in biology, such explanations do exist. But in this case I don't think these are really matters for scientific inquiry. It is like looking for an evolutionary explanation for your choice of career. Expecting such an explanation and whether we can come up with such an explantion or not is kind of pointless.

    Frankly archaeologist does damage to very things he thinks are important just like these suicide bombers who just make eveything they stand for, look that much more evil and ridiculous. He really misses the important issues completely such as whether there is any reason to accept the premise that the scientific world-view should or could describe everything that is real, or whether the theory of evolution should be treated like a theory of everything.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    maybe later i will go through his post point by point to show you where he is doing everything but answering the challenge.
    From my experience when archaeologist says "maybe later" it means never and he says it as a lame attempt to imply that he has answers when he does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    thus are evolutionists saying that there is a superior being who had to design evolution to work in its way, then place 'life' within its authority so it could work?

    if so, then they are saying that there is a supreme being out there that designed everyting towork in a certain manner and evolution was just the 'oven'.
    Only the theists. Science only studies the patterns and describes the patterns that are there. The theists will attribute them to the design and purpose of God and the atheists will simply say that no such design and purpose exists or is required.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    but of course, evolutionists still can't prove that evolution actually exists, unlike the oven which we can see in action everyday, we do not get to see evolution at work. it is merely the say so of an 'elite' group of people who are bestowing their 'findings' upon an unsuspecting population.
    Here he shows himself to figuratively be a flat earther again. The evidence is overwhelming, everywhere and conclusive, it has been repeatedly supplied to him, but he makes it clear that he will ignore everything that does not agree with his insane dogma just like a flat earther.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    who knows if the are telling the truth or not, we are not allowed to see dissenting opinion because they want all such contrary thought banned from the classroom. access to experiemnts and findings are also very limited and left to 'peer review'. in other words they are saying we are rightbecause my fellow evolutionist says i am right.
    Nonsense. The dishonest and theological methods of the creationists are simply not science because it does not follow the guidlines of scientific inquiry. Therefore t is only natural that the scientist reject and ignore their nonsense. Every human activity is defined by rules and guidelines. If you are not going to follow the rules of chess, for example, then what you are doing is not chess. On a more serious note, can we allow a refusal to follow the rules of a court law? The result would be lawlessness. Science falls between these two examples. We will stick to the guidlines that makes science what it is because without them it is only the rhetoric of politics and sales. Politics and sales have their place to be sure but these cannot accomplish what science has accomplished.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this 'elite' group of people basically are sayiong we believe something came from nothing and that the masses must 'take our word for it'. sorry but that just doesn't cut it.
    More nonsense. The theory of evolution gives a scientific explanation of the origin of the species just as abiogenesis gives a scientific explanation of the origin of life. Like all scientific theories they give rise to more questions than they answer but what is crucial is that they provide a direction for further scientific inquiry. This is what scientific theory is all about, because "Goddidit" cannot do any such thing. That some religious nuts don't want there to be a scientific explanation for the orgin of life and the species is no reason for those that do want them to cease their efforts or to waste their time listening to lies and absurdities. It is certainly no reason to let these wackos turn research groups, universities and public schools into recruiting grounds for their cult.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    with the Bible allpeople have access to its words and all people can test the words to see if they are true. they do not need an elite group to tell them what is right, they get to go to the source, God or Jesus, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and see for themselves. plus they can look at the evidence and make their own minds up.
    Well you are right about that. I don't need your cult of anti-science nut cases to tell me what the Bible says. I can indeed read the Bible and see the confirmation of evolution there, just as I can look at the physical evidence and see the confirmation there. I can also look at your posts and see the confirmation of quite a few things about you too.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  16. #15 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

    This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’ as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.
    Perhaps this misconception is due to thinking of evolution as a 'thing'. Essentially nature causes the major mechanism: 'natural selection', not evolution itself. Nature does not know to kill off individuals that cannot find food. It simply does. Therefore leaving all the food to those that can. Another mutation causes some of the next generation to be even better at finding food (therefore eating all of it). And nature (not some mystic intelligence called 'evolution') wipes out all the old form. Unless of course a mutation leads some of the original creatures to eat another kind of food (this is why we have more than one type of organism).

    Berkeley University puts it more succinctly: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
     

  17. #16 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    Creationists latch on to this since there is some debate about WHAT the advantage it. But we do know that there is one: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

    There are many explanation (which is why there is a debate), the one proposed here is that sexual reproduction weeds out negative traits (by making them recessive), in case you don't look at the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    In fact it only makes sense according to evolution, since our sex is descended from that of fish. In fish females lay eggs and sperm is released into the water, if they were released at equal amounts a very limited amound of eggs would be fertalized. So it is advantageous to have more sperm spread than eggs. How do you explain this waste? (oh ya sin... ). Also require much more energy to create as they are larger.
    http://www.marinebio.net/marinescien...on/sarepro.htm

    Fish evolved before the penis-vagina interlocking system, though this system is more efficient, it is still not perfect as much sperm is still wasted. It takes a while for these systems to evolve since there isn't a strong selective pressure (sperm don't cost much), there is a stronger selective pressure on egg efficiency (eggs cost more). To see how energy effects natural selection...
    http://www.find-health-articles.com/...ry-systems.htm
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    All the creationist is asking for is links is that so much to ask?

    http://www.w3schools.com/HTML/html_links.asp
     

  19. #18 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
    At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
    First of all reason has major evolutionary advantages, sorry I have to start off topic. An animal with instincts can respond to certain stimuli, but if something unpredicted comes up, it's dead. But an animal with reason, even primitive, will be able to respond to novel cirumstances. Once we have reason, it is easy to see the problems with anarchy, it is better to put aside our differences. Evolution doesn't know this but we DO. We have intelligence, we are no longer slaves to evoluion. This is my idea there are others: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

    The predominate explanation for altruism (where one organisms works for another but does not reproduce, like in ants and bees) in biology is called 'kin selection'. Since kin have similar genes, those genes can't passed on (not naturally selected/killed off) since a brother or sister has those genes. http://taumoda.com/web/PD/library/kin.html
     

  20. #19 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.

    With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions. Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.

    Evolution doesn’t know anything thus it could not instill in its species any desire for a moral life for no one would know what morality was? With no concept of God or a god, there would be no religions whatsoever and no reminder of that one is living a less than stellar life. It would be total anarchy.
    This is just a repitition of 4 and 5, see my posts regarding those points.

    I will add links to more though:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA003.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA004.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA007.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA008.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA009.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA010.html
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    golkarian just tapped danced around the issues and did not provide any answers at all. as an example:

    There are many explanation
    i knew about this which means he and evolution has no answers, they do not know and cannot explain why reproduction exists.

    and another:

    An animal with instincts can respond to certain stimuli, but if something unpredicted comes up, it's dead. But an animal with reason, even primitive, will be able to respond to novel cirumstances
    this totally avoids refuting the fatal flaw because it skips over the flaw and reiterates the argument without addressing it.

    everything he said avoids dealing with the flaws and just skips the difficult parts.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    that's right go for the personal attack

    Evolution doesn't know this but we DO. We have intelligence, we are no longer slaves to evoluion
    yet how did we get that intelligence when evolution doesn't have any? sorry but you are just becoming ridiculous here as we would NOT know about morality if evolution were true.

    basically you are trying to keep the good things of God and combining them with evolution.

    one fatal flaw i did forget was : death. under evolution there is no reason for death to exist. and who 'created' death? where did it come from and why would it exist?

    sorry but evolution has too many problems to be considered rational let alone scientific. At least with God we get the answers to everything right from the git go and we know the source so we do not have to waste time questioning or investigating the wrong paths.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    one fatal flaw i did forget was : death. under evolution there is no reason for death to exist. and who 'created' death? where did it come from and why would it exist?
    Death is not a "thing" any more than darkness is a substance. In simplest terms, life is a complex series of chemical reactions. "Death" is the name we have assigned the any interruption of that process. Be it failure of the system from within or outside interfearance.

    But how does evolution say "death should not exist?" Any credible links to back up that claim? Asking evolution to explain how chemicals can stop interacting is like asking it to explain gravity.

    yet how did we get that intelligence when evolution doesn't have any? sorry but you are just becoming ridiculous here as we would NOT know about morality if evolution were true.
    Emergent complexity is the study of how complex systems arise out of the multiplicity of simple interactions. The emergence of complex systems such as intelligence is best explained by it. But you no doubt won't be satisfied with that answer because you're still operating under a false understanding of the process of natural selection, a fundamental part of evolutionary theory (and the emergence of complexity there in.) You've said repeatedly that "evolution must have intelligence in order to operate," and we've made efforts to correct you dozens of times. But rather than acknowledge the possiblity that you simply do not understand something correctly, you diliberately ignore and dismiss every attempt to explain what is the single most directly observable fact of biology. So much so that even creationists don't deny that it happens:

    "Natural selection is simply the effect the natural world has on living things, selecting out living forms that can survive from those that can’t handle their environment and therefore perish."
    (just about the only true statement in that article.)

    If you can't understand natural selection, then you can't understand evolution and therefore have no business claiming what it does or does not predict.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I lol'd when I saw the OP. I rofl'd when I saw the references. It's actually kind of pathetic.
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    In simplest terms, life is a complex series of chemical reactions. "Death" is the name we have assigned the any interruption of that process
    if this is what you reduce life down to it is surprising that you have not gone mad and killed yourself. what makes you hang on when you think there is nothing waiting for you on the 'other side'?

    still does not answer the charge and fails to refute the fatal flaw, there is no reason for death to exist with evolution.

    you keep saying 'you don't understand...' but i understand it far better than you do as i am not the one trying to convince myself that evolution is real. you refuse to consider these flaws because they challenge you to honestly look at what you believe and see how fake it is.

    you still haven't explained how evolution came into existence, the best i got so far was--'when life came into being so did evolution' or something similar. that is not an answer but a side stepping of the issue.
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if this is what you reduce life down to it is surprising that you have not gone mad and killed yourself. what makes you hang on when you think there is nothing waiting for you on the 'other side'?
    How ironic. I quite often wonder why people who believe in the afterlife don't kill themselves. I mean, what's the point of this life if there's an afterlife? Well, they have their excuses, but really it's just a fear of death. And they console themselves with the concept of an afterlife so that when the day comes they won't have to fear it.

    The psychology of this behaviour is very interesting, but hardly something which needs to be discussed further.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    still does not answer the charge and fails to refute the fatal flaw, there is no reason for death to exist with evolution.

    you keep saying 'you don't understand...' but i understand it far better than you do as i am not the one trying to convince myself that evolution is real. you refuse to consider these flaws because they challenge you to honestly look at what you believe and see how fake it is.
    My, my... the arrogance. It's remarkable how much confidence you have in your beliefs, which are just that.

    As most of us know (most of us), death occurs due to the fact that a biological machine can't possibly linger on forever. It withers and dies due to many enviromental factors. The genes, however, do not die (assuming they've made it to the next generation).

    Death can be thought of as an evolutionary strategy. Due to the fact that the PROBABILITY that an organism will die the longer it lives; the faster it can reproduce, the larger the PROBABILITY that the genes will survive is. Natural selection has shaped ageing appropiately to an expected age due to all of this.

    Death is only real to the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you still haven't explained how evolution came into existence, the best i got so far was--'when life came into being so did evolution' or something similar. that is not an answer but a side stepping of the issue.
    Evolution is a by-product of life which can be determined by really simple logical inference. I've told you this before of course, but I reckon that ignorance is bliss, right?

    Well, you're not the only person who's had trouble comprehending what a scientific law is. I don't think you'll ever get it either.

    The process by which life undergo adaptations to its enviroment is called evolution. It's a concept. Get over it. If you don't understand it, stop thinking you do.
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    have you heard of an analogy?
    Something to do with headaches?
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    have you heard of an analogy?
    Something to do with headaches?
    I thought it had something to do with the study of the ass...
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As most of us know (most of us), death occurs due to the fact that a biological machine can't possibly linger on forever.
    I am one of the minority. Your assertion - death is inevitable. Why? Why can't a biological machine linger on for a thousand years, or a billion? Why would that be? /Pause for enlightenment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Death can be thought of as an evolutionary strategy. Due to the fact that the PROBABILITY that an organism will die the longer it lives; the faster it can reproduce, the larger the PROBABILITY that the genes will survive is. Natural selection has shaped ageing appropiately to an expected age due to all of this..
    In other words? In other words?...........

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Death is only real to the individual.
    What a comfort!


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Evolution is a by-product of life which can be determined by really simple logical inference. .
    Really. So did everyone before Darwin just lack the brain power to make a simple logical inference? Do you think that lack of intellect was genetic?
    :? You don't mean Darwin was a mutation!
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I am one of the minority. Your assertion - death is inevitable. Why? Why can't a biological machine linger on for a thousand years, or a billion? Why would that be? /Pause for enlightenment.
    This question is answered easily. The older in age we get, the less organised our cells become. Our body is made up of cells and we age based off of the unorganisation that age permits.

    Death occurs when our cell's are no longer able to organise and process.

    Really. So did everyone before Darwin just lack the brain power to make a simple logical inference? Do you think that lack of intellect was genetic?
    You don't mean Darwin was a mutation!
    Your logic hurts my head. Our ancestors didn't know everything in the world and by asking if they lacked the brain power, you are basically saying - in a sarcastic way - that our ancestors should have known about evolution before Darwin came around. That is assuming that our ancestors knew everything. If that were true then did they lack brain power for not coming up with electricity? Cars? Gas? Oil? Guns? Machinery? All of which were known only within the last 500 years. So apparently, according to you, we should of had knowledge of those objects since the beginning of time as well.
    It's called scientific advancement and understanding. In fact, when Darwin came up with his theory, we were barely understanding how cell's work. DNA hadn't been discovered yet. In fact, the origin of species was published around the same time Gregor Mendel did his discovery of heredity AND neither one knew each other. Darwin discovered his theory while not even knowing what the law of heredity even was. Heredity only confirms his observations and the further we get in the scientific field, the better and more capable we are to understanding what evolution is and how it works.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    golkarian just tapped danced around the issues and did not provide any answers at all. as an example:

    There are many explanation
    i knew about this which means he and evolution has no answers, they do not know and cannot explain why reproduction exists.
    Evolution has many answers, therefore it has none. archeologist, your logic is impecable.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    still does not answer the charge and fails to refute the fatal flaw, there is no reason for death to exist with evolution.
    Evolution favours organisms that reproduce, once they do, natural selection no longer acts on the organism, and they die. In essence, when natural selection stops working thermodynamics takes over, and we fall apart. If your interested there is a good article by Scientific American: If Humans were Built to Last.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    More on the reason issue: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html

    This link is similar to my original post so it might no help you:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400_1.html

    This is much longer:
    http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Vienna.pdf
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    But how does evolution say "death should not exist?" Any credible links to back up that claim? Asking evolution to explain how chemicals can stop interacting is like asking it to explain gravity.
    I agree that evolution doesn't HAVE to explain death, but I believe it does, when combined with thermodynamics.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As most of us know (most of us), death occurs due to the fact that a biological machine can't possibly linger on forever.
    I am one of the minority. Your assertion - death is inevitable. Why? Why can't a biological machine linger on for a thousand years, or a billion? Why would that be? /Pause for enlightenment.
    Thermodynamics.
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I agree that evolution doesn't HAVE to explain death
    actually, it does have to.

    Death occurs when our cell's are no longer able to organise and process
    in the evolutionary scenario, death has no reason to exist, you must explain why it does not HOW.

    Evolution has many answers
    it has no answers. you can't even explainhow it orignated. you can't even explain why earth only. you can't explain why it needs millions of years. you can't explain why it needs an 'elite' group of men to determine its existence and then describe it.

    you cannot explain why there are reproductive systems when the proces doesn't need them let alone how a process that doesn't know anything knows when the enviornment and genetical combinations are just right to for a species to survive (in this case millions of species)

    you can't explain how evolution an afect millions of different species at the same time.

    everything you explain about 'the process' is just convenience because you do not have the evidence you think you do.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you keep saying 'you don't understand...' but i understand it far better than you do as i am not the one trying to convince myself that evolution is real. you refuse to consider these flaws because they challenge you to honestly look at what you believe and see how fake it is.
    No, I keep saying you don't understand because you do not understand. You have shown this repeatedly. I even asked you to render a specific, non evolutionary explanation for the twin nested heirarchy in both morphology and genetics and to also explain how a nested heirarchy is not the mathemtaical consiquence of a branching tree process. Instead of showing an understanding of any of this, you simply ignored the question by giving the simplistic and juvenile response, "because God did it that way." If you understood evolution at all, you would realize how that isn't an answer. If you understood science at all, you would realize how that isn't an answer. If you understood anything about what I was saying or what you were saying, then you would have realize that you accused God of lying!

    I've met creationists who understand these concepts. They still deny evolution for no other reason than it contradicts the Bible, but I still have more respect for them than I do for you. They are at least man enough to admit when they don't understand something and will make at least some effort to increase their knowledge. But go ahead, keep make-believing you're some sort of scientific genius that has out-thought the greatest minds of the past thousand years. Have fun in fantasy land.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Ok Archaeologist, listen CAREFULLY.

    I agree that evolution doesn't HAVE to explain death
    Evolution explains CHANGE. Biology and Microbiology explains DEATH.
    Does that make sense? Hope you actually READ this instead of gloss over it.
    Simply because a theory doesn't explain something it was never meant to explain does not mean it is FALSE. Something ELSE explains death so evolution doesn't HAVE to.


    in the evolutionary scenario, death has no reason to exist, you must explain why it does not HOW.
    Why and How are the exact.. same.. thing...
    And over time, cells disorganise. That is why we die. Our cells ceise to work properly.

    it has no answers. you can't even explainhow it orignated.
    Evolution doesn't have to explain how it originated. ALL IT FUCKING DOES IS THAT IT EXPLAINS CHANGE IN A SPECIES.

    you can't even explain why earth only.
    THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    you can't explain why it needs millions of years.
    Oh, a question which has an answer that deals with evolution. Finally!
    The "millions of years" part doesn't need to be explained. All that needs to be explained is generations. Years don't matter. Evolution is not based off of time persay, it is based off of how many generations there are. in 4 billion years, """IF""" a generation was 20 years, then there would be 200,000,000 generations in a species. E-Coli has an incredibly fast generation cycle. I don't have the exact stats at this moment, but maybe a biologist would like to help me out in explaining how quickly E-Coli can reproduce and create generation after generation of offspring so we can witness how change can effect them.

    you can't explain why it needs an 'elite' group of men to determine its existence and then describe it.
    So lets use an Analogy. A biology teacher walks into a hospital and wants to do surgery on an individual. The hospital denies him the ability to do surgery. Their reason is that only an 'elite' group of men or women are capable of doing surgery so that they know it's done right.
    Another analogy.
    A history teacher wants to build a machine. However, that history teacher was never taught to build a machine in the first place. How can he build a machine unless he learns how to do it?
    Is any of this making sense?
    You NEED an elite group of men or women to determine evolutions existence because it's their JOB to do it. Some guy named Jack off the streets with no degree in biology wouldn't know where to begin to look in regards to science.
    Fuck you're the science forum's village idiot of the year.

    you cannot explain why there are reproductive systems when the proces doesn't need them
    I don't know much about reproductive systems in regards to evolution, but i'm sure it was JUST FUCKING EXPLAINED TO YOU.

    how a process that doesn't know anything knows when the enviornment and genetical combinations are just right to for a species to survive (in this case millions of species)
    Ok, get this through your fucking head. If a species CANNOT SURVIVE IN IT'S ENVIRONMENT IT WILL DIE!!!!!!
    Evolution does not determine if it will live or die. The environment will. Evolution just says, "Hey here is a mutation, go have fun!" If that mutation causes the death of the creature within that environment then that creature CAN NOT FUCKING PROCREATE. How hard is this to understand???

    you can't explain how evolution an afect millions of different species at the same time.
    How does gravity effect millions of different stars and planets at the same time?

    Look dude, it's obvious you wont LISTEN to ANYTHING anyone says. You are a MORON and my PATIENCE has ended.

    Deep breaths... deep breaths...
    I hate talking to idiots.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    you cannot explain why there are reproductive systems when the proces doesn't need them
    I don't know much about reproductive systems in regards to evolution, but i'm sure it was JUST FUCKING EXPLAINED TO YOU.
    Here is a good summary of the proposed origins of life (including the origins of sex.) I don't expect archaeologist to watch it or make any attempt to understand it, but there it is for people interested in learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Evolution just says, "Hey here is a mutation, go have fun!"
    You are describing mutation. That is not evolution either, just another part of the process:

    Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution
    Artist for Red Oasis.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    cdk007 owns.
     

  43. #42  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    How can you explain a Flounder without evolution?



    Did God decide at the last minute that it should live on the ocean floor and then just lazily pulled its one eye to the same side as the other so it won't get sand in the eye?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    you cannot explain why there are reproductive systems when the proces doesn't need them
    I don't know much about reproductive systems in regards to evolution, but i'm sure it was JUST FUCKING EXPLAINED TO YOU.
    Here is a good summary of the proposed origins of life (including the origins of sex.) I don't expect archaeologist to watch it or make any attempt to understand it, but there it is for people interested in learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Evolution just says, "Hey here is a mutation, go have fun!"
    You are describing mutation. That is not evolution either, just another part of the process:

    Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution
    Evolution is a series of mutations. Natural Selection is only the method within evolution for weeding out the problems.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Did God decide at the last minute that it should live on the ocean floor and then just lazily pulled its one eye to the same side as the other so it won't get sand in the eye?
    why not? it is far better than saying 'evolution did it.' creativity, variety are all part of seeing who God is and if a fish sits on the sea floor then that is a species created by Him for a specific purpose.

    evolution cannot 'predict' what it will turn into which means it fails on that count as well.

    Evolution explains CHANGE. Biology and Microbiology explains DEATH.
    but evolutionary biology can't do a thing? interesting. again you are side stepping the issue and passing off the hard questions to something that would not provide the answer. biology and microbiology cannot explain why death exists in the first place. there is no room for it in all the scenarios given by evolutionists.

    both fields cannot explain why living things grow old. there is no reason for aging in evolution or any other scenario 'created' by secularists.

    I keep saying you don't understand because you do not understand
    yet i do undestand and see the limitations of your claims. you cannot provide one reason for the existence of many items we have in life today. you want evolution to be this nice neat little process which spawned all this change without knowing anything, you people are the ones who do not understand reality.

    something that does not know anything cannot change anything and produce something it cannot conceive. it is impossible. if you look at any process in existence in the world today, be it man made or divine, you will see it doe snot know anything and it cannot change anything. even with millions of years, it cannot effect change.

    which brings us back to my point you believe something comes from nothing and that is impossible.

    get this through your fucking head. If a species CANNOT SURVIVE IN IT'S ENVIRONMENT IT WILL DIE!!!!!!
    yet there is no reason for death in your scenarios, no purpose for it, no origin for it. thus the species should not die no matter what the enviornment is like. plus, 'the process' would not even know the species died which means it would not know that change is needed-- it does not know anything.

    you people shoot yourselves in the foot every time.

    How does gravity effect millions of different stars and planets at the same time?
    apples and oranges.

    it's obvious you wont LISTEN to ANYTHING anyone says. You are a MORON and my PATIENCE has ended
    no you are the ones not listening. i am reading your posts and posting refutations which you cannot combat without saying things you hate, things that creationists say but with different words.

    "evolution did it'; 'it always was';

    you can't even answer why things age, because in evolution there is no reason for things to age and you cannot explain why or how aging originated.

    face it it is time you started listening to someone else than those who tell you what you want to hear.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The older an organism gets, the cells that make up the organism seem to get disorganised. The disorganisation is what causes our bodies to grow old and die.

    Edit: And the ONLY refuting argument you have is, "nuh uh. Biology ant an actual science huh yuk!"
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    evolution cannot 'predict' what it will turn into which means it fails on that count as well.
    Dude, if you had the faintest idea how evolution worked, then you wouldn't say things this inane. I don't know how you see yourself on this forum, but I can assure you that nobody is taking your ignorance and short-sightedness seriously. You are nothing more than the newest laughing stock that pop in around here every so often. And this is not an insult, mind, this is the truth.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Did God decide at the last minute that it should live on the ocean floor and then just lazily pulled its one eye to the same side as the other so it won't get sand in the eye?
    why not? it is far better than saying 'evolution did it.' creativity, variety are all part of seeing who God is and if a fish sits on the sea floor then that is a species created by Him for a specific purpose.
    God could have made it a horizontally oriented animal, like a whale. Its eyes would be on the top, its mouth and bone structure would be horizontal, and it would be able to swim in an up-down motion. But instead he decided to make it look as though it was once vertically oriented, with a sideways mouth and bone structure. He even created several other species in the fossil record: One with one eye on the top and bottom, one with one eye on the top and the other on the side, another with both eyes on the top but not as close together, then finally this fish. He also left these completely different and specially created species in a special pattern, one after the other. Is he trying to trick us?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Is he trying to trick us?
    He is trying to test us, is what he'll probably say. We are supposed to believe like children do, aren't we archaeologist?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Is he trying to trick us?
    He is trying to test us, is what he'll probably say. We are supposed to believe like children do, aren't we archaeologist?
    I doubt that's what he'll say. He'll probably just say "why not" again. Either that or he'll just change the subject. Its so easy to deny evidence when your preferred conclusion is magic.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    yet there is no reason for death in your scenarios, no purpose for it, no origin for it. thus the species should not die no matter what the enviornment is like. plus, 'the process' would not even know the species died which means it would not know that change is needed-- it does not know anything.
    Death is what's mainly driving evolution. Enviromental factors ensures death is a reality. I also mentioned death as a evolutionary strategy, didn't I? Such is the reality in harsh enviroments. Read more here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_aging

    EDIT:

    Actually, I might be mistaken about the evolutionary strategy part, or at least partly mistaken. I was thinking of how an increase in replication/reproduction could increase the adaptability of a specie. That, however, doesn't address death, but then again I would suscpect there's only selection pressure to stay alive long enough to reproduce.

    Anyhow, there's no need to keep the body fit past the reproduction age considering the probability an organism will be killed off due to enviromental factors.

    There's also the fact natural selection doesn't tend to weed out detrimental mutations which only gets active past the reproduction age.

    So pick your reason.
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The older an organism gets, the cells that make up the organism seem to get disorganised. The disorganisation is what causes our bodies to grow old and die.
    you must be willfully missing thepoint, in evolution there is NO room for aging or death. there is NO reason for either to exist.

    if you had the faintest idea how evolution worked, then you wouldn't say things this inane. I don't know how you see yourself on this forum, but I can assure you that nobody is taking your ignorance and short-sightedness seriously. You are nothing more than the newest laughing stock that pop in around here every so often. And this is not an insult, mind, this is the truth.
    evolutionists always think they are better than everybody else, which proves that morals do not exist in evolution, for they are subjective and people think theyget to choose which ones they need tofollow or not.

    again evolutionists try to make themselves superior when they are not.

    God could have made it a horizontally oriented animal, like a whale. Its eyes would be on the top, its mouth and bone structure would be horizontal, and it would be able to swim in an up-down motion. But instead he decided to make it look as though it was once vertically oriented, with a sideways mouth and bone structure.
    so, just because God did not make a whale or any other species the way YOU WANT then evolutionmust be true. is that your line of reasoning? you do not see the bigger picture here nor understand the purpose of God's designs.

    i remember a lecture by one of the authors of the book Origins 14 Billion years of history (forgetwhich one it was) and he tried to redesign the human body. arrogance is not a good designer make. his design was far worse and impractical.

    Its so easy to deny evidence when your preferred conclusion is magic
    that is not evidence.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The older an organism gets, the cells that make up the organism seem to get disorganised. The disorganisation is what causes our bodies to grow old and die.
    you must be willfully missing thepoint, in evolution there is NO room for aging or death. there is NO reason for either to exist.
    He specifically addressed your point. With multiple possible explanations. You even quoted one of them. Did you even understand your own point? How about his?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolutionists always think they are better than everybody else...
    "Hello, Kettle? This is the Pot again..."

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    so, just because God did not make a whale or any other species the way YOU WANT then evolutionmust be true. is that your line of reasoning? you do not see the bigger picture here nor understand the purpose of God's designs.
    Were you even paying attention to what I was saying? The animal has a skull, a jaw, a backbone, and a rib cage. But its all sideways. Even the internal organs are sideways. If God created everything with intent, then he intentionally made this animal look like it was once vertically oriented. He even left a trail of fossils that show, in sequence, one eye socket moving around the skull to the other side. So answer my question. Is he trying to trick us?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.
    Time is not a killer. It is important. Evolution does not happen instantly. Reptile does not give birth to mammal. Fish does not give birth to amphibian. The changes take time.

    There are huge formations in the US that span across many states. What is interesting in these rocks is the fossils. There are no fish. Not a single fish fossil found anywhere in rocks that represent an ancient sea. No fish then. Fish now. Somehow fish appeared on Earth. At one time no land animals. No fossils found. Then there are rocks from a later time in which land animals are found.

    Over a long period of time life on Earth has changed.

    There is a moth that pollinates bananas on a Pacific Island. The family of moths only exists on this island. Guess what? Polynesians brought bananas to the island. Therefore, this species of moth evolved since the arrival of man.

    No bananas before then. No moth dependent on banana flowers before then. There is now. Explain that.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    I don't understand why theists have such a hard time picturing a moral world without a god.
    Einstein once said:
    "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
    which I totally agree with.

    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.
    This is not true. Evolution has shown us that creatures who tend to believe things that aren't true more often have higher chances of survival. If an animal hears something in the bushes and it believes it's a predator and runs it lives, but an animal that doesn't believe this might lose its life.
    So our beliefs are simply side effects of our past, and are no longer required, but unfortunately it seems hard for some people to get rid of.

    With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions. Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.
    I absolutely hate arguments like this. It just makes you sound so weak minded IMO.
    There is no clean cut "good" and "bad", but allow me to explain how evolution, yes evolution, has determined what is good/bad.
    Good, can be thought of as those actions/behaviors that allow society to progress as we all like. If people went around killing randomly society would crumble and we would have no sense of security, which we all have, because any creatures that didn't strive for safety/protection would have been weeded out via natural selection. So because our need to feel safe is still with us, we have a certain acceptable behavior that we call "good". "Bad" things are things that will cause our way of life to fall apart.
    This logic can be applied to anything that you deem as good/bad.
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    There is a moth that pollinates bananas on a Pacific Island. The family of moths only exists on this island. Guess what? Polynesians brought bananas to the island. Therefore, this species of moth evolved since the arrival of man.

    No bananas before then. No moth dependent on banana flowers before then. There is now. Explain that.
    here is where you err. what you attribute to evolution is not evolutionary. here is an example: you move from north america to asia. you have eaten nothing but n.a. food all your life but now must change your diet. you try some asian food, find that it does not kill you and it tastes good and you decide to stop eating n.a. food while in asia.

    have you evolved? NO. for you can still eat your own food, you can still go back to n.a. and eat your old food and so on. all you have done is found something that tastes good and is not harmful to you and which you add to your present diet.

    same for the moths. they have not changed, they were just introduced to something that fits in with their tastes and biological functions. they did not evolve as that ability to pollinate banana plants was always present within their systems, they never had the opportunity to do so before then.

    what you credit evolution is nothing more than having your diet or biological services expanded. nothing has changed,the moth hasn't changed one iota, it is still acting according to how God designed it, it just discovered a new plant that is compatible with it.

    I don't understand why theists have such a hard time picturing a moral world without a god.
    without God, there is nothing.

    Evolution has shown us that creatures who tend to believe things that aren't true more often have higher chances of survival
    you would be in error as all you are doing is poaching off someone else's work. you are not taking evolution as it is but marrying it with things that are of God and crediting evolution.

    God has already stated that He has given all men a desire to know Him, which means evolution has shown nothing that we already know. evolution has no God, no concept of God or a god thus it cannot show anything because people would not have any conception of God or higher beings.

    they would not believe things as untrue for in evolution there is no right or wrong, true or false. there is nothing in the theory that teaches morality or existence. when you look at evolution as it is, you will see it has nothing thus you are crediting it with someone else's work

    Good, can be thought of as those actions/behaviors that allow society to progress as we all like
    this is too subjective and would change with whoever is in power. communist russia proved that true. The last american election as well.

    read the book 'The End of Reason' by Ravi Zacharias for a better argument on this. evolution does not promote good and evil for neither exist in its framework and it would constantly be changing if survival of the fittest were actually practiced.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Did God decide at the last minute that it should live on the ocean floor and then just lazily pulled its one eye to the same side as the other so it won't get sand in the eye?
    why not? it is far better than saying 'evolution did it.' creativity, variety are all part of seeing who God is and if a fish sits on the sea floor then that is a species created by Him for a specific purpose.
    Depends upon what you mean by better.

    If for you 'better' means simply 'for the greater glory of god', then this will merely be a matter of opinion rather than a discussion, debate, or argument.

    If, on the other hand by 'better' you mean more satisfying, in terms of providing greater explanatory value, then the 'god' hypothesis suffers simply because there is nothing more to say other than "Hedunnit".

    With evolutionary explanations, on the other hand, when talking about how the actinopterygians evolved into flat-bodied bottom-dwellers, in pointing out that the twisted eye is a clear indication of a path of descent (as opposed to, for instance, the laterally flattened bodies of so many of the chondrichthyes), not only do we have decent

    1. developmental explanations (why it is the fry start out 'normal' and then, as they grow, become more and more twisted until they end up swimming on their sides, with their heads distorted to accommodate both eyes on the 'top'), but

    2. taxonomic ones (whenever we see actinopterygians with this characteristic, given its unusualness, we can predict with a fair degree of confidence that they will have a most recent common ancestor that is pretty close, and therefore not just similar development, but similar bio-chemistry and so on), and even

    3. predictive ones (as most 'bottom-dwelling' appears to take place with lateral flattening, we can predict that should this lifestyle evolve again, or should we find new instances of it, they are far likelier to be laterally rather than longitudinally flattened).

    These, rich theories and manifold further areas for exploration, are what give science its guts, and what makes evolution by natural selection a 'better' explanation for things than "Hedunnit".

    I do not know whether this is a notion you will take seriously, but I urge you to do so.

    Best regards

    shanks
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    you have said nothing that proves your case. you just replace the normal functions of animals with the word 'evolution' and think you have discovered soemthing that contradicts the Bible.

    you haven't done anything yet except distort the reality. by the way, you can't 'predict ' the common ancestor because you can never prove the process went as you would claim it did.

    you can't repeat the process which is a scientific principle which means you have just violated your own rules and made evolution non-scientific. all you are doing is telling people " TAKE our word for it because we are the experts'.

    well that smells of elitism, superiority complexes and exclusionary tactics and allows you to dismiss anything that contradicts you without consideration or finding the truth.

    i noticed no one addressed my last post directly so i will wait to see what you have to rebut
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Archi

    Your post here is immediately refuted because evolution has MORE credibility than the Old Testament that is a junk religion as Karl Marx has labeled it.
    I agree with him.
    Of course, I refute communism that is an offspring of the OT.

    And, the strongest evidence in support of Evolution is the FACT that we have HANDS like the Apes have.
    The fossil record is also convincing. There may be some interruptions in the sequence of this Evolutionary process, but there is no other substitute for the Evolution.

    The bibles OT is nothing but a 'fantasy ' that was created by ancient minds with limited knowledge .
    The universe has an age of just 6000 years? Ha ha?
    Although the OT promotes the existence of an Evil deity that I agree with, the idea that it was a creator of the universe is laughable.
    Then there are a lot of other errors in the OT that really dumbs down anyone that would believe its teachings.

    Cosmo



    Cpsmo
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you have said nothing that proves your case. you just replace the normal functions of animals with the word 'evolution' and think you have discovered soemthing that contradicts the Bible.
    normal functions of animals? you got no clue.
    i want your definition of the normal fuinction of animals.
    there's plenty of things that contradict the bible.
    that large meteorite crater at the yucatan island in the mexico golf, which geologists have dated to around 65 million years ago, which coincides with the extinction of the dinosaurs. they've even found fragments of nicke-iron, a compound which is normally extremely rare in the earths crust(but which there's plenty of in the earths mantel)
    but abundant in meteorites.
    you know, meteorites. those rocks that hit earth from time to time.
    anyways, using physics, this meteorite impact had enough force to wipe out every large land mammal in existence, and creating worldwide tsunamis.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you haven't done anything yet except distort the reality. by the way, you can't 'predict ' the common ancestor because you can never prove the process went as you would claim it did.
    its you who is distorting reality around you, to the point, where from einsteinian
    relativity things look distorted from your point of view.
    its like those twins in the spaceship. one ages faster than the other, but for both, time seems to pass normally.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you can't repeat the process which is a scientific principle which means you have just violated your own rules and made evolution non-scientific. all you are doing is telling people " TAKE our word for it because we are the experts'.
    ridicolous. the process can be repeated. we just don't live long enough to be able to see the evolution process on larger animals yet.
    but everything in microbiology points towards evolution being the sole truth.
    viruses evolve. visibly. rapidly. bacterias too. thats why penicillin is starting to lose its effect.
    we even have old genes that can be turned on and off, and soon, we'll be able to regrow limbs, thanks to research into salamanders and other amphibians which we are related to. scientists has even found the turned off genes in humans.
    evolution is key to immunize ourselves against disease.
    evolution has an application in science. you can actually use it for something

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    well that smells of elitism, superiority complexes and exclusionary tactics and allows you to dismiss anything that contradicts you without consideration or finding the truth.
    takes one to know one.

    anyways, your arguments about the earth being less than 6000 years old is based on calculations done by a monk during the middle ages, where he traced the lineage of people back to adam and eve, and concluded by that that the earth was 6000 years old.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    there's plenty of things that contradict the bible.
    Not to mention the bible!
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Your post here is immediately refuted because evolution has MORE credibility than the Old Testament that is a junk religion as Karl Marx has labeled it.
    I agree with him.
    Of course, I refute communism that is an offspring of the OT.

    And, the strongest evidence in support of Evolution is the FACT that we have HANDS like the Apes have.
    The fossil record is also convincing. There may be some interruptions in the sequence of this Evolutionary process, but there is no other substitute for the Evolution.

    The bibles OT is nothing but a 'fantasy
    complete hearsay and conjecture. not one shred of credible proof but then the evolutionist always hides in generalities.

    which geologists have dated to around 65 million years ago
    and you do not find that suspicious. talk about biased and rigging the outcome.
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Archaeologist I guess I di not make myself clear enough:

    same for the moths. they have not changed, they were just introduced to something that fits in with their tastes and biological functions.
    The moth did not change diets because it moved to a new locale. A new type of moth has evolve to fit a new niche.

    I'm sorry but your analogy is completely offbase.

    The issue is more definite than you imagined. The moth has evolved to have feeding structures that match the banana - only the banana. The moth can only feed from bananas.

    the moth hasn't changed one iota
    I can see that you are prone to making unjustified assumptions without the facts. I see that it is you that have erred or should I say blundered.
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    sorry not buying it for the following reasons:

    1. you did not name the moth
    2. you did not name the island
    3. you did not provide any links to credible studies or proof.
    4. you did not do anything but be very basic and general.
    5. you did not provide any data about the moths both pre and post said change

    then if you are going to say:

    I guess I di not make myself clear enough:
    you cannot say:

    I'm sorry but your analogy is completely offbase.
    The issue is more definite than you imagined
    I can see that you are prone to making unjustified assumptions without the facts
    such are baseless and false accusations and shows you are less than honest.

    i will disagree that they had to 'evolve', 'change' their feeding structures. your on purpose withholding of information shows you cannot be trusted anymore and i worked with the what i was given.

    also do not accuse me of 'prone to unjustified assumptions' when evolutionists do this all the time and then jump up and down crying when shown to be wrong--'you do not undertand evolution'

    sorry but you are the one who is way off base here and almost over the line.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    You are right I did not name the moth yet you leapt to ridiculous unfounded conclusions.

    You are right I did not name the island but you leapt to ridiculous unfounded conclusions.

    You are right I did the same as you I did not provide any studies to credible studies.

    I was very basic and general and allowed you to show your true colors.

    such are baseless and false accusations and shows you are less than honest.
    Thank you for describing yourself. These are not false accusations. You simply made rash conjectures. It's the sort of thing creationists do all the time.

    also do not accuse me of 'prone to unjustified assumptions'
    I not accusing you. You did it yourself. Everyone here can see that.

    What is the most interesting part of your post is that you do not ask me to tell you the evidence. You do not ask me to answer your 5 questions.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    So, provide the evidence and answer the questions just to further rip apart his argument, that he's already lost anyway. He has a tendency to avoid confrontation, we all know that, and apparently he also has a tendency to avoid questions on scripture, a subject in which he should be WELL versed.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I was very basic and general and allowed you to show your true colors.
    what true colors? that i made an attempt to refute an evolutionary claim based upon minimal evidence? whooppeee.

    You simply made rash conjectures. It's the sort of thing creationists do all the time.
    you would be wrong. what you did was lie and withhold pertinent information so that the person could not even do research. there was no rash conjecture but an honest attempt to explain a non-evoutionary solution.

    since you lied, i am done talking with you.

    What is the most interesting part of your post is that you do not ask me to tell you the evidence. You do not ask me to answer your 5 questions
    oh wow i slipped up and did not remember to do exactly what you wanted me to do. are you going to shoot me in the morning?

    at least i did not lie, withhold information and mislead. anyways the little you gave me still shows that it is not evolution in progress or that evolution is responsible for the 'change' all it shows is that the moth's body can alter its diet . you little example does NOt rule out that God designed the moth to make such changes.

    this is where all you evolutionists slip up, you assume and attribute you do not find out for sure. you say it is evolution but you fail at eliminating any other alternative that could come up with the same result. you are all too desperate

    provide the evidence and answer the questions just to further rip apart his argument, that he's already lost anyway. He has a tendency to avoid confrontation, we all know that, and apparently he also has a tendency to avoid questions on scripture, a subject in which he should be WELL versed.
    he hasn't ripped apart my argument, he has just shown his true colors in that he will de deceptive and underhanded yet still fail to make his point. which is par for the course with evolutionists.
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Dear archaeologist,

    This was posted right after my only post on this thread, so I wondered if it was to my address. If so…

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you have said nothing that proves your case. you just replace the normal functions of animals with the word 'evolution' and think you have discovered soemthing that contradicts the Bible.
    I did not mention the Bible or contradictions. I was talking about scientifically useful meanings of the phrase “better explanation” and where the intellectual stimulation comes from.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you haven't done anything yet except distort the reality. by the way, you can't 'predict ' the common ancestor because you can never prove the process went as you would claim it did.
    The predictive claim I made was a claim about future discoveries, or population allele-frequency changes. This is what I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by shanks
    3. predictive ones (as most 'bottom-dwelling' appears to take place with lateral flattening, we can predict that should this lifestyle evolve again, or should we find new instances of it, they are far likelier to be laterally rather than longitudinally flattened).
    I hope you perceive the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you can't repeat the process which is a scientific principle which means you have just violated your own rules and made evolution non-scientific. all you are doing is telling people " TAKE our word for it because we are the experts'.
    Not quite sure what you mean by this, or even (as I expressed my doubt earlier) whether or not this is meant as a response to my post, but just on the off chance that it is.

    Are you saying it is a scientific principle that “you can’t repeat the process”? If so, what is it you mean by this? Is there a specific process you have in mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    well that smells of elitism, superiority complexes and exclusionary tactics and allows you to dismiss anything that contradicts you without consideration or finding the truth.
    What smells of elitism?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i noticed no one addressed my last post directly so i will wait to see what you have to rebut
    D’Artagnan like, you are fighting on many fronts. I, alas, find myself better served by dealing with one thing at a time. I hope you will forgive me if I do not attempt to response to every one of your posts, but only the ones that appear relevant to the points) I raised in response to certain claims you made.

    cheer

    shanks
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    what you did was lie
    Archaeologist claiming that I lied demands an apology. You again show your true colors of poor thinking. I did not lie. You know that.Your behavior of a small child. My guess is that you are in your middle teens and taking out your frustration at not knowing what to do in an impolite manner.

    1. You need to learn to think before you speak
    2. You need to calm down and apologize to everyone reading this thread

    you[sic] little example does NOt rule out that God designed the moth to make such changes.
    You are correct. I did not invoke magic. My assumption about the world is that the changes observed can be understood without invoking hocus-pocus. I rely on natural, not supernatural explanations.
     

  70. #69 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolution
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
    What you're really at odds with is Archaeology. Evolution merely explains how organisms change in genetic material from one generation to the next.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...uman_evolution

    Archaeological evidence (and genetic evidence) suggests we have evolved, roughly, along that line. Evolution, as defined above, suggests no such thing. Once more, this is evidence for a theory of how humans evolved.

    To further make it clear, how I use "evolved" in that sentence means how ancient species changed from one generation to another until, inevitably, we were the result of millions of years of genetic changes.

    Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer.
    There are no "evolutionists", as it's not a belief. It's a fact that "genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."

    Science answers the "how", philosophy the "why". "Why Earth" has nothing to do with evolution.

    Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.
    Homo erectus did not survive for a million years. Merely, forms of homo erectus. Some shortish, some tallish, some with slightly larger brains some with slightly smaller. Over time selective pressure would eliminate some traits in favor of another, and the homo erectus group would evolve into Homo cepranensis, then H. antecessor, etc.

    For H. Erectus alone we have "H. e. lantianensis", "H. e. palaeojavanicus", "H. e. pekinensis", "H. e. yuanmouensis", and "H. e. soloensis". As you can see, how many variations and "intermediate" fossils we find depends entirely on archaeology. It's highly unlikely that we will ever find smooth transitions.

    As for fire, H. erectus had no need for fire. H. Erectus lived in the central bands of the planet where it was quite warm.

    Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded.
    Selective pressure. Predators improve, prey improve, and so the cycle continues. It's much like business competition. Oneupmanship.

    Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    The why's are not of science to answer. Merely the hows. HOW it evolved is very well explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex


    Morality
    Morality evolved by tribal reinforcement. If you don't get along, you're kicked out of the tribe and died. If you don't work together as part of a tribe, you die. So you see, selective pressure explains this too.

    Religious Issues
    You clearly know not the mind. Religion began as a means to explain the unknown, and still exists today to answer those unknowns.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    For the interests of those with an interest in science here are a few details about the moth I mentioned:

    1. The moth is found in the Hawaiian islands
    2. The moth is a Hedylepta

    Zimmerman, E.C. "Possible Evidence of Rapid Evolution in Hawaiian Moths", 1960 Evolution 14(1):137-138

    5. you did not provide any data about the moths both pre and post said change
    And for archaeologist I should point out that there was no moth of this kind since it had no food supply before bananas arrived on the islands of Hawaii. As for post, well, here is a moth dependent on a food source that has only been around for 1000 years or less.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    This was posted right after my only post on this thread, so I wondered if it was to my address. If so…
    right now i do not remember.

    The predictive claim I made was a claim about future discoveries, or population allele-frequency changes. This is what I said
    in readingthis, i probably wasn't responding to you but i am not sure. anyways, evenif you can 'predict' the future you still haven't eliminated the fact that alternatives could produce the same results.

    in other words, your 'predictions' do not prove evolution is responsible. oh and to be a prophet (whichis what predicting makes you) you have to be 100% correct 100% of the time and those hearing theprediction must see the result in action. evolutionary predictions are still millions of years in the future so they are worthless.

    Are you saying it is a scientific principle that “you can’t repeat the process”? If so, what is it you mean by this? Is there a specific process you have in mind
    as i remember the scientific principles, to be scientific soemthing has to be repeatable. yet science cannot repeat one claim made by evolutions. 1. they do not have the time frame, too long; 2. they do not know the correct enviornment or situation that started it all off.

    What smells of elitism?
    the whole evolutionary alternative.

    D’Artagnan like, you are fighting on many fronts. I, alas, find myself better served by dealing with one thing at a time. I hope you will forgive me if I do not attempt to response to every one of your posts, but only the ones that appear relevant to the points) I raised in response to certain claims you made
    that is fine, just allow me the same option in return.

    What you're really at odds with is Archaeology. Evolution merely explains how organisms change in genetic material from one generation to the next.
    you love stating the obvious don't you, evenso, evolution doesn't know anything thus it would not know when to change a species or that change was neccessary.

    if you make it a programmed process like an assembly or manufacturing plant, then who programmed it? who 'created' and designed it to work that way? who put it on earth? and why only earth?

    if it just appeared how would it know to originate? how would it know that life was on earth already? how would it know to create variety? how could it be random and create variety, it doesn't know those ideas?

    and so on

    There are no "evolutionists", as it's not a belief. It's a fact that "genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
    you support and advocate it, you are an evolutionist. stop playing semantics.

    i dismissed the rest of your post as you are just stating the party line and have nothing new to offer or say.

    hokie is ignored andunread. he corssed the line and if one is going to have an open and honest discussion then the other party should not resort to underhanded and devious methods. it is dishonest and shows thatthey cannot support their position credibly with honor or character.
     

  73. #72  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The predictive claim I made was a claim about future discoveries, or population allele-frequency changes. This is what I said
    in readingthis, i probably wasn't responding to you but i am not sure. anyways, evenif you can 'predict' the future you still haven't eliminated the fact that alternatives could produce the same results.
    The proven method is preferable to the unlikely and hypothetical one.

    It is down to you to prove creationism, not down to us to disprove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    in other words, your 'predictions' do not prove evolution is responsible.
    A number of correct predictions, backed up by a large amount of observations, pretty much show that evolution is responsible.

    Your objection is not scientific. The science is sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    oh and to be a prophet (whichis what predicting makes you) you have to be 100% correct 100% of the time and those hearing theprediction must see the result in action.
    Er..... in science a theory is built up based on evidence, not recieved in a dream of halloucination. Therefore oncorrect predictions are a necessary setback. Theories are built up based on the outcome of experiments untill predictions are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolutionary predictions are still millions of years in the future so they are worthless.
    Wrong. Experiments in bacteria colonies have shown evolution in action.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Are you saying it is a scientific principle that “you can’t repeat the process”? If so, what is it you mean by this? Is there a specific process you have in mind
    as i remember the scientific principles, to be scientific soemthing has to be repeatable.
    Goodbye, 'scientific' theory of creationism. Hello, frantic ramblings of die-hard theists otherwise known as creationism.

    Your rules, not mine.

    Unless you are god and want to show us how it happens?

    Actually, just explaining it would be nice.

    And actually, evolution can be repeated. It happens all the time. Including in the lab.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    yet science cannot repeat one claim made by evolutions.
    Such as?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    1. they do not have the time frame, too long
    Too long in humans. Fairly major changes can, and have, occured in bacteria in months/years.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    2. they do not know the correct enviornment or situation that started it all off.
    Note: origins of life is nothing to do with the theory of evolution

    Neither do creationists, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    D’Artagnan like, you are fighting on many fronts. I, alas, find myself better served by dealing with one thing at a time. I hope you will forgive me if I do not attempt to response to every one of your posts, but only the ones that appear relevant to the points) I raised in response to certain claims you made
    that is fine, just allow me the same option in return.
    On the contrary, you tend to focus on minor imperfections in my phrasing, and ignore large chunks of relevant information. You are yet to explain how it is that evolution has been directly observed in bacteria, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    What you're really at odds with is Archaeology. Evolution merely explains how organisms change in genetic material from one generation to the next.
    you love stating the obvious don't you, evenso, evolution doesn't know anything thus it would not know when to change a species or that change was neccessary.
    How is this relavent?

    Does a piece of bread know when to turn black after being in the toaster too long? Or does it happen because of chemical changes in the bread (hint: bread is not sentient, so the latter is correct). Apply this to evolution. The changes you observe are due to chemical changes in the DNA of a species, and the physical change in the organism is a direct result of this.

    Evolution doesn't need someone to decide what to do; mutations may occur randomly, or they may occur selectively but in a random order. Therefore the outcomes are varied.

    Those capable of surviving, survive, whilst those which are not fit enough do not. Thus nature selects those best adapted to survive, and they are capable of reproducing. This is how change occurs in an organism, and how this influences the species.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you make it a programmed process like an assembly or manufacturing plant, then who programmed it?
    Read the above. There are an infinite number of changes possible, but only those which are fit enough will survive. It need not be 'programmed' because the mutations occur at random.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    who 'created' and designed it to work that way? who put it on earth? and why only earth?
    That is another area completely.

    Christians would say god caused evolution, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if it just appeared how would it know to originate?
    'How would it know to originate?'

    A good, if nonsensical, question.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    how would it know that life was on earth already?
    I'm sorry, how would what know?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    how would it know to create variety?
    same question...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    how could it be random and create variety, it doesn't know those ideas?
    What is this 'it' to which you refer?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    should not resort to underhanded and devious methods. it is dishonest and shows that they cannot support their position credibly with honor or character.
    Amen.

    Oh, sorry, you probably won't follow. I'm suggesting that the same very much applies to you. I was also being ironic.

    Oh, but do you believe that irony exists?

    Maybe if you stop believing I exist, I won't be able to make posts any more
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i dismissed the rest of your post as you are just stating the party line and have nothing new to offer or say.
    I dismissed your entire post because it was nothing but pure stupidity, rehashed creationist arguments, and offered nothing new. Try better next time. Better yet, try reading next time.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I have taken the time to go and sit through a number of lectures sponsored by Creationists. I sit through them patiently and I look for what they have to say.

    One of my more interesting items was a claim that someone had a photograph of a sandal print crushing a trilobite. Now if that were true we'd have some interesting material to discuss. Trilobites having gone away at the end of the Permian age and all and hundreds of millions of years till sandals are made. Wow!

    So the photo shown in the presentation was so bad that it made UFO photos look great. The lecturer looked at the screen and apologized for the poor quality of the image. He offered to send a photo to anyone that asked for it and claimed that it would show fine detail including the stitching of the sandal.

    I was psyched. Here was a chance to see something interesting. I asked and received the photo 3 days later.

    It was the same blurry dark blob with some mark at one end.

    I was already thinking what this might be. I had taken notes during the lecture and knew that the site was in Utah and it was a sandstone. Having spent years hiking and climbing out West I was fairly sure that I was looking at a stain in the rock - a mineral stain that had formed around the fossil.

    Sure enough I located the formation in several sources:
    1. Rock hounds list of pretty sandstones with many colorful blotches and fossils
    2. A USGS site describing the fossils and the geological history

    Claiming stitches when there was nothing there was dishonest. And sadly - so common.
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    2. they do not know the correct enviornment or situation that started it all off.
    Note: origins of life is nothing to do with the theory of evolution
    I don't think that is necessarily what archaeologist meant (I could be mistaken though). He's claiming that evolution needed a starting point, yet again proving himself examplary in how little he comprehends this concept. As soon as there's life, there's evolution.

    As I've said before, archaeologist. Evolution is a by-product of life; it is something life does. Evolution is nothing more than a concept which describes how life develops.

    And otherwise, drowsy turtle is correct. Abiogenesis explains how life started whilst evolution doesn't address this at all.
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    it's as if he expects EVERY SINGLE THEORY of science to answer ALL questions, or they are, invariably, wrong.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    don't think that is necessarily what archaeologist meant (I could be mistaken though). He's claiming that evolution needed a starting point, yet again proving himself examplary in how little he comprehends this concept. As soon as there's life, there's evolution.

    As I've said before, archaeologist. Evolution is a by-product of life; it is something life does. Evolution is nothing more than a concept which describes how life develops.
    and that is just crap. i understand it quite well, it is you who do not see how foolish you really are. oh and please provide evidence that that is so.

    if that is all you got then i wouldn't be claiming the scientific route or doing personal attacks. that is the most unscientific statement you have made to date. don't ever railon me for saying "God did it' or 'God wanted it that way' you have just shown that when push comes to shove, you bail on your science and leap to magic.

    it's as if he expects EVERY SINGLE THEORY of science to answer ALL questions, or they are, invariably, wrong.
    if you do not have all the answers then you are of no good and not an authority. God has given us all the answers in the Bible; science , for all of its blustering, keeps trying to weasal out of its resp. and avoiding trying to fail yet it fails miserably, especially with that crappy answered quoted first.

    you do not get why it is important because you have opted to believe in nothing. with your belief innothing, you have nothing to offer people and that is why science, without God, fails.-- you are spinning your wheels and going nowhere fast.

    you lost as you resorted to magic, the very thing you condemn , to make your theory work.
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i can safely depart this thread now knowing that you have lost, been exposed and nothing you can say repair the damage you have done toyourselves and your arguments.

    using science is a smoke screen for you all to make yourselves feel important and in control. well you still have a decisintomake, stay with the lie or repent and turn to God.

    that is all you have left now.
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    it's as if he expects EVERY SINGLE THEORY of science to answer ALL questions, or they are, invariably, wrong.
    if you do not have all the answers then you are of no good and not an authority. God has given us all the answers in the Bible; science , for all of its blustering, keeps trying to weasal out of its resp. and avoiding trying to fail yet it fails miserably, especially with that crappy answered quoted first.

    you do not get why it is important because you have opted to believe in nothing. with your belief innothing, you have nothing to offer people and that is why science, without God, fails.-- you are spinning your wheels and going nowhere fast.

    you lost as you resorted to magic, the very thing you condemn , to make your theory work.
    You know, I always find it ironic when IDiots accuse their opponents of what they are guilty of. Like some kind of tactic of "I got to accuse them of my mistakes/flaws so that I will end up invulnerable when they point them out".

    This is a science forum, archaeologist. We ALL see through your bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and that is just crap. i understand it quite well, it is you who do not see how foolish you really are. oh and please provide evidence that that is so.

    if that is all you got then i wouldn't be claiming the scientific route or doing personal attacks. that is the most unscientific statement you have made to date. don't ever railon me for saying "God did it' or 'God wanted it that way' you have just shown that when push comes to shove, you bail on your science and leap to magic.
    Your retort to simple attacks won't help your position. People like you see flaws in threatening ideas like evolution which doesn't even exist. Your constant bias pushes you to continuously resort to strawman fallacies which everyone who understands the idea in question will immediatly point out are false.

    This whole charade with you never listening to the facts and answers given to you reflects a lot of things about you.

    If you cannot question your own beliefs, then you have no right to question other peoples' beliefs. There's no such thing as absolute certainty, and even your God wouldn't change that if he appeared in front of the whole of mankind trying to explain everything to us.
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I guess you can go ask your God why every Creationist lecture I have attended has been packed with clearly thought out lies and crass deceptions. The people that gave the lectures were intelligent, yet brazenly lied. They knew they were telling lies.

    Archaeologist, maybe you should go on the lecture circuit.

    you resorted to magic
    Sorry. Magic is where someone or something says special words and something extraordinary happens like, "eenny meeny chilly beeny". Or maybe they say "Let there be light."

    Magic is the realm of religion.

    See you later archaeologist.
     

  82. #81  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    A small powerpoint presentation (1.1MB) with a few basic explanations of evidence for evolution. HERE. From peterandkatya.com
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Here is a great example of evolution - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html: Croatian Lizards evolve rapidly and gain the ability to

    As well as here - http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html: Bacteria gain the ability to metabolize citrate

    If you're one of those people who need evidence of a species in the middle fo an evolutionary shift all you need to do is look at the mudskipper.



    It is a fish that uses it's fins as arms to travel along land.

    Also here is a list of 3 videos that support evidence for human evolution:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH...1F0A87&index=4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UF...1F0A87&index=7
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR...1F0A87&index=8

    Video 1 states that codons for glutamic acid in alpha and beta chains in hemoglobin in 3 different primates have a 1 in 16,777,216 chance of being there by chance.



    Video 2 states that the gene codes responsible for the final step in vitamin C synthesis reside within humans. The problem is our bodies can not synthesize vitamin C. Mysteriously other primates also have this gene yet can not produce their own Vitamin C. Is this evidence for a flawed designer? Evolution gives us a reason as well as confirmation through testable predictions.



    Video 3 states that DNA evidence for viral infections show themselves in our own DNA. However they also show themselves in the DNA of other primates. The more closely they are related to us the more viral DNA evidence we have between us. But there is not just one strand of viral DNA evidence but 16 strands. The possibility of 16 different viruses inserting themselves into the exact same location in the DNA of multiple species (primates) is approximately 2.0574 x 10^139 (or more if I counted wrong ).
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    again you assume that the answer is evolution and you ignore all alternatives that could and does produce the same results.

    you forget thatGod designed them to work in that faction and do so under the influence of the corruption thatentered the world at the fallof man.

    these examples do NOT eliminate God and creation and do not prove evolution nor does it prove that evolution exists or is resp. that is an assumption and an attribution based upon conjecture not anything factual.

    By the way, where did you get a picture of me? ha ha
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again you assume that the answer is evolution and you ignore all alternatives that could and does produce the same results.

    you forget thatGod designed them to work in that faction and do so under the influence of the corruption thatentered the world at the fallof man.

    these examples do NOT eliminate God and creation and do not prove evolution nor does it prove that evolution exists or is resp. that is an assumption and an attribution based upon conjecture not anything factual.

    By the way, where did you get a picture of me? ha ha
    Please explain what alternatives could produce the same result.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  86. #85  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again you assume that the answer is evolution and you ignore all alternatives that could and does produce the same results.
    Sure. Suggest a single alternative that explains all evidence which has been used to support evolution.

    Now try to fit god into it (using evidence, naturally).

    Opps. Can't do it, can we?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you forget thatGod designed them to work in that faction and do so under the influence of the corruption thatentered the world at the fallof man.
    So.... god started evolution? I can live with that; it's a matter of belief, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    these examples do NOT eliminate God and creation and do not prove evolution nor does it prove that evolution exists or is resp. that is an assumption and an attribution based upon conjecture not anything factual.
    *sigh*

    This is pointless. If your entire arguement is based on denying the blatantly obvious, there's no point arguing.

    If creationism is so clearly true, you should not need to disprove evolution; you should instead concentrate on proving your own theory.

    Moving against a well-supported and widely accepted scientific theory with no evidence to support your own theory is a bad move.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    god started evolution? I can live with that; it's a matter of belief, after all.
    you would be wrong.

    If creationism is so clearly true, you should not need to disprove evolution; you should instead concentrate on proving your own theory.
    i am just pointing out the fallacy of his argument. creation is not a theory but a fact proven over and over again with mtns. of evidence gathered over thousands of years not 150.

    evolution is a lie.
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    god started evolution? I can live with that; it's a matter of belief, after all.
    you would be wrong.

    If creationism is so clearly true, you should not need to disprove evolution; you should instead concentrate on proving your own theory.
    i am just pointing out the fallacy of his argument. creation is not a theory but a fact proven over and over again with mtns. of evidence gathered over thousands of years not 150.

    evolution is a lie.
    Then perhaps you could provide us with this factual evidence so we coudl see it for ourselves.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Creation as a science is a lie. The people that present it lie.

    Once again another example of a lie told by a creationist at a lecture. The lecturer talked about supporters of Darwin. In particular he went on and on about Aldous Huxley and his deviant lifestyle. He claimed that Huxley promoted Darwinism to support his own despicable and shameful habits.

    This was met with shock and awe by the audience who did not seem to know that the supporter of Darwinism was Thomas Huxley, i.e. Aldous' grandfather.

    The lecturer was intelligent. I'm sure he knew he was a blatant liar.

    creation is not a theory but a fact proven over and over again with mtns. of evidence gathered over thousands of years not 150.
    Mountains of evidence? That's a huge lie. Everything from astronomy to geology to biology shows creationism is wrong.

    Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a theory to explain the fact.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    @Bum Fluff

    Forget this example. At least in discussions with creationists. They will answer with that "This is micrevolution, not macroevolution!" thingamajig. Same thing as saying "I can pick my nose for 5 seconds, but I can not pick my nose for an hour"

    But you have to admire their perseverance. I remeber the thread in Earth Science with JollyBear that ran for around 40 pages all in all. But I guess this is the major trait evolution giftet boneheads with.

    Pointless waste of time but makes a fun read

    And archie NEEDS purpose. So let him go on with his ramblings and don't provoke more whackaloon responses by him. It's like pimples. The more you squeeze tem, the longer they stay.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again you assume that the answer is evolution and you ignore all alternatives that could and does produce the same results.

    you forget thatGod designed them to work in that faction
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again you assume that the answer is evolution and you ignore all alternatives that could and does produce the same results.

    you forget thatGod designed them to work in that faction
    Therefore, the alternative to evolution, such as the swine flu is god made it infectious to humans so their kids and loved ones could die prematurally with vomit and excrement coming from opposite ends of their bodies.
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Then perhaps you could provide us with this factual evidence so we coudl see it for ourselves.
    belief in God is by faith stop asking for evidence you know you will dismiss because it doesn't fit your ideas of what evidence should be.

    At least in discussions with creationists. They will answer with that "This is micrevolution, not macroevolution!" thingamajig. Same thing as saying "I can pick my nose for 5 seconds, but I can not pick my nose for an hour"
    there is no such thing as micro-evolution. creationists who say there is are just compromising their beliefs.

    And archie NEEDS purpose. So let him go on with his ramblings and don't provoke more whackaloon responses by him. It's like pimples. The more you squeeze tem, the longer they st
    insulting someone just shows youdonot have the truth and are desperate because you have no valid response to the truth. eviolution is a lie and you have been snookered.

    Therefore, the alternative to evolution, such as the swine flu is god made it infectious to humans so their kids and loved ones could die prematurally with vomit and excrement coming from opposite ends of their bodies
    and why would you blame God for what He did not do? your ignoring evil
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    god hates creationists. scumbags constantly twisting the truth, and sometimes outright lying.. you're all going to hell for your lies.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    god hates creationists. scumbags constantly twisting the truth, and sometimes outright lying.. you're all going to hell for your lies.
    It is true that this is one of the ten commandments, but Christians believe that they are forgiven for their sins. It seems that many think that they will certainly be forgiven if they do these things in the name of God. But you are right, scripture makes it clear that they are wrong about this. They need to repent of their lying and stop lying for doing it in the name of Jesus will not work, it will get them nothing.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  95. #94  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Then perhaps you could provide us with this factual evidence so we coudl see it for ourselves.
    belief in God is by faith stop asking for evidence you know you will dismiss because it doesn't fit your ideas of what evidence should be.
    I.E. There is none. OK, good. We're making progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    At least in discussions with creationists. They will answer with that "This is micrevolution, not macroevolution!" thingamajig. Same thing as saying "I can pick my nose for 5 seconds, but I can not pick my nose for an hour"
    there is no such thing as micro-evolution. creationists who say there is are just compromising their beliefs.
    Well said, clone #1782345690. Strange that we do not come to the same conclusion, though, since we, and everyone else, are identical.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    And archie NEEDS purpose. So let him go on with his ramblings and don't provoke more whackaloon responses by him. It's like pimples. The more you squeeze tem, the longer they st
    insulting someone just shows youdonot have the truth and are desperate because you have no valid response to the truth. eviolution is a lie and you have been snookered.
    Yes, the phrase 'evolution is a lie' completely disproves everything I believe in

    Incidentally, evolution is not a matter of belief, more a matter of acceptance of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Therefore, the alternative to evolution, such as the swine flu is god made it infectious to humans so their kids and loved ones could die prematurally with vomit and excrement coming from opposite ends of their bodies
    and why would you blame God for what He did not do? your ignoring evil
    In that case, it's probably worth praying to satan, since it appears he is more powerful than god; I have seen nothing in my lifetime that you would attribute to god, but many things that you would attirbute to the devil.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Archaeologist, since I know you wont understand what Drowsy just said about microevolution, let me help you.
    Micro evolution signifies changes WITHIN species.
    Macro Evolution signifies significant changes within species to the point they are no longer the same species.
    If Micro evolution is possible, so is Macro evolution.
    Since we are not clones of each other, that must mean Micro evolution is true.
    If micro evolution is true, and we can have more than one change active in our body at any point in time, we could very well morph, over several millenia, into a different species based on the amount of micro evolutionary changes that go on in our body. This entire process is called macro evolution.

    Think of micro evolution as a penny and macro evolution as a dollar. What you are saying is that no amount of changes in a humans body could ever resort to macro evolution.. This is the exact thing as saying that no amount of collected pennies will ever equal a dollar.
    Does this make sense now?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Archaeologist, since I know you wont understand what Drowsy just said about microevolution, let me help you.
    where is skinwalker and his threats? this purposeful insult is a clear violation of the rules and proves my point that as long as it is directed at me rule violations will be tolerated.

    verzen is not even worth talking to any more. i will expect a very sincere, honest, public apology from him.

    Well said, clone #1782345690. Strange that we do not come to the same conclusion, though, since we, and everyone else, are identical
    you have things confused, creation provides the variety, evolution would not. only the results of evolution woul dbe clones for if the theory exists it has no capibility to process change into a variety of colors, species or personalities.

    Incidentally, evolution is not a matter of belief, more a matter of acceptance of fact
    you have to believe it is a fact before you can accept it.. no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape the FACT that evolution is a belief system.

    I have seen nothing in my lifetime that you would attribute to god, but many things that you would attirbute to the devil
    that is because your eyes are closed and you need to ask God to open them to the reality.
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Archaeologist, since I know you wont understand what Drowsy just said about microevolution, let me help you.
    where is skinwalker and his threats? this purposeful insult is a clear violation of the rules and proves my point that as long as it is directed at me rule violations will be tolerated.

    verzen is not even worth talking to any more. i will expect a very sincere, honest, public apology from him.

    Well said, clone #1782345690. Strange that we do not come to the same conclusion, though, since we, and everyone else, are identical
    you have things confused, creation provides the variety, evolution would not. only the results of evolution woul dbe clones for if the theory exists it has no capibility to process change into a variety of colors, species or personalities.

    Incidentally, evolution is not a matter of belief, more a matter of acceptance of fact
    you have to believe it is a fact before you can accept it.. no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape the FACT that evolution is a belief system.

    I have seen nothing in my lifetime that you would attribute to god, but many things that you would attirbute to the devil
    that is because your eyes are closed and you need to ask God to open them to the reality.
    Oh im sorry Archaeologist. It was not my intent to insult you. You clearly did not understand what micro or macro evolution was as you so conveniently confused the two. Please address my points. Without addressing my points, you are clearly saying that you cannot refute them.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Then perhaps you could provide us with this factual evidence so we coudl see it for ourselves.
    belief in God is by faith stop asking for evidence you know you will dismiss because it doesn't fit your ideas of what evidence should be.
    So basically what you're saying is just what every other person who does not believe in evolution si saying. You have no evidence. Did you even read my original post?
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    where is skinwalker and his threats? this purposeful insult is a clear violation of the rules and proves my point that as long as it is directed at me rule violations will be tolerated.
    Where is your burden as the martyr?

    You use the word liar and lie too often, but that's another story.

    Archaeologist doesn't want to give an inch on evolution despite the successful breeding program over centuries in dogs, cats, roses, fruit trees, and corn just to name a few of the common examples. These aren't evolution in the sense of Darwinism since it involves a designer that is looking for particular traits. Darwin was thinking more along the lines that if you live to make babies you get to send your traits forward.

    Then again there are things that we modify without design, yet cause the species to change. The peregrine falcon nearly died out. Numbers went down. Changes were made to pesticide usage and that seemed to allow the birds to come back. Peregrines were introduced and reintroduced to many areas through breeding programs. One of those places was Devil's Tower in Wyoming. The introduction of the peregrine made a profound change on the pigeons living there. The population there once sported light and dark colored birds. Now they are mostly dark. It seems that a light colored pigeon stands out against the dark rock and makes for easier peregrine feed.

    Is this a case of microevolution or not?
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Archaeologist doesn't want to give an inch on evolution despite the successful breeding program over centuries in dogs, cats, roses, fruit trees, and corn just to name a few of the common examples.
    #1. evolution does not exist, all creation was finished on the 7th day Gen. 1:30

    #2. breeding is NOT proof of evolution, nor is it evolution in action, it shows the varieties and compatibilities that can take place with in 'kinds'. in other words God provided for avenues for variety within species and which you falsely attribute to evolution.

    Changes were made to pesticide usage and that seemed to allow the birds to come back.
    are you now saying that man mad epoisons are part of the evolutionary process? duh, of course if you cut back on pisons, creatures and humans will be able to live and prosper. evolution has nothing to do with it.

    The population there once sported light and dark colored birds. Now they are mostly dark. It seems that a light colored pigeon stands out against the dark rock and makes for easier peregrine feed
    that is NOT evolution in action. I wear dark clothing against a dark background you won't see me either and will spot the person wearing bright cloth. you are just being ridiculous and desperate to believe in something that is false.
     

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •