Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[xianghua]

Ummm! creationists ! Just answering that question



Felids and canids evolved from now extinct organisms called miacids. Cats don’t turn into dogs but if you want to see something close to that - hyenas, they look like canids but are more closely related to felids.

true. but we didnt seen they evolved from a cat. so even this case cant be observe. means its just a belief. think about this analogy: if we will have a self replicating car that can change over time like a creature. do you think that such a car can evolve into something like an airplane? it will be impossible so evolution is impossible too.

 

[Jimmy D]

Just clicked on "show ignored content", I see the two members in question are still up to their antics.

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

 

[Speedwell]

None of that made any sense, can you explain? "Not" without confirming evidence for what?

You said,

"Not much sense in even arguing with someone who actually claims they cannot prove what they say is true, and who only keep insinuating, I should believe them without proof." Someone may well be insinuating that you should believe without proof, but no one is insinuating you should believe without evidence.

Why would you think that I think I'm required??

You said, "Nothing new here. You've given me absolutely no logical reason to believe you...none." My response again is, so what? If you don't want to believe, then don't. I don't think you think you are required. Nobody thinks you are required, get it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You said,

"Not much sense in even arguing with someone who actually claims they cannot prove what they say is true, and who only keep insinuating, I should believe them without proof." Someone may well be insinuating that you should believe without proof, but no one is insinuating you should believe without evidence.



You said, "Nothing new here. You've given me absolutely no logical reason to believe you...none." My response again is, so what? If you don't want to believe, then don't. I don't think you think you are required. Nobody thinks you are required, get it?

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[VirOptimus]

so you cant detect design when you see a car?

If its so simple, show me how we can measure it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Still with the "because I said so", or "I'm literate on something that doesn't even exist." Not much sense in even arguing with someone who actually claims they cannot prove what they say is true, and who only keep insinuating, I should believe them without proof.

*I* don't say so. The scientific method says so.

Nothing new here. You've given me absolutely no logical reason to believe you...none.

Scientific theories, are never considered proven. They can not be proven by definition.
This has been explained to you countless times already.

 

[Kenny'sID]

*I* don't say so. The scientific method says so.


Scientific theories, are never considered proven. They can not be proven by definition.
This has been explained to you countless times already.

I know.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know.

It doesn't sound like it....

cfr: your continued demand to prove scientific theories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so science cant prove the earth is a round?

It can support that the earth is round to a ridiculous degree. So much so, that we might as well call it a fact.

Just like how science can support to a ridiculous degree that certain germs are the cause of desease. So much so, that we might just as well call it a fact.

And it remains the germ theory of desease.
Not proven. Just very very well supported.

 

[xianghua]

No, that's not evidence. For creationism to be an alternative that can be taken seriously, you to provide evidence of the creator and also show evidence that everything was actually created.

you mean like this evidence?:

(image from 20 Years of Challenging Evolution: Is the Bacterial Flagellum Irreducibly Complex? | Science & Faith)

 

[DogmaHunter]

realy? are you saying that a truck doesnt have bigger wheels?

The diagram is based on your imagination (as opposed to actual detailed data points obtained from rigorous study of the objects in question - both inside and outside).

There's a *tiny bit* more involved into mapping out such a cladogram, then such superficial and silly comparisions.


As an analogy, if we would map out biological relationships in the same superficial manner as you do with your vehicle thingy, we would end up putting bats together with birds "because both fly using wings". And penguins wouldn't be put in that group, because penguins don't fly.

See?


edit: incidently, it's kind of funny that the bible in fact DOES mention bats in the same breath as birds, as if they belong together. Funnily enough also, it doesn't mention any penguins. Just like it doesn't mention kangaroo's or koala bears... The authors of the bible, only seem to mention things that could be encountered within a 150 mile radius from their location. Go figure....

 

[Speedwell]

you mean like this evidence?:

(image from 20 Years of Challenging Evolution: Is the Bacterial Flagellum Irreducibly Complex? | Science & Faith)

I see no evidence of human manufacture in that picture. Perhaps you could point it out.

 

[VirOptimus]

you mean like this evidence?:

(image from 20 Years of Challenging Evolution: Is the Bacterial Flagellum Irreducibly Complex? | Science & Faith)

The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?

 

[DogmaHunter]

lets see: how you detect design when you see a car?

Don't answer my question with another question.
Don't try to dodge the question.


Again: What is the method by which design can be objectively detected?

You claim that you are able to detect design. Put your money where your mouth is. Explain to us the method by which this can be done objectively. In such a way that we can take random objects, any objects, and determine if they are designed or not, using your method.

Again, don't dodge. Just answer the question. You claim to be able to detect design in anything. So I ask you: how?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you dont believe that a cat can evolve into a dog even if we will have billions of years? are you sure you arent a creationist?

If cats would evolve into dogs, then evolution theory would be false.

Cats will evolve into sub-species of cats. These new sub-species would still be cats.
Dogs will evolve into sub-species of dogs. These new sub-species would still be dogs.

All the descendents of felines, will be felines.
All the descendents of mammals, will be mammals.
All the descendents of vertebrates, will be vertebrates.
All the descendants of eukaryotes, will be eukaryotes.

Your question is silly and exposes a vast and deep ignorance on what evolution theory really is all about. Unsurprisingly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

true. but we didnt seen they evolved from a cat. so even this case cant be observe. means its just a belief. think about this analogy: if we will have a self replicating car that can change over time like a creature. do you think that such a car can evolve into something like an airplane? it will be impossible so evolution is impossible too.

Ow goody...... we're right back at the PRATT of imaginary vehicle-animals.

And round and round the merry goes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you mean like this evidence?:

(image from 20 Years of Challenging Evolution: Is the Bacterial Flagellum Irreducibly Complex? | Science & Faith)

How is that evidence?

 

[Kenny'sID]

cfr: your continued demand to prove scientific theories.

You misunderstand, or more precisely, you just made that up...prove evolution.

I have never put a piece of notebook paper into the business end of a blow torch, but because I know things that I have put in the blow torch flame will burn, I have a theory the paper will burn.

I can run that science experiment, see the paper will indeed burn, and now I have proof, hence, that theory has now been proven to be fact. Science has now proven the paper will indeed burn.

Simple theory, and simple proof that even you can understand.

Now, just for laughs, explain how that is not a simple science experiment, and how it does not turn my theory to proven fact?

 

[Speedwell]

Science has now proven the paper will indeed burn.

No proof there, just confirming evidence.

Simple theory, and simple proof that even you can understand.

So what's your theory? Why does paper burn?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No proof there, just confirming evidence.

Define proof.

So what's your theory? Why does paper burn?

I already told you what the theory was. I dumed the whole thing down as much as I possibly could.

Please, I didn't ask you for a dance, just answer the questions....please.