Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Odds which you haven't the faintest notion of how to even begin calculating.The utter impossibility of it happening any other way. When the odds are so staggeringly against something it enters the realm of the impossible.
Evolution theory is a solid model with an overwhelming amount of evidence and a bazillion testable predictions.If evolution can't support itself with details why should creationists?
Here's how I see such details.
One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.
But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.
That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.
Here's how I see such details.
One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.
But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.
That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.
Your explanation is, well, if not incorrect, then at least incomplete.Here's how I see such details.
One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.
But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.
That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.
And how did the first species come about, if not by abiogenesis?
What you are arguing here is like saying that a discussion about car design must include mining because that's where the metals come from.
Yoohooo, Earth to OldWiseGuy . . . .
How does the TWIN NESTED HIERARCHY lead to these conclusions? You claimed that you are using the same evidence as evolutionists are using. One of those pieces of evidence is the twin nested hierarchy. Please show how you use this piece of evidence to reach your conclusions. Otherwise, admit that you aren't using the same evidence.
Your analogy is completely absurd and only exposes how ignorant you are on the subject.
Sorry... this is not meant to be offensive or anything... It's just blatantly obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.
And did you have something to say about that?
Odds which you haven't the faintest notion of how to even begin calculating.
The problem is that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Yes I do. Calculate the number of successful modifications needed to go from a single-cell organism to a really big critter like a whale or a brontosaurus via natural selection. Also needed are the odds of the ancillary support systems needed to aid in this, which would include the number of modification they would need as well. That should keep you busy for awhile. I'm guessing the odds are incalculable, therefore practically impossible. The equation would likely stretch to the moon and back (depending on the font size of course).
We can fall back on the humorous expressions as well.
"The odds of evolution being true are about the same as an explosion in a junk yard producing a Boeing 747 airliner.
or
"The odds of evolution being true are about the same as a monkey with a typewriter producing the Encyclopedia Britannica."
I actually do, because you really aren't the first to present me with such a misrepresentation of evolution.
You see, we don't have just one "picture". We have trillions of pictures. Pictures that reproduce with variation and that are in competition with eachother in a quest for survival and reproduction.
Pictures that fall into a nested hierarchy as a result of this quest.
That's the mistake of your analogy.
Instead of looking at the entire tree of life, you just grab a single bunny (= one picture) and ignore all the others.
So, to continue with your picture analogy, the real picture isn't just a single bunny. The real picture is ALL life. The bunny is just a single pixel on that picture.
So creationists are focussing on a single pixel, and ignoring the big picture.
The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it completely ignores the role of natural selection, as it assumes that evolution is a completely random process.
It also ignores the gradual nature of the process, as in reality small changes accumulate over generations wich over time results in big changes.
"In mysterious concert"? Weren't you the one who said that "it is all connected"?It's your trillions of pictures, acting in mysterious concert to produce my big picture that I reject.
What?Once again, I don't think you can get here from there, i.e., a single-cell organism surviving millions of years of cataclysm and becoming a huge complex organism like a brontosaurus, whale, or elephant, through some mysterious self-contained force. Never mind that same single-cell organism becoming millions of different creatures as well. It's just too fantastic.
"In mysterious concert"? Weren't you the one who said that "it is all connected"?
Well, you can deny the results of "mysterious concert" and attribute it all to "an artist".
Though I'd like to know how you would defend making a single post here.
What?
Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge of biology first before posting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?