- Oct 20, 2017
- 890
- 103
- 91
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
IOW you have no response because what you accept abut evolution is by faith alone.
Upvote
0
Nice strawman you have there.
Oh! Because you are the first person EVER who has ever told me to go and do my research! Thank you! Because until now I had only ever bothered looking at one side of this topic! I never knew that I could look at the evidence AGAINST evolution!
Or maybe, I've been having these discussions for so long that I've seen the nonsense the anti-evolution crowd comes out with, I've examined it and found that it is just wrong.
Why do you think that I haven't done my research just because I don't agree with you? That's rather arrogant, isn't it? That everyone who is educated in a field must agree with you? Are you so incapable of entertaining the notion that you may be *GASP* wrong?
Still, you'd think that since he has a direct line to GOD, then he would still be able to get the truth!
First, he's a CHEMIST, not a biologist. He is not qualified to speak in an area that is outside his field.
Second, the guy ADMITS that he doesn't understand evolution - "I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right?" - and yet you think he is qualified to proclaim that something he doesn't understand is impossible. All he has is an argument from incredulity. "I can't understand how a thing could happen, therefore that thing is impossible."
Thirdly, the article is biased and does not reflect his actual views.
Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.SOURCE
"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.
But he said his experience in chemistry and nanotechnology had showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe, he said, that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. The explanations offered by evolution, he said, are incomplete.
"I can't make the jumps, the leaps they make in the explanations," Dr. Tour said. "Will I or other scientists likely be able to makes those jumps in the future? Maybe."
Please tell me what animals are included in the polar bear kind. The brown bear? The black bear? The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus?The basic evidence against evolution is "after their kind." That is proved thousands of times every day in animals, birds, fish and man,, It can't be falsified and it refutes evolution.
Yeah, faith in a deity is an entirely different thing than faith that my living room lightbulb hasn't blown.
Is this really the best argument you can come up with?
No I haven't.
Funnily enough, when someone tries "argument by overload" - throwing so many arguments that no person could hope to refute them all, I tend to ignore the lot of them, concluding that the person who posted it has no desire to have a reasonable discussion and instead is just trying to flood the discussion with nonsense. After all, if they wanted an actual discussion, isn't it easier to go through the points one by one?
And since you didn't provide any links to any specific pages on that website, and also since you posted the author of the article, but the website does not indicate the names of the authors for each article on the links, the only way I can find the article you are talking about is to go through each link one by one until I find what you are talking about.
Given the terrible logic I have seen from this sort of website in the past, and also given that you seem to be wasting my time (throwing a mountain of arguments at me hoping I'd get buried underneath it, failing to provide links to the specific things you wish to discuss), I have far better things to do with my time.
If you wish to discuss a specific thing from that website, provide a link.
For goodness sake it is not even a part of science !
Please tell me what animals are included in the polar bear kind. The brown bear? The black bear? The sloth bear? The giant panda? The red panda? The walrus?
If you will define what is part of this particular bear kind, we can test if your assertion is true.
See Bear - Wikipedia .
Too bad "kind" isn't a relevant biological reality.
That's your straw man. You cant support natural selection and you hope some article will. A google search will not provide any evidence either. Now is your chance to prove me wrong. I will put on my prophecy hat and predict you wont because you can't.
Not only do you not understnd evolution, you don't understand the science of genetics.
'...concluding that the person who posted it has no desire to have a reasonable discussion.'
You almost got it right. No. Reason does not appear to figure in your lexicon, but it doesn't matter, as I was not looking for a discussion with you ; just to inform you, as you appear to be particularly naive, and as truculently tendentious as you are ill-informed. I'll pass on future exchanges with you. Life is to short to waste time on aggressive, yet hopelessly confused and muddled atheists.
A lot of scientific associations would disagree with you there.
But that can only mean that their self-designation as 'scientific' is, itself, fanciful. Karl Popper's definition of the criteria, including 'empirical falsifiability', have been accepted for a long time.
It has become a standing joke that things keep turning up that embarrass them, but their response is along the lines of 'Wow ! Isn't evolution amazing ! Always surpring us.' Every new discovery is a triumph, even if it radically disproves evolution.
'Second, the guy ADMITS that he doesn't understand evolution - "I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you.'
You foolish, foolish girl ! All that passage was meant to be highly ironical, given his egregious status as a scientist in the very top rank of his extremely esoteric field. If you were capable of reading between the lines, you would have realised he was saying : 'Look. If I can't understand evolution, what chance do you think you would have, if you could think straight, that is.' It was a tacit challenge to anyone to explain it to him, in the certain knowledge that he could rebut it.
And you rubbish his credentials as a scientific thinker, because he is a chemist !
Here is a secret for you : Everything in biology, indeed, in the physical world, is chemical .. made up of molecules.
And no, the reason I assumed you had not done even minimal research into the arguments against evolution, was because of your seemingly-total ignorance of them. For goodness sake it is not even a part of science ! It is totally devoid of empirical evidence, and thus not falsifiable.
It was a fantasy of an old geezer living in the 19th century (largely discredited now, even among secular fudnamentalists, such as your good self, who still believe in a modified form of evolution), a theory which he himself considered would prove to be false, if a certain something would turn out to be the case. I can't remember the 'something', but it did turn out to be the case. Though he still didn't acknowledge the falsity of his 'theory'.
It's par for the course for atheists. Emile Zola said he would believe in miracles, if he saw one. He went to Lourdes, witnessed a miracle ... and still didn't believe in miracles. Little wonder Darwin reverted to his Christian faith, as attested by a certain friend of his, a Lady Hope. He also sent money to the Missionary Society until the month of his death. Go back to sleep. There's a good girl.
How can I do that if you refuse to tell me what is part of the polar bear "kind"? Is the giant panda in the polar bear kind? You will not tell me. Is the red panda in the polar bear kind? You will not tell me. Is the walrus or hippo? You will not tell me. How can I demonstrate a "kind" evolving if you cannot tell me what you mean when you use the word "kind"?It is not necessary for me to know. It is necessary for you to explain how a bear can produce something other than a bear.
You don't even know how many hairs I have on my head. The fact that you and I don't know everything does not prove I know nothing.You don' even know what the first life form was and how it came into existence.
wrong.You are willing to go into wild, unscientific speculation to explain all the variety of animal, plant and human life.
How in the world do you figure that?
I am pointing out that what you are talking about is your misunderstanding of evolution, not evolution itself.
lol, you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't understand evolution, genetics or what evidence is.
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?