Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[HairlessSimian]

I really don't see what's wrong with my post. I thought it was a clear analogy.

I agree. It was perfect. It was 'apt'.

 

[corvus_corax]

It shows that you don't understand what the theory of evolution actually states.

Of course, as you should know, many people DONT understand what the ToE actually states.
Even you should realize that when the BB theory and abiogenesis are brought in as "part and parcel" of the ToE, one has made a grevious error
See post 146 on this page of this thread

This is, in one sentence, the theory of evolution.

\
Which part Edmond?
Natural Selection? Is that what you are referring to?
Please be more specific in your accusations

-
That allele frequencies in populations change over time due to mutations and selection. Look at point 1 of NT2's post. It completely ignores selection, and because of that ignores half of the theory of evolution. The rest is just as much bunk.

But at least 1/2 is better than nothing
And it's better than misrepresenting the ENTIRE THING
See post 146 on the link above

Once again, "Allele frequencies in populations change over time due to mutations and selection."

This happens
You have a problem with it?
Take it up with YHVH

Then encourage your fellow creationists to learn about the science they're rejecting. It's not nonsense, I'm afraid. Most creationists simply don't understand evolution.

Well, perhaps they do.
However, many on these boards misrepresent it. Witness the "BB Theory and abiogenesis and evolution= ONE THEORY" arguments that I know you've seen time and time again
See post 146 on the link above

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution describes how existing life develops

Stop right there
In that one sentence (and sentence part) you have it right

Yet contradicting that, they go on to say….

Yes, let's look at these "contradictions"...

micro/macro is something creationists made up. It’s all evolution. The only difference is one conflicts with your beliefs.

There is no real difference between micro and macro
Hovind-fanatics define macro as a chicken giving birth to a monkey
Of course, you and I both know this is a blatant (and purposeful) misrepresentation

And…..
The same exact forces that drive what you call microevolution are the same forces that drive what you call macroevolution only on a larger scale. If you accept one and not the other it’s only because you can’t reconcile it with your religious beliefs.

Tell me, Edmond, what IS the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution?
You seem to be so well based in the biological sciences (or at least your counter arguments seem to be so self-confident), maybe YOU can finally clear the air and tell us the difference?
Speciation, perhaps? Usually that's what IDers define as "macro" evolution.
Well, that has been directly observed.
Care to say that it hasnt?

The majority of Creationists don't know the definition of evolution, including you.

In hippies case, he doesnt.
He has been fed a load of garbage. Perhaps from church, perhaps from online sources, perhaps from school itself.
But his definition (gained, as he admitted, IIRC, from schooling) is seriously flawed
See post 146 on the link above

Put a load of scrap metal in a beaker, nothing happens. Put a load of chemicals in, you can get reactions.

Now THIS is correct!

Obviously, your analogy is flawed. No one says that everything came from chance; whatever reactions led to the formation of life are described by the laws of chemistry, which are not simple chance.

Ahem....when it comes to chemistry, I take the words of chemists, not from some "the bible is true despite ANY objective empirical evidence to the contrary" bible-believer.
And from my own observations in rudimentary chemistry.
Oh, wait, are you a chemist Edmond?

Creationist comment ……
Sorry, seriously, evolution always started with the beginning of the universe

Biological evolutionary theory begins with the BB Theory?
As has been explained repeatedly throughout this thread (and throughout this site), this is a -

but here, whenever probabilities and amino acids combining to form protiens is brought up, it's always the same response. That's abiogenesis.

As I explained in my hypothetical situation (did you bother to read it before you posted?), YES. That is abiogenesis, NOT the ToE
See post 146 on the link above

Then when did evolution begin? With the first single celled organism?

Aw geez Edmond!

In other words the subject can’t really be defined by the average person, like you, as you are not qualified to say if it’s true or not.

Simply not true
I understand it
I can define it
I can debate it
And it is NOT a question of whether or not the ToE is "true"
It's a question of whether or not it is the current best model to explain the diversification of species on our planet.
Now you may not be able to define it, or understand it, but dont ever include the "average person" in your personal category in this specific regard
Heck, my 6 year old son has an extremely good grasp on it, and he believes in God (not saying the two points are mutually exclusive...rather Im demonstrating how a "faith" person can also look at evidence and come to his own conclusion regarding the ToE)

In addition, even their own definitions vary so broadly even in the very small examples of the samplings take from this one thread that it is no wonder creationist, made to appear as the ignorant fools, just aren’t smart enough to even be able to define evolution. Therefore they are not quailed to accurately debate it.

O stop it.
Christians have their own definitions that "vary so broadly" as to make christianity undefinable.
Hypocricy does not color a "christian" well



EDIT for clarification- All my replies are in response to Edmond's charicatures of the ToE as per his post #177 on this very thread.

 

[USincognito]

Did you read the definition of abiogenesis?

If, as you claim, muy understanding of the ToE has nothing to do with how life started perhaps you could explain it to me? One of the "thories" that I keep hearing about is the Big Bang Theory, which supposedly started the Universe and then abiogenesis (also part of ToE) took over and created life.

Seems to me that it's all part and parcel of the same theory.

You know, here's the problem with Creationism and scientific education. Since they just ignore the science (other than generalities "yeah, stars, Big Band, monkeys, o.k. got it, next..."), they miss that there are specific areas of study, and that some are exclusive of others because their science consists of "God created the Universe, the Earth, life and humans the end".

It's that conflation that causes the confusion when they try and address the actual science.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Did you read the definition of abiogenesis?

If, as you claim, muy understanding of the ToE has nothing to do with how life started perhaps you could explain it to me? One of the "thories" that I keep hearing about is the Big Bang Theory, which supposedly started the Universe and then abiogenesis (also part of ToE) took over and created life.

Seems to me that it's all part and parcel of the same theory.
[/font] [/font]

Well its not all part and parcel of the same theory at all. Its not even part and parcel of the same science.

The Big bang theory relates to how the universe expanded. The theory of Abiogenesis relates to how life began and the theory of Evolution relates to how life diversified. They are so much separate theories that any one of them remains un changed if any one of the others (or even both) were falsified.

Ghost

 

[MartinM]

I seems to me that this has been explicitly included.

Now, if by "model" you mean that there are some radical variable speeds of light, or that the universe has contracted or oscillated or what have you, then we have left the realm of standard models.

Maybe if you made some explicit statement of your alternates to standard models there would be less confussion about what you are trying to say about the age of the universe?

Well, consider this paper, released shortly after the WMAP data. This is quite probably where the figure you quote comes from. It chiefly considers two models, the best fit models with and without running spectral index. Both are assumed to be flat; any deviation from this assumption will alter the age calculations slightly. While the uncertainty on the age of the Universe is about 1% in each model, the difference between the two is also about 1%.

 

[Valkhorn]

Big Band, monkeys, o.k. got it, next...

Big band? Is this the Count Basie approach?

 

[HairlessSimian]

Big band? Is this the Count Basie approach?

Haha. Unexpected coming from someone who I would normally think would be too young to know about the Count.