Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[Edmond]

The actual theory can't be defined in a simple sentence, of course. You asked for a definition, so we're supposed to explain years of information in a single post, nay, thread? That's why it was suggested you go pick up a book on it. I said you would be a troll/parody if you didn't respond because that would be what you would have been. You asked for a definition, and we responded within reason. Then you kept asking for it, so what are we supposed to think?

That was so arrogant a post it's mind boggling.

Yes you're right. You guys are really fierce, an incredible force to reckon with. I wonder if even God may be affair of extinction in the presence of your intellectual powers. Now there's a thought for you to feed on.

So...are you saying that the legacy of evolution is so long and its implications so far reseaching that it take.....xxx amounts of pages to define it?? Or are you saying that its definition has had to be 'adjusted' so many times during its befief life-span of some 150 years that its definition depends a great deal of when you try to intesect and understand its short-lived existence?

Of course the answer will be...none of the above. How did I guess? Repetition is one of the best methods of instrution for a creationist.

So...what is the reason why it is so difficult to fully...define evolution in a somewhat brief and summarizing fashion?? And, if its definition is so profound and far in its scope and breadth why is it that every attempt I have seen for a creationist to 'include' the definition of some of its profound perameters fails to 'define even those aspects of evolution'.

If you evade presenting a clear answer to this question again, we may have to consider labeling you a.... "troll/prodagy"?, as you put it. Hey, that does sound authoritarian.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

[pantsman52]

Yes you're right. You guys are really fierce, an incredible force to reckon with. I wonder if even God may be affair of extinction in the presence of your intellectual powers. Now there's a thought for you to feed on.

So...are you saying that the legacy of evolution is so long and its implications so far reseaching that it take.....xxx amounts of pages to define it?? Or are you saying that its definition has had to be 'adjusted' so many times during its befief life-span of some 150 years that its definition depends a great deal of when you try to intesect and understand its short-lived existence?

Of course the answer will be...none of the above. How did I guess? Repetition is one of the best methods of instrution for a creationist.

So...what is the reason why it is so difficult to fully...define evolution in a somewhat brief and summarizing fashion?? And, if its definition is so profound and far in its scope and breadth why is it that every attempt I have seen for a creationist to 'include' the definition of some of its profound perameters fails to 'define even those aspects of evolution'.

If you evade presenting a clear answer to this question again, we may have to consider labeling you a.... "troll/prodagy"?, as you put it. Hey, that does sound authoritarian.

--------------------------------------------------------

*shoots your high horse*

 

[nvxplorer]

If you evade presenting a clear answer to this question again, we may have to consider labeling you a.... "troll/prodagy"?, as you put it. Hey, that does sound authoritarian.

A troll prodigy. ROTFL. I’m going to remember that. Thanks for unknowingly providing such a fitting moniker.

 

[Dr.GH]

Just to let you know, I'm not actually a creationists, just felt like some horribly strung together posts thrown at me on another forum. I always consider it a good laugh when I see people post about creationism that is soundly refutd because they make for entertaining threads.

Yeah, I'm an "evolutionist" (funny term there really). Evolutionists are what you would call scientists, while creationists get their label because they aren't scientists, but they have a strong opinion against the scientific method with no evidence.

It is considered good manners to state your position in the first place.

 

[Dal M.]

So...what is the reason why it is so difficult to fully...define evolution in a somewhat brief and summarizing fashion??

The problem lies in the audience. It's not uncommon for creationists to ask questions about evolution, then pretend not to hear the answers, apparently believing that unassailable ignorance is close enough to being right as to make no difference. That's what we see going on here.

Of course, only the truly weird creationists will accuse their opponents of using "magic word boxes" or "fencepost alacrity undergarments" or something equally nonsensical, then mock them for sounding well-informed.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Once again a creationists responses seem frighteningly familiar.

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-arguement.html

 

[nvxplorer]

http://www.commstar.org/scotties/games299.html

 

[Jet Black]

I've seen this quite a bit here. When I was in school evolution started with the big bang, planets cooled...

sorry to hear you had a bad education.

 

[Jet Black]

So...what is the reason why it is so difficult to fully...define evolution in a somewhat brief and summarizing fashion??

fist page:

That allele frequencies in populations change over time due to mutations and selection.

I'd put it slightly differently, but then I like long technical words.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

http://www.commstar.org/scotties/games299.html

Cute. More fun than arguing with this latest crop of creationists.

Frankly, I'm torn. I'm not enjoying myself so much here as I used to, and I'm only one warning away from a year ban. The temptation to tell one of these dolts exactly what I think of them, and in doing so violating several rules and getting banned, is very strong. The only reason I don't is that I know that the offending post will also be deleted, so future creationists won't have the benefit of knowing exactly what I think of their pathetic whiny fingers in ears "la la la can't hear you" holier than thou condescending crap.

And that's just what I think I can get away with.

 

[Micaiah]

Gee Karl, looks like you have been busy. What happens when you've had a year off.

 

[Aggie]

The temptation to tell one of these dolts exactly what I think of them, and in doing so violating several rules and getting banned, is very strong. The only reason I don't is that I know that the offending post will also be deleted, so future creationists won't have the benefit of knowing exactly what I think of their pathetic whiny fingers in ears "la la la can't hear you" holier than thou condescending crap.

If you want to PM or e-mail it to me, I’ll post it somewhere else and just put a link to it here. I don’t think that would break any rules, and even if it does it’s not as big a deal since I only have one warning so far.

 

[Tomk80]

I see that Edmond still hasn't found my post apparantly? Despite it being quoted quite a number of times by now? This is the worst case of Morton's demon I've seen by far on this forum. Most creationist do actually acknowledge a post that answers their question. They just start dodging it. Wow. Just... wow.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's the sort of thing that can only be addressed in a post that would get the poster banned.

One cannot interact properly with people who lie, misrepresent, ignore, obfuscate and bear false witness within the rules of these fora, which naturally assume a willingness on the part of most posters to act in an honest and open manner.

Many creationists, IME, are not willing so to do.

 

[notto]

Should start up a thread of the darndest things stated by evolutionists. Here is one. Creationists don't believe in the scientific method.

Yeah, I wonder where anyone would get that idea?

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If you
1) ignore consensus obtained through the scientific method
2) declare any evidence that is contrary to your point of view false
3) Have been ruled against in the Supreme Court when trying to present your views as scientific

It might just mean that you don't believe in the scientifc method. If they did, they would do proper science.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe that intelligent should be taught as an equal possibility to evolution or nothing should be taught at all.

Of course you meant to say intelligent design and I disagree that it should be taught in the public schools.

I do agree that Christianity is not science.

Christian theology is science, I have allways believed that. The problem is that it is not natural science due to what theologians call the Aseity of God.

I know it isn't, you can't test it

We can't test it in a lab but most of history from the distant past can't be tested in this way.

but I don't think that you can test any kind of evolution except microevolution.

True, only Anecdotal evidence is used for macroevolution, since common ancestory at major transitional points cannot be tested.

If you haven't figured it out I am a christian and I think that there is plenty of evidence that shows that evolution is not probable. Here are a couple of my favorites feel free to respond. I do believe in microevolution though, for instance humans getting taller.

Evolution in natural science is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. The only way that evolution does not happen is if alleles don't change, which is next to impossible.

The words in orange are links to the terms I have used. I will stop my expostition of your OP and wait to see what your reaction is to this response. Feel free to PM me with anything you might want to discuss offline.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jet Black]

We can't test it in a lab but most of history from the distant past can't be tested in this way.
True, only Anecdotal evidence is used for macroevolution, since common ancestory at major transitional points cannot be tested.

that's pretty dirty stuff there coming from someone who should know better really.

 

[DieHappy]

sorry to hear you had a bad education.

Yeah, I was in public school at that time.

Are you telling me that you actually got taught "abiogenesis" in 9th grade science? It was all lumped together under "evolution" for everyone I've ever met.

 

[mark kennedy]

that's pretty dirty stuff there coming from someone who should know better really.

I ask for an example of a beneficial indel, I get bacteria swapping out a reading frame and eating nylon. That's what I mean about anecdotal evidence, one remote example does not a demonstrated mechanism make.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[DJ_Ghost]

1. According to evolutionists I have met everything has come from chance, just a random mix of chemicals to make life slowly changing to make all living things. Wouldn't it be more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and make a car ?

I find it hard to believe that the evolutionists you have met claimed everything came by chance. There is nothing random about chemistry, therefore the tornado in a junkyard analogy is about as flawed as an analogy gets. Also, that's abiogenesis not evolution that deals with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the diversity of life.

2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?

Define evolutionary scale and explain to me what in the ToE predicts there would be life on every part of it.

3. Kind of seems off track but it supports the Bible which denies evolution. There is a flood story in nearly every religion and culture with a perfect man being told to get in an ark, raft, boat, log, etc. and then surviving and the world some from him. That couldn't of been made up for all those religions and cultures, it had to of happened.

Argument from incredulity, just because you think it’s impossible does not make it so. Early man tended to live on flood plains, thus its not a surprise that many cultures encountered flooding. If you actually read the various flood stories the thing that stands out most is how much they differ rather than how similar they are.

Also, can I point out that almost all cultures have a legend about Dragons, fairies and Vampires. So if we apply your logic then these things must also have existed, despite the fact there is no evidence of them.

If that's the best you have, then you have nothing.

Ghost