Science vs. Evolution

[laconicstudent]

Evolutionists assert Humans are the result of evolution reinforcing characteristics that offer survival advantage, yet clearly a Human baby disproves this. It is helpless for years after birth.

Poe?

God created the family to provide for the child. There is no way evolution can account for this.

You have got to be kidding me. There is so much research on the subject of the evolution of social groups and the benefits they provide you would have to be deliberately avoiding it.

It is this field called: "Sociology".

CJO - Abstract - Origin and evolution of primate social organisation: a reconstruction

Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus -- Lovejoy 326 (5949): 74 -- Science

SpringerLink Home - Main

Evolution of Human Parental Behavior and the Human Family - Parenting: Science and Practice

 

[laconicstudent]

Ok then i'll give you another. If evolution is true why do Humans have opposite sexes required for reproduction?

Because genetic recombination in gametogenesis and fertilization is advantageous.

Arn't micro-organisms sexless?

Yes, and we can wipe out colonies of millions or billions of them by taking an antibiotic for a week, can't we?

Evolutionists claim we evolved from micro-organisms or something as small right? So what happened? If evolution is all about disgarding the bad for survival why did sexes evolve? Why can't we just reproduce like micro-organisms?

Because we like genetic recombination because it lessens the likelihood that our species will be wiped out in a single epidemic.

Obviously evolutionist is a word, since not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

Yeah, only something like 97% of them.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yeah, well, if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Huh?

I will give this creationist props for not drive-by posting (as is MO for most creationists). His attitude and hubris are quite entertaining, and I still am not convinced that he isn't a Poe.

 

[Hespera]

Because genetic recombination in gametogenesis and fertilization is advantageous.



Yes, and we can wipe out colonies of millions or billions of them by taking an antibiotic for a week, can't we?



Because we like genetic recombination because it lessens the likelihood that our species will be wiped out in a single epidemic.



Yeah, only something like 97% of them.

It is important to mention that the "3%" are all religious cultists who reject it for religious reasons. None of them has a data based, scientific reason.

 

[Cassiterides]

You want us to reproduce by binary fission?????

How does evolution explain the origin of sexes since micro-organisms have none? That was my question. It's not me saying i came from microorganisms...but if we started from them (which have no sexes) why did sexes develop. It goes against the concept of evolution.

For all intends and purposes, there are no "nonevolutionists" who do biological research.

Some YEC Biologists:

Earl M.J. Aagaard Ph.D. Biology
Mark Armitage M.S. Biology
Chris Ashcraft M.S. Biology, M.Ed
Jerry Bergman Ph.D Biology
Kimberly Berrine Ph.D Microbiology
Raymond Bohlin Ph.D Biology
Patrick Briney Ph.D Biology (former atheist, now a Young Earth Creationist)
Art Chadwick Ph.D Biology
Robert Carter Ph.D Marine Biology
Ken Cumming Ph.D Biology
Daniel Criswell Ph.D Molecular Biology
Richard Deem Ph.D M.S Biology
David Menton Ph.D Cell Biology
Gary Parker M.S Biology
Ariel Roth Ph.D Biology

The evidence is overwhelming. Which do you wish to hear about? Here is a really good website on evolution and the evidence for it: Understanding Evolution

I will give this link a read then.

 

[Hespera]

How does evolution explain the origin of sexes since micro-organisms have none? That was my question. It's not me saying i came from microorganisms...but if we started from them (which have no sexes) why did sexes develop. It goes against the concept of evolution.



Some YEC Biologists:

Earl M.J. Aagaard Ph.D. Biology
Mark Armitage M.S. Biology
Chris Ashcraft M.S. Biology, M.Ed
Jerry Bergman Ph.D Biology
Kimberly Berrine Ph.D Microbiology
Raymond Bohlin Ph.D Biology
Patrick Briney Ph.D Biology (former atheist, now a Young Earth Creationist)
Art Chadwick Ph.D Biology
Robert Carter Ph.D Marine Biology
Ken Cumming Ph.D Biology
Daniel Criswell Ph.D Molecular Biology
Richard Deem Ph.D M.S Biology
David Menton Ph.D Cell Biology
Gary Parker M.S Biology
Ariel Roth Ph.D Biology



I will give this link a read then.

Sex absolutely does not go against anything in evolution. You just made that up, and it makes no sense at all.

My question that you refuse to answer, is if you will admit that you were wrong when you said only human beings have offspring that take years to raise to maturity.

Is there some reason you keep coming up with more nonsense instead of defending the old, or admitting that you were wrong on all of your old points?

Trying to discuss things this way is like chasing a squirrel thru the tree tops.

And finally, of that list you posted...

Do you find from among them all, ONE single fact, data point, that contradicts evolution? You dont. There isnt one. They may ahve emotional, religous reasons for not accepting the toE but they dont have a scientific reason which means their numbers add up to ZERO.

 

[Cassiterides]

Sex absolutely does not go against anything in evolution. You just made that up, and it makes no sense at all.

Evolutionists believe mankind came from microorganisms. My point was that microorganisms don't have sexes and they reproduce fast by a different process. If evolution is true why did we evolve the sexes?

Do you find from among them all, ONE single fact, data point, that contradicts evolution? You dont. There isnt one. They may ahve emotional, religous reasons for not accepting the toE but they dont have a scientific reason which means their numbers add up to ZERO.

No i reject evolution because there is no scientific evidence for it, but i'm looking at a link someone pasted about alleged ''evidence for evolution''.

And talking of emotions...most evolutionists only believe what they do because they have no morals, not because of the science.

 

[laconicstudent]

Evolutionists believe mankind came from microorganisms. My point was that microorganisms don't have sexes and they reproduce fast by a different process. If evolution is true why did we evolve the sexes?

Because genetic recombination is advantageous.

And talking of emotions...most evolutionists only believe what they do because they have no morals, not because of the science.

Emphasized for the lulz.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Evolutionists believe mankind came from microorganisms. My point was that microorganisms don't have sexes and they reproduce fast by a different process. If evolution is true why did we evolve the sexes?



No i reject evolution because there is no scientific evidence for it, but i'm looking at a link someone pasted about alleged ''evidence for evolution''.

And talking of emotions...most evolutionists only believe what they do because they have no morals, not because of the science.

Ok, now I'm convinced. He's a Poe. You had me goin' there for a minute.

 

[Hespera]

Evolutionists believe mankind came from microorganisms. My point was that microorganisms don't have sexes and they reproduce fast by a different process. If evolution is true why did we evolve the sexes?



No i reject evolution because there is no scientific evidence for it, but i'm looking at a link someone pasted about alleged ''evidence for evolution''.

And talking of emotions...most evolutionists only believe what they do because they have no morals, not because of the science.

Ok i asked you several times to accept it that you had made a simple mistake, saying that all animals but humans mature in a matter of weeks.

You continue to evade and ignore that. So you are unwilling / incapable of admitting you are wrong when you obviously are. i dont know what your problem is, but Im glad i dont have it. Were you like that before or after you got religion?

Such dishonesty is a discredit to whatever religion you are sponsoring.

All you do is spout falsehoods. Who was it you said had no morals?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ok i asked you several times to accept it that you had made a simple mistake, saying that all animals but humans mature in a matter of weeks.

You continue to evade and ignore that. So you are unwilling / incapable of admitting you are wrong when you obviously are. i dont know what your problem is, but Im glad i dont have it. Were you like that before or after you got religion?

Such dishonesty is a discredit to whatever religion you are sponsoring.

All you do is spout falsehoods. Who was it you said had no morals?

It's the "creationist curse'. With god on your side, you're right, even when you're wrong. And ain't no amount of facts or reality gonna' change that.

 

[Cassiterides]

In a letter in 1881, Darwin noted on the moral implications of his theory:

‘‘But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?’’​

Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. I, p. 285.

Evolutionary zoogeographer of the early 20th century, Philip Jackson Darlington admitted:

‘‘The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors. Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution.’’​

Evolution for Naturalists, P. J. Darlington, 1980, pp243-244.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the "creationist curse'. With god on your side, you're right, even when you're wrong. And ain't no amount of facts or reality gonna' change that.

And what's the 'evolutionist curse'?

You're wrong, even when you're right?

[warning: pluto alert] Like Pluto? [/warning]

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yep. We (Homo sapiens sapiens) like violence. Ever watched a violent movie, or driven slowly past a horrible accident to get a better look, or laughed to the point of tears when cousin Joe steps on a rake and whacks his gonads? Boxing, MMA, NFL, Wrestlemania, rugby and hockey, just to name a few, are all violent sports. And all of them generate millions of dollars in ticket sales, PPVs and advertising. Why, do you think, is this?

We are also capable of unselfish displays of compassion and caring. Remember the news clip where the guy jumped into the bay to rescue a little girl who fell in? Or the someone who puts themselves in harms way to protect someone else?

Yep, humans are capable of all kinds of behavior. Some good, some bad.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

And what's the 'evolutionist curse'?

You're wrong, even when you're right?

[warning: pluto alert] Like Pluto? [/warning]

Not sure what you mean. I can admit when I've made a mistake. How about you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, humans are capable of all kinds of behavior. Some good, some bad.

What's the difference to an atheist or an evolutionist?

What if a scientist on the verge of a breakthrough in cancer research jumps in front of a train (and gets atomized) to save the life of a 117 year-old alcoholic who just swallowed enough cyanide to stop a train?

 

[sandwiches]

What's the difference to an atheist or an evolutionist?

What if a scientist on the verge of a breakthrough in cancer research jumps in front of a train (and gets atomized) to save the life of a 117 year-old alcoholic who just swallowed enough cyanide to stop a train?

It'd be sad day for the scientist's family and humanity who would've have benefited from his research.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What's the difference to an atheist or an evolutionist?

What if a scientist on the verge of a breakthrough in cancer research jumps in front of a train (and gets atomized) to save the life of a 117 year-old alcoholic who just swallowed enough cyanide to stop a train?

An atheist or an evolutionist have a profound understanding for life, and how valuable and special our existence really is. I imagine that both would show a dramatic display of altruism and do whatever they could to prevent this persons death.

A Christian would probably consider the fact that this person has lived a long life, was trying to end her life anyway, so they might as well let the train hit her. If she grew up in America, chances are she was "saved," even if she wasn't living like it (Pascal's wager need apply), and she'll probably go to heaven, if not, god has prepared a place for her in hell. Either way, god's will be done.

 

[Split Rock]

In a letter in 1881, Darwin noted on the moral implications of his theory:

‘‘But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?’’​

Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. I, p. 285.

Evolutionary zoogeographer of the early 20th century, Philip Jackson Darlington admitted:

‘‘The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors. Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution.’’​

Evolution for Naturalists, P. J. Darlington, 1980, pp243-244.

Oh Goodie! A Quote Mine!!!!!!!!

Time for me to (once again) bring my very own Quote Mine out!!!!!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

 

[Hespera]

Oh Goodie! A Quote Mine!!!!!!!!

Time for me to (once again) bring my very own Quote Mine out!!!!!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

Good mine but like anything else you might say, its wasted on a person who cannot admit he is wrong about even the simplest thing. May as well argue with a possum; they wont admit anything either.