The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

plummyy · Sep 20, 2015

klutedavid said:
2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

Humans are altricial. "Survival of the fittest" is a misleading title for natural selection. Nothing about our developmental process contradicts anything. There are many (far less capable) animals that develop in this same way, and these species are very much alive and well. This ties in with forming an answer for # 9. Benefit outweigh the risk. For a human, if a few extra years of special vulnerability means taking advantage of brain plasticity (allowing room for intellectual capacity to grow), this gives strength of a different sort to selecting the direction to what we evolve.

klutedavid said:
3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to it's mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

Here we have a problem. Because, humans being altricial, we actually have a short gestation period vs the gestation time needed to satisfy your claims in question # 2. For humans to be born on our feet, we would need 22 months gestation--- but this compromises the advantages we have of being born after only 8 months. Brain plasticity, or quick-and-easy motor functions? Intellectual capacity that undoubtedly comes in handy (can you say, fire?), or the ability to run alongside mother? (horses are majestic, neigh).

klutedavid said:
7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth. Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

What do you mean?

My rats scent mark places they have been (like my cell phone, RIP). Rats have terrible eye sight and rely on their sense of smell. But like a rat, humans cannot know where something is until they go to that place and discover it. When we get to that place, we use visual aid to mark where it is and how to get back to it (versus peeing on trees, we nail a sign to it). If it weren't for the 405 (signs), how would we drive to California? We also use vocal aid. If my mother didn't tell me that I could take the 405 all the way down to California, how would I know that the 405 would take me to California? Considering, we actually have a good process of navigating. I really don't know which hat you pulled this one out of.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Mammals began to evolve around 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. That is not so long ago. Is is all fairly recent compared to the almost 14 billion years the universe has been around.

The 14 billion years is pure speculation and it goes up and down according to whom you are speaking to.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
We rely on God and the laws He created. Science and their theories are just an attempt to understand the laws and the Creation of God.

Well said Joshua.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

jathtech said:
Fish is meat, and furthermore, we have a common ancestor with fish. .. 2 billion years ago.

You are entitled to your opinion and my ancestors were humans and there was nothing fishy about them.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

As I was saying said:
If that is the case, you will have no problem contradicting what has been said.

Still waiting for your contradiction.

Shemjaza · Sep 20, 2015

As I was saying said:
The 14 billion years is pure speculation and it goes up and down according to whom you are speaking to.

What you are missing I'd that it isn't just someone asserting a number like 14 billion years.

There is evidence and reasoning, which you can examine.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

hiphopopotomus said:
That last line is what white South Africans used to justify apartheid, denial of basic human rights , declaring interracial marriage illegal and brutal treatment of black and mixed race South Africans.
It was also used before that to justify slavery and many other injustices.

And if you want examples of baby killing look up God.

My guess is you have a lot more in common with Islamic State Jihadist terrorists than you do with your fellow moderate Christian with those sorts of attitudes.

Yeah, and I have heard that sort of accusation trotted out ad infinitum when you can't respond with logical argument and as you are playing the man not the ball, I would suggest you are in contravention of the guidelines. Moderators take note.

Your trite response "if you want examples of baby killing look up God" has little relevance as the context is ignored.

FYI I have never shot anyone. beheaded anyone; raped anyone; told anyone to convert or die; demanded a ransom for anyone; slit someone's throat to make an example of them; blown up someone else's home so may I suggest your guess is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out and in contravention of the guidelines.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Creationism is not a theory. It's religious shenannigans.
Scientific theories are vastly different from religious ideas. Not in science. In science, a theory is a body of knowledge. A supported explanation of a set of facts. A "graduated" hypothesis, if you will. It is the highest level that any idea in science can be promoted to.

Indeed. Which is exactly why evolution qualifies as a scientific theory, while creationism does not.

I don't think I ever claimed that gods don't exist. Not accepting a statement saying "x exists" is not the same as accepting a statement saying the opposite.

As for what I "like" or not - that's quite irrelevant to what is actually true.

It's interesting that even after all these years, you still don't comprehend what atheism actually is and the same goes for evolution.

Perhaps you should take a step back and inform yourself first.

And you need to do likewise.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
You have done it so everyone has done it! Can I be so bold as to inform you that you do not base a case on one person's experience. Case closed.

I was responding to your claim that because you have done it is proof for the case. I pointed out that one person's experience is not acceptable for evidence because i can give one example of evidence to the contrary. I realise that atheists don't like it when they are called out for what they say but them's the facts.

essentialsaltes · Sep 20, 2015

As I was saying said:
I was responding to your claim that because you have done it is proof for the case. I pointed out that one person's experience is not acceptable for evidence because i can give one example of evidence to the contrary. I realise that atheists don't like it when they are called out for what they say but them's the facts.

Please read the rest of my comment again. I explained quite clearly why the underlined portion of your response is totally irrelevant.

Astrophile · Sep 20, 2015

As I was saying said:
The 14 billion years is pure speculation and it goes up and down according to whom you are speaking to.

According to Wikipedia https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe , 'NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)' estimated the age of the universe to be (13.772±0.059)×10E9 years (13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years).'
'The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2013 data alone is 13.813±0.058 billion years'.
'By combining the Planck data with previous missions, the best combined estimate of the age of the universe is (13.798±0.037)×10E9 years old.'
'The ... space probes WMAP, launched in 2001, and Planck, launched in 2009, produced data that determines the Hubble constant and the age of the universe independent of galaxy distances, removing the largest source of error.'
Also, the age of about 13.7 billion years from WMAP has stood since 2004, and Sandage, in 1958, gave an age of 13 billion years, with a possible uncertainty of a factor of two - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..513S .

joshua 1 9 · Sep 20, 2015

As I was saying said:
The 14 billion years is pure speculation and it goes up and down according to whom you are speaking to.

It changes and that makes it difficult when they write a book, because there is a good chance they will come out with a different age before to long.

klutedavid · Sep 20, 2015

But like a rat, humans cannot know where something is until they go to that place and
discover it. When we get to that place, we use visual aid to mark where it is and how to get back
to it

Some folk have the impression that man can navigate, man cannot navigate if the environment
has no visible reference points. Man must be taught to navigate because man has no biological
GPS to utilize.

To understand what a biological navigation system means, here is a good example to observe
in the animal kingdom, the migration of the short-finned eel.

After the birth of the Short-finned eel in the Coral sea, the young eels at the tender age of one
week, commence a migration journey of thousands of kilometeres. These infant eels swim down
the east coast of Australia, then into the southern ocean below the Australian continent. The young
eels then swim through the river systems, and eventually arrive at their destination, fresh water lakes.

These young eels are entirely alone during this incredible journey, as their parents do not return with
them. The parents eels die in the breeding grounds of the Coral sea. These infant eels have a body
length of only about 50mm (approximately two inches).

By the way, if man builds a dam on one of the rivers, the infant eels will travel over land and back into
the river system on the other side of the dam to reach their destination.

A one week old eel, can navigate a four thousand kilometre journey, and with pin point accuracy.

Conclusion, Short-finned eels are born with a biological GPS, man is not born with a biological GPS.

klutedavid · Sep 20, 2015

Christians are not the only ones who have noticed the non-scientific nature of the Big Bang theory. For example,
in the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, an open letter to the scientific community appeared written primarily
by secular scientists (cosmology statement.org). The letter was subsequently signed by hundreds of other scientists
and professors at various institutions. Two representative paragraphs from the letter are as follows.

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed, inflation,
dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction
between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical entities be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations,
with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters.

Gene2memE · Sep 20, 2015

klutedavid said:
Some folk have the impression that man can navigate, man cannot navigate if the environment has no visible reference points.

This is just flat out wrong. Really, really wrong.

Humans can navigate quite well without any visual reference points. They can even navigate accurately while blindfolded.

Idiothetic navigation in humans: estimation of path length.

Click to expand...

Mittelstaedt ML1, Mittelstaedt H.
When vision is excluded humans are still able to walk back to a starting point or to a previously seen target. This performance may be mediated by path integration, based on information about movement with respect to the ground or to inertial space, that is, on substratal or inertial idiothetic cues. We intend to unravel whether, and how accurately, these two inputs act and interact on the translatory component of this navigation performance....

The estimation of path length turns out to vary as a function of walking velocity, step length, and step rate. The estimate becomes virtually veridical when subjects walk at their normal pace, but it overshoots at lower and undershoots at higher values of these variables....

It is concluded that in these paradigms path control and perception are mediated by an open-loop performance of the underlying path integration system, calibrated in such a way as to yield veridical estimates during normal walking. Either inertial or substratal idiothetic information is sufficient for this performance. However, the quantitative relations found argue in favor of the hypothesis that substratal idiothetic information predominates when both are available. In spite of its limitations the capability shown here may serve as an essential constituent of navigation by path integration in humans.

If you're going to make claims, at least check that they can be easily debunked with 30 seconds on Google Scholar.

Much like most mammals, humans have portions of our brains that are dedicated to navigation, and we can sense the magnetosphere and use it to navigate, even if we are not consciously aware of it:

Birds and other migratory animals have long been the subject of study because of their ability to return after traveling extraordinarily long distances away from a point of origin. This innate ability, known as a homing instinct, can also be found in humans, as new research from University College London (UCL) in the UK suggests.

The finding explains why some people have a better sense of direction than others.

According to the research, homing instinct in humans varies in strength since mankind has long since evolved away from needing this ability, but most people experience it in some degree. Homing instinct in humans not only tells use which direction we are facing, like a compass, it tells use which direction we need to go in order to reach our destination.

The research expands on groundbreaking discoveries made in earlier this year on how nerve cells process where the body is in a space and help to navigate it. The use of “grid cells” in the brain help the body go from point A to point B, but the new evidence suggests the same region of the brain, the entorhinal region, is associated with a sense of direction.

I suspect that the vast majority of the problems you perceive with the theory of evolutionary biology could be solved if you merely took it upon yourself to do some research and reading on the subject.

Gene2memE · Sep 20, 2015

klutedavid said:
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations,
with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters.

You may want to tell NASA this. They seem to be operating under the assumption that the Big Bang theory has successfully been tested and supported by:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
It changes and that makes it difficult when they write a book, because there is a good chance they will come out with a different age before to long.

Yes, that is right. I have been told the age of the earth as being anything from 200 million to 14 billion years old and everything in between by atheists but of course atheists as is usual are in denial and try to cover up the implausibility of what they claim by stating that one atheist does not speak for another so I guess as an atheist you believe whatever you want to believe and that is truth because I say so and if another atheist comes along and says something different then that is the truth because he says so and if another atheist comes along and says.....The shifting sands of atheism is there for all to see, but why worry. The truth is not high on their agenda as they trade on myths and fairy stories so anything goes as long as they don't have to prove what they say is the truth.

Their security seems to be to say anything that massages a damaged ego in the hope that no one will discover the fallacy of their dreams, obfuscation and complete and utter bunkum. (Forgive me if that language is a bit strong).

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

Astrophile said:
According to Wikipedia https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe , 'NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)' estimated the age of the universe to be (13.772±0.059)×10E9 years (13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years).'
'The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2013 data alone is 13.813±0.058 billion years'.
'By combining the Planck data with previous missions, the best combined estimate of the age of the universe is (13.798±0.037)×10E9 years old.'
'The ... space probes WMAP, launched in 2001, and Planck, launched in 2009, produced data that determines the Hubble constant and the age of the universe independent of galaxy distances, removing the largest source of error.'
Also, the age of about 13.7 billion years from WMAP has stood since 2004, and Sandage, in 1958, gave an age of 13 billion years, with a possible uncertainty of a factor of two - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..513S .

Sorry Astrophile, but Wikipedia is not my Bible or source of reference. Anyone can say anything on Wikipedia so making that your source is to say the least, is fraught with dangers and leaves you open to being led up the garden path.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
Please read the rest of my comment again. I explained quite clearly why the underlined portion of your response is totally irrelevant.

No you didn't. All you did is get uppity because my response exposed the paucity of your claims and why your claims do not hold water.

As I was saying · Sep 20, 2015

Shemjaza said:
What you are missing I'd that it isn't just someone asserting a number like 14 billion years.

There is evidence and reasoning, which you can examine.

The problem with that is that once I have examined the evidence and reasoning [sic] I then have to ditch it because an atheist told me something different. And when I have investigated the evidence and reasoning for that claim I have to ditch it because someone comes up with another claim and so on and so on.

Oh by the way, Evidence is science, reasoning is philosophy which if you care to analyse most atheists posts they are in the realm of philosophy, not science.

Oh, by the way, I cannot examine evidence and reasoning as there is none. All we have is speculation and guesses.

Oh by the way, I note you have not denied that the age of the universe goes up and down depending on who you talk to.

The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

(✿ ♥‿♥)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency