• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
That's not what you implied.

You said that the sciences of paleontology and biology could just connect any species who happen to be found together.

what lie? if we will find all kinds of creatures together scientists will argue that they just evolved fast. not problem.


Yes.

The ID crowd have never been able to present a single example of something that is impossible to evolve on small steps.

but you said ( as far as i remember) that we can find a good scenario for several suppose "ic" system like the flagellum. this isnt realy true. for instance: they just found a system with several parts that are similar to flagellum parts. but it doesnt prove that the flagellum can evolve stepwise. think about a car engine. we cant build a car engine stepwise since any car engine will need at least sev eral parts for its minimal function. so what make you think it will be different in a biological motor?


No.robots made of organic parts don't exist.

so if such robot ( say a robot that is able to reproduce and made from organic components) will exist you will not call it a robot? and if so: where is the limit?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Aliens? Something else? The possibilities are not limited to your or my imaginations.
True, but you do understand that in the context of science if I refer to something unconfirmed you would refer to it as ‘hallucinations’ or something. Likewise, in the context of faith, aliens and other unconfirmed things could be considered in a like manner.


What are you talking about? I just told you I would be open to "design" if there was evidence for it. Do you think I'm lying or something? I accept the theory of evolution but I have no emotional attachment to it.
I wouldn’t intentionally do that at all… I hope you know that.

LOL, of course, but there is still evidence there, and NONE of it points to design, unless of course you can present some?
Actually, faith may have to come up with a form of the scientific method, so they can claim evidence. We see evidence of faith every day, people’s own lives changed for the better and other people’s lives changed or improved because of it. Honestly, why wouldn’t principles of faith work in the scientific flow chart as well? A question --- research --- hypothesis --- test --- working or not? --- back to a new hypothesis if it doesn’t work --- and start over again, and call the effort and positive effects evidence too.

And plenty of time has passed as every line of scientific evidence demonstrates.
Both are "based" on lots of time was my point.

So you keep saying, but you choose not to be specific.
And please refrain from trying to read my mind.
So, science has no indisputable evidence... I won’t look then.


No offense taken, I sometimes do the same thing.


Seriously, you would agree that there is dispute over evidence, even in the scientific community.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
"Needing several parts" does not rule out stepwise evolution. The parallel evolution of related components is well understood.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
so if such robot ( say a robot that is able to reproduce and made from organic components) will exist you will not call it a robot? and if so: where is the limit?


If you are so smart, make this organic self-replicating robot.

And while you are at it, make a car that evolved on its own, too.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You know, your post reflects exactly what I ranted about in another thread. You answer to the points any layman can i.e. the starting lines and the finishing lines.

Odd comment, how could I answer to points that you never brought up? Sure, I brought them up, why is that a problem? Because you have no answers? Attacking the questions you cannot answer again, as bad questions?

Your attempt to deal with the evidence presented is laughable, since it doesn't really deal with anything I posted.

Of course it did, and the way your post was presented, best I can tell, you never answered my concerns. Is this the "your discussion isn't a proper discussion at all" cop out that I predicted in my last post? so predictable.


I did no google search at all. Is that another one of those scientific assumptions? you know, another of the wrong ones. . So what your saying is you assumed I did a search because I was able to keep up enough to get the gist of what you were saying, and since in reality, no search was necessary, that gist is actually pretty simple when it comes to the basics. Oh, and sorry to burst your little bubble there, but to your credit, them were some mighty impressive words. To bad you all but admit you were trying to intimidate with them. Don't you know, by now there is nothing you can do that can't be done? And with the tiniest bit of explanation the same explanation that explained it to you, most can easily understand it, if they choose to bother. IOW, it's not so complicated you can use that as another excuse, as in your "you have no right to deny evolution" if you don't know what I know.

I have every right, and every right to expect you to prove it in spite of the goings on about why you cannot, and then your recent waffling on that, you know where the one who says we can't offer proof, said they proved. That was great, BTW. Read on to where I comment more on that.

You ignored it and continued proclaiming evolution as a joke, while having no knowledge about it. Tell me, should I not be justified in calling someone like that thick-headed? I think I am.

I absolutely did not ignore it, but I already commented on that. And these are the untruthful people we are supposed to rely on for the truth??

Also, its really funny that you keep saying 'provide proof for evolution', but when I did, you gave the reason why there is no proof for evolution, only evidence.

Problem with that is, you say it cannot be proven, even in this very post, yet, you now say you have proved it? So, you didn't prove anything accept for how to trip over your own words.

You understand that science doesn't deal with proof because there may be other explanations and current one may be discarded when new ones are found, then WHY DO YOU STILL KEEP ASKING FOR PROOF!?

I wonder, was that written up just for evolutionists, as another catch all when they have no proof? More unreasonable concepts to help a ridiculous cause, but it's true, you need all the help you can get, but to grab at such weak straws, and right here where all can see? That can't be helping your case. Yikes.

You have what you have until something else comes up, so lets simply do as we always have before some hot shot suggested that very poor excuse, and prove it, if something changes, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Simple. Today's proof on any given thing, may stand forever, so again do the obvious/logical, and roll with it and then change it if necessary, and stop using it as the frail excuse that it is.

Are you an idiot? It's like saying you know A=B and B=C, but you keep asking people why A=C. (and I said that it is proof only because both of us are laymen).

Kind of like my having to keep repeating what I do to evolutionists...yeah, I get that.

Furthermore, if evolution were to be discarded at some point because it couldn't explain new evidence, it certainly wouldn't be replaced by creationism, just like it wouldn't be replaced by Mutation Theory, or Lamarckism.

Doesn't surprise me you would make such a ridiculous statement...one that you can't possibly know as a fact. That's much the way evolution is seen as fact. "It is because we say it is, you need no proof"

Another thing I just realized, in spite of my requesting several times here, that along with your proof, you offer explanation so most can understand what you were talking about, and exactly how your proof proves evolution, you chose not to do that. Those were both very reasonable proposals so we could all join in and debate it. But while not much explanation was required, yet could have been helpful, you chose not to stick with that part, You figured you'd leave it at what you thought was so complicated no one would be able to understand it, and then not allow them to deny evolution if they couldn't...sneaky.

Why would you do that, or not do that? You didn't want them to understand it, (And I'm not even going to get into the ego aspects you more than made clear) you wanted to keep things confused, your way of seemingly giving yourself a leg to stand on. How low was that?

But, and I get so tired of saying it, if that's the type thing you feel you must do to back your cause, you must not have much of a cause.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
again, what is the problem? if a rabbit can evolve once it can evolve twice.
The fact that you can't even find a single instance of 100 base pairs being identical in a row in independent lineages demonstrates otherwise. Your claim that this is possible is not a part of the theory of evolution. It isn't even as if the Precambrian has the same type of environment that lead to the development of rabbits to begin with, so why would natural selection result in rabbits THERE WASN'T EVEN MUCH OXYGEN IN THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE PRECAMBRIAN! "What's the problem?" WHAT ISN'T THE PROBLEM?!

no problem for evolution here. and if you agree that a rabbit-like creature can evolve twice, there is no problem for a real rabbit to evolve twice.
I didn't even say rabbit-like. I said superficially looks like a rabbit. Those are not the same thing. Acorn worms superficially resemble human penises, but structurally they aren't like human penises. I'd post a picture of one, but I'm concerned it'd get flagged for being "inappropriate", because of their resemblance, but feel free to do a Google image search.

The Precambrian didn't even have organisms with internal skeletons, so nothing that would have developed at that time, even if it superficially looked like a rabbit, could feasibly be confused for one by anyone that isn't a complete idiot or over the age of 6. I also went through with you why the Precambrian environment wouldn't allow for rabbits to develop even if an active force was utilizing artificial selection to try to cause it to happen, due to atmospheric conditions. Even you should know that an organism that breathes oxygen shouldn't arise in an environment with very little oxygen. How could this not be a "problem for evolution"? Nothing remotely close to a rabbit in terms of physiology could survive, much less reproduce.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
as i said: even if its true we can argue for convergent evolution. mean that a rabbit can evolve twice. after all, even a flying fish evolved twice.

There is a big difference between looking like a rabbit and being one. Flying fish is the laymen’s name for more than one organism. That’s why scientists use scientific names
 
Upvote 0

Jjmcubbin

Active Member
Feb 3, 2018
193
160
35
Delhi
✟33,935.00
Country
India
Gender
Male
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
Private
And what's really laughable is most of what you rattled is not that hard to follow, only requires looking up a few names to know exactly
I mean you might have used Bing or duckduckgo or even a book, but I doubt that you consulted a book.

Coming back to the proof part, I said that for us laymen, what scientists call evidence may as well be proof for us. You seem to have forgotten that.

Well those were the only things I can reply to. The other stuff is mostly nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
why not? even according to evolution many creatures evolved by about 100-200 my window. so if we will find that most creatures appears almost at the same time it will not be a problem for evolution.

As I said, you need to re-visit your understanding of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
again, what is the problem?

The problem is that you keep claiming that objects that are different are actually the same.

You seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental concept of the "identity" of an object or group of objects. Which probably explains the constant use of the False Equivalence fallacy in your reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Especially when is comes to something as convenient/laughable as science can't prove evolution. What a complete joke.

Since you appear to not accept the scientific method, this really isn't about evolution at all. It appears what you're really rejecting is using science as a means of acquisition of knowledge.

And that's perfectly fine if you think the scientific method is inherently flawed or inadequate for that purpose. But let's not pretend this is about any particular scientific theory.
 
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Pretty sure I gave up on you because you kept stalling, and now you're lying an saying I don't accept your scientific method, when nothing of the sort was so much indicated. And honestly, when you do things like this, how am I to believe a word you say anyway?
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Didn't use anything.

And your last comment is just another cop out. I'm discussing your nonsense. But you know, I don't think that's the problem, you simply can't deal with the comments.

You're excused.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,112,208.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
what lie? if we will find all kinds of creatures together scientists will argue that they just evolved fast. not problem.
Yes, that lie.

Scientists have many animals that lived in close proximity that they don't just assume were related and super rapidly evolved.

We even had a discussion about Dogs and Tasmanian Wolves that you made some irrelevant comments about.


The difference is that life changes in small amounts all the time. You have accepted that small steps do happen, and the examples of very similar structures to different stages or sections of the flagellum show that the more complicated structure could hypothetically be produced from the merging of other stages. So it isn't "Irreducible".


so if such robot ( say a robot that is able to reproduce and made from organic components) will exist you will not call it a robot? and if so: where is the limit?

You are radically dishonest. You just cropped out my response that using "robot" for organic structures is a bad idea. And in particular using for breeding evolving organisms.

What I said was:

Enough with the word games and logical nonsense about robots and designs. Make an actual point.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Pretty sure I gave up on you because you kept stalling, and now you're lying an saying I don't accept your scientific method, when nothing of the sort was so much indicated.

I asked you repeatedly if you understood and/or accepted it and your responses were anything but affirmative. If I misunderstood I apologize, but it's really difficult to get a handle on what you believe when you don't give a straight answer.

And my "stalling" was nothing of the sort. I was trying to figure out exactly where your objections lie as it doesn't appear specific to evolution and seems more likely related to science in general.

Because if you do have objections to the scientific method, then that is a discussion unto itself. Evolution is irrelevant.

(And for the record, it is not "my" scientific method. It's THE scientific method, the thing which underpins the very nature of scientific inquiry )
 
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If life developed from evolution we would become a bunch of tumor cells.
Oh, Goodness! Sorry, I have to ask - In what universe do you think that the following scenario would possibly be true:

Let's say an organism of some sort gives birth to two offspring - one is the aforementioned cluster of tumors, the other a fully functional life form. Is it your opinion that of these two offspring, the cluster of tumors will go on to breed and the fully functional life form would not??

This is "Natural Selection 101".
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The funny thing is that there are lifeforms and species that act like tumors . One is a crab parasite, Sacculina . the other is a tumor on dogs that’s sexually transmitted and will detach from the dog eventually.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.