Jump to content


Photo

Things Evolution Can't Evolve?


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:20 PM

In th last few hundred years intelligent beings have been out performing evo in many areas even with evo's alleged bllions of years. All we have to do is look around  and take note of the numerous things that there is no way evo could evolve (the television, the auto, a three bedroom house, a sky scraper etc).

 

Does  this mean  that evo has been outflanked  by intelligence?  Know anybody that does not use intelligence to do anything?  Evolutionists, is there anyway evolution can evolve a car?



#2 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:38 PM

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with non-living things.

 

 

 

Edit: Well, I mean evolution in the sense that living things change... I actually do not know which type of evolution you are referring to.



#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:22 AM

One could emulate the process for non-living things. Essentially they are information as well. 



#4 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:40 AM

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with non-living things.

 

The evo myth includes everything. No genetic material-doesnt matter- 'evolution' still applies (stars, the sun, moon, earths geology, systems in physics, the mind, the atmosphere of the earth whatever one wants 'evolution' has an after the fact myth for its presence).



#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:29 PM

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with non-living things.

 

 

 

Edit: Well, I mean evolution in the sense that living things change... I actually do not know which type of evolution you are referring to.

 


Actually evolutionists have now been using the term evolution for almost anything. Its a flow on from redefining evolution as "change" so then any and all change can be used to support evolution.

For example

 

Cosmic evolution: formation of the universe (I think)

 

Chemical evolution: formation of higher elements

 

Planetary evolution: formation of planets



#6 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:39 PM

"One could emulate the process for non-living things. Essentially they are information as well."

How? And which type of evolution? Biological evolution includes changes through reproduction. Nothing non-living can evolve in that way. So, what type of evolution could evolve a car? None that I know of. None that is claimed. The only non-living evolution that I can think of on this planet would be the evolution or "changing" of the planet. There was magma, the magma solidified to form different types of igneous rocks, the igneous rocks weathered to become sedimentary rocks, things like that. Or chemical evolution, I suppose. 



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:53 PM

Megan, on 23 May 2013 - 15:46, said:
"One could emulate the process for non-living things. Essentially they are information as well."
How? And which type of evolution? Biological evolution includes changes through reproduction. Nothing non-living can evolve in that way. So, what type of evolution could evolve a car? None that I know of. None that is claimed. The only non-living evolution that I can think of on this planet would be the evolution or "changing" of the planet. There was magma, the magma solidified to form different types of igneous rocks, the igneous rocks weathered to become sedimentary rocks, things like that. Or chemical evolution, I suppose.

Megan, on 23 May 2013 - 15:46, said:
l evolution, I suppose. iis aa

I suppose you believe thinking evolved . Do you believe that evolution controls our thinking?

If you are honest,you will admit the car was intelligently engineered ! Therefore, intelligent design is a scientific fact and theory-observable, testable and repeatable.

#8 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:20 AM

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with non-living things.

 

 

 

Edit: Well, I mean evolution in the sense that living things change... I actually do not know which type of evolution you are referring to.

What's the difference between a living and a non-living thing?



#9 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 01:51 PM

"I suppose you believe thinking evolved . Do you believe that evolution controls our thinking?

If you are honest,you will admit the car was intelligently engineered ! Therefore, intelligent design is a scientific fact and theory-observable, testable and repeatable."

 

How would evolution control thinking? I believe that living beings learn and thinking evolves, or changes, through learning. Language has evolved(or changed) and technology, use of tools, theories, and many other things have evolved(or changed) to suit the new things we learn.  

I do admit that cars were intelligently engineered. And the intelligent design of a car can be tested and repeated. But, the intelligent design of a human has not been observed and repeated. Especially forming a human out of dirt.

 

 

"What's the difference between a living and a non-living thing?"

 

Living things reproduce. Non-living things do not reproduce. The process of reproduction is what allows the change. No child is exactly like their parents. There is always a little change every time offspring is produced.



#10 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:23 PM

I do admit that cars were intelligently engineered. And the intelligent design of a car can be tested and repeated. But, the intelligent design of a human has not been observed and repeated. Especially forming a human out of dirt.

 

Wait a minute.  Intelligent Design has not been observed and repeated?  What do you call reproducing?  A male and a female are CREATING or DESIGNING a human life!

 

You are correct, forming a human out of dirt has not been observed, tested, or repeated.  But creationists come to the conclusion of life comes from life (biogenesis).  Evolution claims we evolved from … goop?  A star?  A giant asteroid?  Space dust?  Whatever it is, this also has not been observed or repeated.  Life has never EVER been observed, tested, nor repeated to come from non-life.  Creationists have eye witness testimony.  Evolution does not.  So the theory of evolution is more credible because… this is what scientists think happened?  Explain.

 

Is there anything regarding evolution that can be tested or repeated?.  Evo scientists will observe and make their guesses based off what they observe.  But if you can use the scientific method to prove to me or others here something…anything in evolution is true, please do so. 



#11 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:51 PM

"Wait a minute.  Intelligent Design has not been observed and repeated?  What do you call reproducing?  A male and a female are CREATING or DESIGNING a human life!"

 

I do not claim that abiogenesis can be tested or repeated. Reproducing is just that, reproducing. People to not "design" their offspring. Their offspring will be what it will be, regardless of what people/animals want their children to look like. Designing life and reproducing life are not the same thing. If one could design their offspring, people would have all kinds of offspring, and all of their children would be how they want them to be. Perfect athletes, geniuses with perfect builds, immune to disease. And that isn't counting the fact that some folks may choose to design something more than human as their offspring, like a superhero. So, the Intelligent Design of a person has not been tested and repeated. Just as abiogenesis has not been tested and repeated. 

Prove anything in evolution to be true? Well, what kind of specific evidence are you looking for? As I posted in another thread, the closest relative of the giraffe, the okapi, does not have a long neck like a giraffe, so giraffe's must have evolved very long necks, just as some birds do not have wings. 



#12 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:44 PM

I do not claim that abiogenesis can be tested or repeated. Reproducing is just that, reproducing. People to not "design" their offspring. Their offspring will be what it will be, regardless of what people/animals want their children to look like. Designing life and reproducing life are not the same thing. If one could design their offspring, people would have all kinds of offspring, and all of their children would be how they want them to be. Perfect athletes, geniuses with perfect builds, immune to disease. And that isn't counting the fact that some folks may choose to design something more than human as their offspring, like a superhero. So, the Intelligent Design of a person has not been tested and repeated. Just as abiogenesis has not been tested and repeated. 

Prove anything in evolution to be true? Well, what kind of specific evidence are you looking for? As I posted in another thread, the closest relative of the giraffe, the okapi, does not have a long neck like a giraffe, so giraffe's must have evolved very long necks, just as some birds do not have wings. 

 

This is from http://thesaurus.com...ate?s=t&path=/'> http://thesaurus.com/browse/create?s=t&path=/   Bold emphasis is mine.

 

 


Main Entry:



create  [kree-eyt] Show IPA/kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled



Part of Speech:



verb



Definition:



develop in mind or physically



Synonyms:



actualize, author, beget, bring into being, bring into existence, bring to pass, build, cause to be, coin, compose, conceive, concoct, constitute, construct, contrive, design, devise, discover, dream up, effect, erect, establish, fabricate, fashion, father, forge, form, formulate, found, generate, give birth to, give life to, hatch, imagine, initiate, institute, invent, invest, make, occasion, organize, originate, parent, perform, plan, procreate, produce, rear, set up, shape, sire, spawn, start


People do indeed ‘design’ their offspring.  Not to the extent of some of the things you stated, but it takes two people to ‘design’ or ‘create’ these offspring.  They are not going to come into being on their own without that ‘life’ giving them ‘life’.

I’ll counter your giraffe argument and say, ‘the design of the okapi must have been created’.  An interesting article on giraffes from the creationist point of view can be found here:

 

http://creation.com/...on-of-creation'> http://creation.com/the-giraffes-neck-icon-of-evolution-or-icon-of-creation

 

What kind of evidence shows this giraffe is a product of evolution and not creation?  Do you have observable evidence?  Evidence that shows this giraffe evolving from one form to the next, to the next, to the next, etc?  Has anyone witnessed this giraffe evolving?  Do you have eyewitness testimony that this giraffe evolved?  What has been tested and repeated to show that, yes indeed, this giraffe is a product of evolution, and what is the evidence that makes this conclusion?



#13 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:08 PM

I will read the article about giraffe when I get a chance. 

Regarding Intelligent Design theory, reproduction has been observed and repeated, but creating life from dirt has not. You say that life can not come from non-life, but God created Adam from dirt. So, that is life coming from non-life, isn't it?



#14 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:29 PM

I will read the article about giraffe when I get a chance. 

Regarding Intelligent Design theory, reproduction has been observed and repeated, but creating life from dirt has not. You say that life can not come from non-life, but God created Adam from dirt. So, that is life coming from non-life, isn't it?

 

As I'm sure you are aware, God is not bound by physical/human laws/theories.  God created everything.  He could have snapped His fingers and brought everything into existance, but He didn't. 


 



#15 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2013 - 10:52 PM

I understand that. I am just saying it hasn't been tested and repeated. Yet, at least.



#16 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 May 2013 - 11:53 PM

I will read the article about giraffe when I get a chance. 

Regarding Intelligent Design theory, reproduction has been observed and repeated, but creating life from dirt has not. You say that life can not come from non-life, but God created Adam from dirt. So, that is life coming from non-life, isn't it?

 

No, it  isn't  God is life. God nor the bible claim to have created life.



#17 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

I’ll counter your giraffe argument and say, ‘the design of the okapi must have been created’.  An interesting article on giraffes from the creationist point of view can be found here:

 

> http://creation.com/the-giraffes-neck-icon-of-evolution-or-icon-of-creation

 

What kind of evidence shows this giraffe is a product of evolution and not creation?  Do you have observable evidence?  Evidence that shows this giraffe evolving from one form to the next, to the next, to the next, etc?  Has anyone witnessed this giraffe evolving?  Do you have eyewitness testimony that this giraffe evolved?  What has been tested and repeated to show that, yes indeed, this giraffe is a product of evolution, and what is the evidence that makes this conclusion?

 I found some flaws in this article that are sort of interesting. One interesting fact is that the larger the animal the better it survives a drought. This is because said animal can retain more water then that of a smaller animal. It is also documented that giraffes don't generally eat leaves higher on the trees. the natural-selection of long necks is still discussed and debated, one theory stating it might be for mating as it is used for fighting and perhaps a longer neck means a stronger individual. however this is purely conjecture as far as I know. As far as fossil evidence, such evidence would be hard to find. These animals live in a savanna, which while not the worse environment for depositing bones it isn't that good either. This is not taking in to account that there would be heavy scavenging. This is not to say it is impossible as there might be some river deposits or perhaps some lakes that could cover up the giraffe quickly enough.

As to your question, no, no one has ever seen a giraffe evolve. This, however, is because it takes a long time. where every micro-evolved trait leads into a macro evolved animal. This is just my conjecture on this but perhaps the special valves micro-evolved first which allowed  the giraffe to grow a longer neck which allowed it to grow bigger and since in the animal kingdom bigger is usually better the giraffe grew to its size today.



#18 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

"No, it  isn't  God is life. God nor the bible claim to have created life."

 

So, it doesn't say in the bible that God created the first man from dust?



#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 June 2013 - 10:08 AM

"No, it  isn't  God is life. God nor the bible claim to have created life."

 

So, it doesn't say in the bible that God created the first man from dust?

Megan

 

God, according the   biblical scenario is called "the life giver."  As humans we also similarly pass life to our offspring. The rest of the scripture says,He breathed into Adam the breath of life.

 

As per the OP do you acknowledge that creationism as a theory is  scientific?



#20 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 June 2013 - 11:17 AM

"I suppose you believe thinking evolved . Do you believe that evolution controls our thinking?

If you are honest,you will admit the car was intelligently engineered ! Therefore, intelligent design is a scientific fact and theory-observable, testable and repeatable."

 

How would evolution control thinking? I believe that living beings learn and thinking evolves, or changes, through learning. Language has evolved(or changed) and technology, use of tools, theories, and many other things have evolved(or changed) to suit the new things we learn.  

I do admit that cars were intelligently engineered. And the intelligent design of a car can be tested and repeated. But, the intelligent design of a human has not been observed and repeated. Especially forming a human out of dirt.

[/quote]

But if you think about what you wrote, you are strongly suggesting thaf learning and intelligent can overdid evo.  Evo, according to evo scientists is not intelligent and certainly cannot learn.  The whole reason for the creation  of the evo theory was to promote the idea that intelligence and learning were not necessary for life to come into existence.

 

 

 

Living things reproduce. Non-living things do not reproduce. The process of reproduction is what allows the change. No child is exactly like their parents. There is always a little change every time offspring is produced.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users