Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Plausible?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 07:33 AM

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

 

Attached File  evo p-take.jpg   57.47KB   3 downloads


  • Blitzking likes this

#2 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:13 PM

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

 

attachicon.gifevo p-take.jpg

 

Exactly! AND you are already letting them have the assumption that the "Earliest" creatures were somehow magically able to evolve themselves from MUD!  It takes 100 times the faith to believe in the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man than it does in the book of Genesis..

 

So, just to make it clear, we have the following models..

 

(1) Slow plodding incremental Darwinian Evolution...

(2) Punctuated Equilibrium and Hopeful Monsters...

(3) 500 MYO "Living Fossils"

 

So therefore "Evolution" is

 

(1) Slow

(2) Fast

(3) Static

 

See how easy it is when one writes up a Science Fiction novel About The Past?

You get to make it up as you go along! After all.... Who is Going to PROVE YOU WRONG!!



#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 July 2016 - 07:05 PM

Mud-to-Magistrate Evolution sounds and looks plausible, until you start thinking about it. 

 

I take the guess you are arguing that, when Amoeba-to-Artist took almost half a billion years to happen, why did there not happen much half a billion year before that? I think that's valid. But I guess the excuse will be that "something happened" between the phases, that was "a real game changer".

 

They can keep you guessing all the time whether that is really the case and whether that is really causal in the matter. Until they're confronted with the next problem, and then they start over again. They don't insist on certainty, or so they say, but they get pretty pissed, when you challenge their narrative and world view. Lot's of people's belief in Evolution depends on accepting a number of premises or what premises they would be excluding a priori. 



#4 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 25 July 2016 - 07:06 AM

You expect me to believe that you flew to a different continent in 12 hours, when I haven't moved more than 20 miles in that time? Hogwash!
  • GodlessGamer likes this

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 July 2016 - 10:19 AM

 

 

Popoi: You expect me to believe that you flew to a different continent in 12 hours, when I haven't moved more than 20 miles in that time? 

 

The difference being that with your example there are two stories. Planes can fly and they can stand still, which is a proven fact. What are the proven facts of life from the fossils? Answer: that they reproduce according to kind. If you don't believe me, see my "list of unchanged organisms" thread.

 

Ergo, your plane is not analogous because plane-flight is proven, evolution isn't, so it still remains implausible to believe that in 400 million years jellyfish would remain jellyfish and have no evolutionary, "need" to change, yet all of those other creatures that are in stable environments, needed to change to the level of an immensely bizarre story.

 

Like Blitzking said, evo has any ability the evolutionists creates for it.

 

It's a contradiction. If all of those cambrian forms haven't changed then why would all of that macro-evolution happen in those other areas to just an extreme degree of overkill without a trace?

 

Doesn't matter what you say, it's rationally incredulous. Deep down I think you must know it is.



#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 July 2016 - 07:41 AM

Is this another topic where no real substance is posted?

 

Ergo, your plane is not analogous because plane-flight is proven, evolution isn't, so it still remains implausible to believe that in 400 million years jellyfish would remain jellyfish and have no evolutionary, "need" to change, yet all of those other creatures that are in stable environments, needed to change to the level of an immensely bizarre story.

What stable environments?



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 July 2016 - 09:07 AM

Is this another one-liner from Fjuri? :P



#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:04 AM

Is this another one-liner from Fjuri? :P

That's as much text as your original post..

So far my replies here in this topic contained 2 ;)



#9 nnjamerson

nnjamerson

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 November 2016 - 11:16 AM

"What are the proven facts of life from the fossils? Answer: that they reproduce according to kind."

 

Erm no. It's that descendants (children etc) are typically slightly different from ancestors (parents etc). 

 

Even in a single generation of say humans not all children vary from each other, and also vary in their similarity to their parents. Some resemble parents closely, others are slightly more different. 

 

So given a longer period of time and many more generations, some lineages (e.g. family lines) might become radically altered over time, while other lineages don't vary so much.

 

Going back to the early days of life before say pre 480 mya, that during that 'earlier; time the complexity within cell is predicted to have changed remarkably from the earliest 'proto-cells'(in essence just some replicating material and a bag to contain that) into highly complex structures, e.g. with increasing differentiation (compartmentalisation) into structural subareas (organelles for example), increasingly complex chains of chemical processing structures (protein cycles etc), increasingly complex external signalling and detection (external binding proteins), increasingly complex internal transport systems (e.g. to move broken down ingested things within the cell) etc .... it's simply madness to suggest 'nothing' happened for the first few million years after cells first formed. 



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 November 2016 - 12:09 PM

 

 

NNJamerson: Erm no. It's that descendants (children etc) are typically slightly different from ancestors (parents etc).

 

Sorry, but children changing slightly from their parents, if that is a change accumulating, could be seen in King Tut. That change is actually the variety provided by the heterozygosity in the already existing gene pool.

 

The amount of variability from already-existing information is 10504

 

"with humans, the mothers and fathers halves each have 25,000 genes. ...humans have an average heterozygosity of 6.7%.This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 1,675 heterozygous loci overall...so there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original kinds could each give rise to very different varieties." - Dr Sarfati pg 44, The Greatest Hoax on Earth.

 

But to assume that those small changes you talk about, are leading somewhere, I am afraid is a non-sequitur, they are simply the expression of genes, for one allele could be dormant or recessive and another can be dominant, in regards to that locus, or you can get a combination. So this is proven genetics.

 

Conclusion: this proven variability in genetics can be shown to be the natural shuffling of loci, meaning we don't need any kind of evolutionary explanation for the variability you are talking about, as the explanation is a shuffling of existing information.

 

So much for your argument that because of superficial changes with each generation, this somehow means evolution. The small changes with each different generation comes because each father and mother is unique when combined together, as no other people on earth are that mother and father. Also, the shuffling of alleles, be they recessive, dominant, or merged, are also random, meaning the changes in the children are logically guaranteed, and it has nothing to do with any evolution because this variability is always guaranteed even without any evolution.

 

:acigar:

 

 

 

.NNJ: .. it's simply madness to suggest 'nothing' happened for the first few million years after cells first formed. 

 

It's simply madness to believe that NNJamerson didn't play games as a child, for all of those thousands of years of his childhood.



#11 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 November 2016 - 11:18 PM

is evolution plausible?
it depends on how you define evolution.
if you take evolution to mean a ground up approach (molecules to man) no, evolution is not plausible.
there are too many "reactions" that will need to happen and the starting and/or ending products will not be what is needed (a wrong or misfolded proteine for example)

if you define evolution to mean a change in DNA from a mother cell then yes, evolution happens every day.

if you define evolution as some kind of gradual, accumulating, and optimizing process then no.

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 November 2016 - 06:19 AM

"What if", you are quite right, it does depend upon the definition. I would define evolution as macro-evolution because that is it's most general meaning. If the scientific community changed their definition to changes to DNA and changes in allele frequencies in gene pools, as long as they don't include molecules-to-man then I could accept that definition. But they don't define it that way, and the semantics used by atheists and evolutionists online, leads them to abusing the term so that they can indulge in equivocation.

 

The most famous example of this bait-and-switch tactic, is Richard Dawkins, on camera, asking scientists for the people watching, "is evolution a fact?" To which the scientists will say "oh yes, absolutely." But whether Dawkins does it wittingly or unwittingly, the fact is the "fact" the scientists are referring to, is highly likely to be a change in the frequency of genes in any given population, natural selection, and basically micro-evolution.

 

The picture in the opening message shows how unreasonable macro-evolution is to believe given that in 500 million alleged years, jellyfish became jellyfish and snails became snails but we are asked also to believe that a fish became an amphibian and amphibian became a reptile, reptiles became mammals, mammals changed their minds got into the sea and became whales, some became dugong-progenitors, but a relative of dugongs changed their mind and went back to land to have a relative with elephants, which changed their mind and evolved back into the sea eventually became dugongs. Meanwhile a dinosaur became a sparrow which became tweety pie. Oh the last part about tweetie pie is wrong, but if we include tweetie pie will it really make this story I am telling you, any less absurd in it's obvious fiction?

 

If the alternative is that the Lord God made all life, as evidenced by the innumerable teaming creative things that exist, is that really absurd? Granted it can be hard to imagine a person that can't fully be defined but then had you never seen a squid before or an octopus, would you not believe it an absurd fiction from a monster movie? God is only unbelievable because we can't fathom who He is fully, because of our finite minds, but evolution is just plain absurd.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users