Jump to content


Photo

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 April 2017 - 07:13 AM

It's one of those arguments I hear evolutionists argue, and creationists also. It's that famously touted, ever regurgitated complaint; "no evidence would ever convince you."

 

It is a charge I for one can accept as I will explain.

 

The reason you can never convince me macro evolution occurred is because to my mind, it is rationally absurd. I don't say that as an insult. Yes we know that in theist-atheist debate, we all sometimes say things like; "fairytale for adults" or, "your belief in skydaddy", etc...but I don't mean it in that way, I just mean that I myself can't convince my own mind that it would ever be realistic to entertain the notion that lightning zapped some sludge and later on it gave you giraffes and trees.

 

I think this is because the clear facts show a creation. When we look at the creativity of trees, birds, the colour the symmetry, the aesthetics, even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle. These are all clearly invented to be what they are, they just aren't the result of random change. We can clearly see a creative hand at work. An eagle is majestic, a horse is elegant, these are all facts.

 

When I think of the eyeball, Darwin's explanation is preposterous to my mind. Not just because I find it unbelievable as that would only be an argument from incredulity, but rather I would find it irrational in the same way you would ask me to believe superman existed. 

 

That is my example for this thread, a question, and here it is;

 

What evidence would it take to convince you superman existed?

 

The correct answer is, "none", because superman just doesn't exist. In the same way, macro evolution just doesn't exist. yes you can try and make it seem oh so scientific and verified. So what - I'm clever enough to see through that, to the patent truth that it simply did not happen. Why would it? Why would the perfect design of flight feathers just happen to create themselves? It's totally dumb, when the obvious cause is that all of the sophistication is there by clear design.

 

I think on a human level, people deep down, even the evolutionists, know that when they look at what exists on earth it just isn't evolution that done it. They know that this is just the answer science had to come up with so that mankind could follow their own destiny.

 

Why even pretend I am wrong? Come on - deep down you don't believe mud-zapped sludge would lead to giraffes and trees. I know you don't. 

 

You can't kid a kidder.

 

It didn't happen folks, and we all know I'm right. No amount of evidence can force it to be true, because how can it be? Answer; it can't, of course it can't, just like superman can't, which is why it doesn't matter what evidence you show me.



#2 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 21 April 2017 - 08:24 AM

The problem is in the terminology and how it is misused and abused.

 

What I mean is that "evidence" is the same for creationists and evolutionists. We all only have the same material facts to work with ... rocks, fossils, footprints, DNA, etc. That's what evidence is. Creationists and evolutionists alike can look, or should look, at each piece of evidence with an open, unbiased mindset that allows for a rational and logical explanation.

 

Evolutionists, however, have pretty much equated "evidence" with "proof". They use the terms interchangeably. A series of fossils showing the alleged transition from land mammals to whales? There you go, it's proof of evolution. No, it's evidence. The proof of evolution has not been established yet. There could very well be another explanation.

 

So no, there is no "evidence" that could, or even should, persuade a rational and logical person to accept something without proof. And that goes for those who are on opposite sides of the creation/evolution debate.

 

And, please, do mike the courtesy of not sidelining this discussion into a debate about there is no evidence for God. I'm sure he was talking about believing evidence of things in the material world, particularly the proof of evolution.



#3 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 April 2017 - 10:23 PM

It's one of those arguments I hear evolutionists argue, and creationists also. It's that famously touted, ever regurgitated complaint; "no evidence would ever convince you."

 

It is a charge I for one can accept as I will explain.

 

The reason you can never convince me macro evolution occurred is because to my mind, it is rationally absurd. I don't say that as an insult. Yes we know that in theist-atheist debate, we all sometimes say things like; "fairytale for adults" or, "your belief in skydaddy", etc...but I don't mean it in that way, I just mean that I myself can't convince my own mind that it would ever be realistic to entertain the notion that lightning zapped some sludge and later on it gave you giraffes and trees.

 

I think this is because the clear facts show a creation. When we look at the creativity of trees, birds, the colour the symmetry, the aesthetics, even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle. These are all clearly invented to be what they are, they just aren't the result of random change. We can clearly see a creative hand at work. An eagle is majestic, a horse is elegant, these are all facts.

 

When I think of the eyeball, Darwin's explanation is preposterous to my mind. Not just because I find it unbelievable as that would only be an argument from incredulity, but rather I would find it irrational in the same way you would ask me to believe superman existed. 

 

That is my example for this thread, a question, and here it is;

 

What evidence would it take to convince you superman existed?

 

The correct answer is, "none", because superman just doesn't exist. In the same way, macro evolution just doesn't exist. yes you can try and make it seem oh so scientific and verified. So what - I'm clever enough to see through that, to the patent truth that it simply did not happen. Why would it? Why would the perfect design of flight feathers just happen to create themselves? It's totally dumb, when the obvious cause is that all of the sophistication is there by clear design.

 

I think on a human level, people deep down, even the evolutionists, know that when they look at what exists on earth it just isn't evolution that done it. They know that this is just the answer science had to come up with so that mankind could follow their own destiny.

 

Why even pretend I am wrong? Come on - deep down you don't believe mud-zapped sludge would lead to giraffes and trees. I know you don't. 

 

You can't kid a kidder.

 

It didn't happen folks, and we all know I'm right. No amount of evidence can force it to be true, because how can it be? Answer; it can't, of course it can't, just like superman can't, which is why it doesn't matter what evidence you show me.

Congratulations Mike, for portraying your close mindedness, irrationality and bigotry in such an eloquent way.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 April 2017 - 03:00 AM

 

 

Driewerf: Congratulations Mike, for portraying your close mindedness, irrationality and bigotry in such an eloquent way.

 

I think this is an unprovoked personal attack, really. I don't really see the point in some of the highlighted question-begging-epithets you have used. You just want to give a quick attack - you want to let me know your displeasure by calling me names. But the focus of debate should be on the topic in question, you shouldn't argue the person, as that is a diversion-tactic, to remove focus on the information.

 

I think it is perfectly rational to not believe or entertain the notion that basically the most complexly designed micro-city on the planet (the cell) with all of it's machinery, would be created from lightning-zapped sludge and later on lead to giraffes and trees.

 

Can you point me to the direction where I can observe an experiment showing bunnies coming from some slime? My point is - ordinarily no ordinary, intelligent person would ever consider such a notion, so why would this notion be entertainable if it is slowed down? I am not speaking scientifically, I am just speaking about ordinary people reasoning rationally about things which they would consider plausible or feasible, and this as an example should be regarded as implausible to the extreme. 

 

The sophistication of life, is MINDBLOWING. To ever theorise it could create itself, is the quintessential example of, "irrational". Only I don't mean it as an insult/epithet, I simply mean that to ever entertain such a notion, is to entertain something which should be regarded as impossible as the next impossible thing.



#5 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 April 2017 - 04:41 AM

It's one of those arguments I hear evolutionists argue, and creationists also. It's that famously touted, ever regurgitated complaint; "no evidence would ever convince you."

 

It is a charge I for one can accept as I will explain.

Effectively, the conversation is over once you accept that charge. Your closed-mindedness is (although known) still mind boggling. You cannot have any rational conversation of debate with anyone if you state that you cannot be convinced anyway.

 

The reason you can never convince me macro evolution occurred is because to my mind, it is rationally absurd. I don't say that as an insult. Yes we know that in theist-atheist debate, we all sometimes say things like; "fairytale for adults" or, "your belief in skydaddy", etc...but I don't mean it in that way, I just mean that I myself can't convince my own mind that it would ever be realistic to entertain the notion that lightning zapped some sludge and later on it gave you giraffes and trees.

Here you faultly represent what the theory of evolution suggests happened. It is then of course only logical that you do not arrive at the right conclusion.

 

I think this is because the clear facts show a creation. When we look at the creativity of trees, birds, the colour the symmetry, the aesthetics, even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle. These are all clearly invented to be what they are, they just aren't the result of random change. We can clearly see a creative hand at work. An eagle is majestic, a horse is elegant, these are all facts.

Let us see what are facts:

- Superficially, the world show a creation. A more sophisticated view might change that though.

- We can look at the diversity and similarity of trees, birds, the colors, the symmetry, the 'aesthetics', even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle, we see a magnificent diversity indeed.

- These are all clearly what they are. Random change would be a viable (and proven) method to fill in specific needs.

- The creative hand a work is something we (anthropocentrically) impose on our view.

- The eagle being majestic and the horse being elegant are opinions though. But opinions we more or less agree upon, depending on the definitions.

 

When I think of the eyeball, Darwin's explanation is preposterous to my mind. Not just because I find it unbelievable as that would only be an argument from incredulity, but rather I would find it irrational in the same way you would ask me to believe superman existed. 

These claims are different. Darwin's explanation is supported by a mountain of evidence. Superman's existence not only lacks evidence, but has evidence going against it.

 

That is my example for this thread, a question, and here it is;

 

What evidence would it take to convince you superman existed?

 

The correct answer is, "none", because superman just doesn't exist. In the same way, macro evolution just doesn't exist. yes you can try and make it seem oh so scientific and verified. So what - I'm clever enough to see through that, to the patent truth that it simply did not happen. Why would it? Why would the perfect design of flight feathers just happen to create themselves? It's totally dumb, when the obvious cause is that all of the sophistication is there by clear design.

The correct answer is "A direct interaction with this superman would most likely do the trick, if sufficiently thourough". (Let me test his flight abilities, bulletproof, laser eyes, effect of krypton on him etc..)

Unless you of course are just being a hypocrite here and are simply referring to your interpretation of our "God is magic" statements... 

 

It's all an issue of semantics/question begging epithets.

 

An atheist will never refer to God without appealing to a buz-word such as, "magic" or "invisible unicorn", but they would never refer to the possibility of an intelligent God, by comparing God to another dimension or a higgs boson, or an as of yet undiscovered multi-universe.

 

So you have to think cleverly; why do they only compare God and the miraculous to things that either are false or may be false but never compare God to things which may be true, that we don't know about?

...

I'll add my reply (so we don't have to go into that conversation here)

Aren’t you being dishonest here Mike? In our last conversation, in the “things that don’t exist” topic, we choose vampires, a belief that is actually commonly held. You were the one that changed that to “invisible pink unicorns”. And now you are claiming we are comparing God only to things that are blatantly false!  

 

 

I think on a human level, people deep down, even the evolutionists, know that when they look at what exists on earth it just isn't evolution that done it. They know that this is just the answer science had to come up with so that mankind could follow their own destiny.

 

Why even pretend I am wrong? Come on - deep down you don't believe mud-zapped sludge would lead to giraffes and trees. I know you don't. 

 

You can't kid a kidder.

 

It didn't happen folks, and we all know I'm right. No amount of evidence can force it to be true, because how can it be? Answer; it can't, of course it can't, just like superman can't, which is why it doesn't matter what evidence you show me.

What do we call someone who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice?

A bigot.

How do we call behavior where someone ignores the evidence and just goes for what he "feels" is right?

Irrational.

 

It seems driewerf was right all along.



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 April 2017 - 06:12 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Effectively, the conversation is over once you accept that charge. Your closed-mindedness is (although known) still mind boggling. You cannot have any rational conversation of debate with anyone if you state that you cannot be convinced anyway.

 

That's simply not the case. Think about it - I can listen to a person give their argument for why a flat earth exists or superman, but I already know apriori, that they are effectively delusional, to entertain something impossible to begin with. A creation can't create itself. 

 

Sure, you can try and convince me a car or helicopter made itself. I won't accept any argument/evidence you give, because I know that to ever accept "evidence", as proof of such a thing, would be absurd, would it not?

 

Or are you saying you are open to the possibility of superman and a flat earth? Just admit it, you would understand all the arguments/evidence for a flat earth but you would still realise it would be insane to accept that evidence as meaning the earth is flat.

 

Heck I can even admit that even if a flat earther learnt some scientific gibberish to baffle me with science, he could probably beat me in a debate about it because I haven't got his knowledge.

 

Isn't that the trick? But baffling me with science isn't going to mean it is rational to contemplate superman's existence, just as the giraffes coming from slime, no matter how much you varnish with minutia of biology, won't mean it happened.

 

This is what I am saying - that no quality of evidence, no exclusive evidence, can allow you to affirm-the-consequent. There is no proof, and only proof will cut the mustard.

 

 

 

Fjuri: Here you faultly represent what the theory of evolution suggests happened. It is then of course only logical that you do not arrive at the right conclusion.

 

But I would say it is the opposite. Darwin basically came up with the belief that what I described happened - that lightning zapped slime occurred, and later you got giraffes and trees, and all the, "science" is just VARNISH, because when you peel away the, "science" effectively you are left with an irrational belief, that the most sophisticated intelligently designed things on the planet, created themselves.

 

Whether you like it or not, that is ultimately the belief, that for no reason whatsoever, life created itself in all of it's various purposeful wonder, brilliance, an genius designs. I am saying I have no rational reason to ever entertain that notion whatever evidence you show me.

 

 

Fjuri: What do we call someone who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice?

A bigot.

How do we call behavior where someone ignores the evidence and just goes for what he "feels" is right?

Irrational.

 

It seems driewerf was right all along.

 

So I am intolerant and a bigot because I just, "feel" the earth isn't flat? Because I can tell you right now, in a debate with a flat-earther, I would lose the debate. You know why? I have no education in the area that would allow me to calculate whether the earth is flat or not, but I know that there is no rational reason to believe it is flat. I only need to see photographs of the earth from space, as sufficient proof it is not flat, because I don't believe computers, however sophisticated, could create those images. 

 

So in regards to a flat earth, superman, and evolution, to my mind I am only being honest, they all seem equally impossible. I choose the word, "impossible" so as to avoid epithets such as, "absurd", or, "ridiculous" because I know that annoys people. But do you agree I still have to use some kind of descriptor?

 

Why am I prejudiced for example? That's an epithet? Why am I intolerant?

 

These are just words you use so as to paint me a certain way, so as to ignore my reasonings. (argumentum ad hominem)

 

My argument is that I have no reason to treat evolution as possible despite any facts you can show me, and obviously I believe those evidences/facts can be explained without evolution, and this means I am intolerant and prejudiced?

 

Really? :rolleyes:

 

I think that just shows that I annoy you because I am correct, and the only way you can win in your own mind is by doing the predictable thing humans do when cornered - which is to lash out by insulting me.

 

You're free to believe those things about me if you want but that won't make them true. Your thoughts are created by you, and that doesn't mean reality changes just because you think some things about me. I will still be X, even if you think I am P.

 

CLUE to topic; This topic isn't really an intellectual topic, nor is it really about logic or science. It's really a personal statement when you think about it, because I am referring to "me". Seems to me you and Driewerf are being control freaks by basically getting frustrated because you can't change, "me" so your answer is to abase/insult, "me".

 

But that's crazy, I'm not even being intolerant or stopping you from believing evolution, I'm just saying that there is a reality called, "me", and I can't tell, "me" to believe something "me" knows, just isn't possible. Something which never would be entertained.

 

In other words, I am not accepting Satan's terms. "But did God say", is the same as, "but did God create?" Of course He did - all I have to do to prove it to myself is go and look at a tree.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#7 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 23 April 2017 - 08:52 AM

If macro evolution is so incredible why accept microevolution?

#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 April 2017 - 10:15 AM

Mike, you've ignored the part that demolished your original post.

 

It is an argument from incredulity and you know it. That's why you picked the superman comparison.

 

That's simply not the case. Think about it - I can listen to a person give their argument for why a flat earth exists or superman, but I already know apriori, that they are effectively delusional, to entertain something impossible to begin with. 

When Enoch made his flat earth post. I looked at every single argument to see what it was about until I understood it to refute it or accept it.

 

A creation can't create itself. 

That's begging the question. Why call it a creation if its not created?

Lets call it the universe. Can a universe create itself? Would it need creating? We only know it is.

 

Heck I can even admit that even if a flat earther learnt some scientific gibberish to baffle me with science, he could probably beat me in a debate about it because I haven't got his knowledge.

 

Isn't that the trick? But baffling me with science isn't going to mean it is rational to contemplate superman's existence, just as the giraffes coming from slime, no matter how much you varnish with minutia of biology, won't mean it happened.

The honest answer would then be: "I don't know, but personally I don't believe it. I know it is an argument from incredulity, but that's how I roll on that subject".

 

But I would say it is the opposite. Darwin basically came up with the belief that what I described happened - that lightning zapped slime occurred, and later you got giraffes and trees, and all the, "science" is just VARNISH, because when you peel away the, "science" effectively you are left with an irrational belief, that the most sophisticated intelligently designed things on the planet, created themselves.

 

Whether you like it or not, that is ultimately the belief, that for no reason whatsoever, life created itself in all of it's various purposeful wonder, brilliance, an genius designs. I am saying I have no rational reason to ever entertain that notion whatever evidence you show me.

Well, basically we're made up from invisible particles ... How irrational is that.

The air, is also made up from particles ... How irrational is that.

These particles are attracted to each other, and the more particles, the larger the attraction ... How irrational is that.

White light can be split into red, orange, yellow, green, blue, ... How irrational is that.

With science varnish it gets explained, so it becomes rational, but hey, who would do that? That's only for the intellectuata.. Let the plebs be content with the "simplified" versions of these theories.

 

 

CLUE to topic; This topic isn't really an intellectual topic, nor is it really about logic or science. It's really a personal statement when you think about it, because I am referring to "me". Seems to me you and Driewerf are being control freaks by basically getting frustrated because you can't change, "me" so your answer is to abase/insult, "me".

 

But that's crazy, I'm not even being intolerant or stopping you from believing evolution, I'm just saying that there is a reality called, "me", and I can't tell, "me" to believe something "me" knows, just isn't possible. Something which never would be entertained.

 

In other words, I am not accepting Satan's terms. "But did God say", is the same as, "but did God create?" Of course He did - all I have to do to prove it to myself is go and look at a tree.

We do realize that; The post is about your behavior, and we're labeling behavior we've seen. I documented my post with it.



#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 April 2017 - 11:58 AM

- We can look at the diversity and similarity of trees, birds, the colors, the symmetry, the 'aesthetics', even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle, we see a magnificent diversity indeed.
- These are all clearly what they are. Random change would be a viable (and proven) method to fill in specific needs.

there is no evidence whatsoever that small accumulating random changes resulted in todays biological diversity.
there is NO "mountain of evidence" that supports such nonsense.

#10 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:21 PM

there is no evidence whatsoever that small accumulating random changes resulted in todays biological diversity.
there is NO "mountain of evidence" that supports such nonsense.

Off topic:

CLUE to topic; This topic isn't really an intellectual topic, nor is it really about logic or science. It's really a personal statement when you think about it, because I am referring to "me". Seems to me you and Driewerf are being control freaks by basically getting frustrated because you can't change, "me" so your answer is to abase/insult, "me".



#11 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:34 PM

Off topic:

it was in reply to your assertions, and to the phrase "small gradual accumulations".
remember, koonin did not assign a timeline to the appearance of animal phyla, even after being questioned by one of the reviewers.
interesting little scenario, wouldn't you say?

your reply was to mike, i simply pointed out where and how it's wrong.

#12 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 April 2017 - 02:52 PM

it was in reply to your assertions, and to the phrase "small gradual accumulations".remember, koonin did not assign a timeline to the appearance of animal phyla, even after being questioned by one of the reviewers.interesting little scenario, wouldn't you say?your reply was to mike, i simply pointed out where and how it's wrong.


I was talking about genetic algorithms in general, not about evolution specifically. Koonin has nothing to do with it.

#13 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:50 PM

That is my example for this thread, a question, and here it is;
 
What evidence would it take to convince you superman existed?
 
The correct answer is, "none", because superman just doesn't exist. In the same way, macro evolution just doesn't exist. yes you can try and make it seem oh so scientific and verified. So what - I'm clever enough to see through that, to the patent truth that it simply did not happen. Why would it? Why would the perfect design of flight feathers just happen to create themselves? It's totally dumb, when the obvious cause is that all of the sophistication is there by clear design.

you are forgetting something mike.
the cell has an "inborn intelligence", and this is probably the "information" that everyone speaks of when they mention abiogenesis.

you can rest assured that the living cell is at least 3 times more complex than previously thought.

i guess what i'm saying here is, what would you expect from a full blown genetics engineering lab.
even that is too simple.
the cell apparently has the ability to "rewrite its software" on the fly.
each cell division has a slightly different "genetic makeup".
i believe that science is on the brink of one of the greatest discoveries ever made in regards to the life sciences.
this discovery will not only explain the cell, but it will also play an important role in figuring out the brain.

#14 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:31 AM

If macro evolution is so incredible why accept microevolution?


I don't, And I don't know why Creationists allow the Intellectual Fascists to control the message by adopting their deceptive trick of "Micro Evolution" (As I have explained over and over on this thread.... (POST 137020 for example)

Gould said..

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Yup, I especially like this part where he freely admits that we DONT observe MACRO "Evolution" in the fossil record any more than we see it today!! Only "MICRO" "Evolution.. That is EXACTLY What he is saying here.. The problem is, Variation and Adaptation IS NOT EVOLUTION in any way shape or form!! Dishonest Atheists have pulled a "Bait and Switch"/ Slick Marketing Ploy and included their deceptive little word "Micro"Evolution into each and every public school biology textbook in order to indoctrinate and brainwash the naive, gullible kids into believing that there is such a thing as Evolution that is observable if we just slip in the purposely duplicitous word MicroEvolution and sell it to the public....

Finches beaks, Dog Variation, Moth Colors, Bear Coat Lengths and Bacterial Resistance are NOT EVOLUTION...


"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:14 AM

It's one of those arguments I hear evolutionists argue, and creationists also. It's that famously touted, ever regurgitated complaint; "no evidence would ever convince you."
 
It is a charge I for one can accept as I will explain.
 
The reason you can never convince me macro evolution occurred is because to my mind, it is rationally absurd. I don't say that as an insult. Yes we know that in theist-atheist debate, we all sometimes say things like; "fairytale for adults" or, "your belief in skydaddy", etc...but I don't mean it in that way, I just mean that I myself can't convince my own mind that it would ever be realistic to entertain the notion that lightning zapped some sludge and later on it gave you giraffes and trees.
 
I think this is because the clear facts show a creation. When we look at the creativity of trees, birds, the colour the symmetry, the aesthetics, even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle. These are all clearly invented to be what they are, they just aren't the result of random change. We can clearly see a creative hand at work. An eagle is majestic, a horse is elegant, these are all facts.
 
When I think of the eyeball, Darwin's explanation is preposterous to my mind. Not just because I find it unbelievable as that would only be an argument from incredulity, but rather I would find it irrational in the same way you would ask me to believe superman existed. 
 
That is my example for this thread, a question, and here it is;
 
What evidence would it take to convince you superman existed?
 
The correct answer is, "none", because superman just doesn't exist. In the same way, macro evolution just doesn't exist. yes you can try and make it seem oh so scientific and verified. So what - I'm clever enough to see through that, to the patent truth that it simply did not happen. Why would it? Why would the perfect design of flight feathers just happen to create themselves? It's totally dumb, when the obvious cause is that all of the sophistication is there by clear design.
 
I think on a human level, people deep down, even the evolutionists, know that when they look at what exists on earth it just isn't evolution that done it. They know that this is just the answer science had to come up with so that mankind could follow their own destiny.
 
Why even pretend I am wrong? Come on - deep down you don't believe mud-zapped sludge would lead to giraffes and trees. I know you don't. 
 
You can't kid a kidder.
 
It didn't happen folks, and we all know I'm right. No amount of evidence can force it to be true, because how can it be? Answer; it can't, of course it can't, just like superman can't, which is why it doesn't matter what evidence you show me.


Hello MTW Even though we both realize you are 100% Correct with this, I personally prefer a more nuanced approach as to avoid allowing closed minded, irrational bigots to project their philosophical thought patterns onto creationists ( As Driewerf has done in such an eloquent fashion)

I simply state that before we even enter into what kind of hypothetical evidence would convince me that I am an Accidental Ape that evolved from a worm over the course of 1 Billion years, They must FIRST Change the Evidence that EXISTS AGAINST IT!!

For example, The fossil record is so abismal to the Darwinian Paradigm, that even several of the most prominent pro Darwin Paleontologists ever known have said that no transitionals exist to support "Macro" Evolution.... ("Micro" Evolution IS NOT EVOLUTION)
So they must ELIMINATE the Fossil record from sudden explosion of nearly every type of Phyla followed by Complete Status into a DIFFERENT fossil record with millions of examples of partially / half / Mostly formed eyes, limbs, organs, claws, bones, heads, etc..

Secondly, they would need to show examples of Spontaneous Generation, Even though we have a Scientific Law Against it... Without Spontaneous Generation, (And Darwinists MUST BELIEVE That it did happen.. At least ONCE!!) "Evolution" CANT EVEN GET STARTED..So they must ELIMINATE THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS..

Thirdly, they must find a way to ELIMINATE Dinosaur Red Blood Cells..
as until they do, EVERYONE with a brain KNOWS that they cant last even 100,000 Years...

And, They must ELIMINATE all of the Carbon 14 tests on Dino Remains that show Measureable Carbon 14 Content as after less than 50,000 years there CANT BE ANY.!!

Also, They must ELIMINATE the 400 MYO "Living Fossils" because how can they expect ANYONE to believe that during the same time, same planet, and same environment, While man was "Evolving" from a Sea Worm, All of these other creatures Evolved ZERO!!!!

This is just for Starters.. THEN we can start to entertain thoughts of hypothetical evidence that would convince me that the hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna is somehow true...

Hey Darwinists... Time to rev up that Time Machine and go back and change a few things..


"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:50 AM

Thanks BK What If, and everyone, for your thoughts on this matter.

 

What I will say is perhaps it is more difficult to describe my position than I first thought. Perhaps a better way to put it is that for people to agree that X is true, first you must convince them it is possible. It seems to me people were convinced of Darwinism, because of scientific varnish. He basically gave explanations to make the preposterous SOUND plausible. 

 

But no circumstantial evidence coupled with mind-boggling credulous conjectural scenarios is shown to support it, because they can never under-gird an impossibility. (so basically evolution is an argument-from-credulity in it's true form; "we believe evolution therefore it did happen".)

 

There simply aren't any rational reasons to believe that the sophistication of the design could ever be responsible for itself, either piece by piece or as a whole.

 

Let's test the two scenarios by the analogy of a brick wall. If we say a brick wall built itself whole, there would never be a reason to believe that it would happen because it has no physical reason to exist, the same as a primordial cell, if it somehow appears whole, in some rudimentary form. Yet a brick wall is immensely more simple, but proteins and aminos, like bricks, have no intelligence nor any life purpose or designer ability in them.

 

Now let's take it piece by piece. We find SOME brick wall, and we suppose it built itself. Okay then, even if we say it did, what physical reason would it have to carry on with the build, and who is carrying on with the build? Not entropy - it breaks things down, but there is no natural force that designs a cell or a brick wall apart from intelligence, which means it is reasonably something impossible.

 

If a cell was built by chance, why would it continue to then build itself? "It" doesn't exist, and forces only exist that break it down.

 

People need to think it through intelligently. There simply are no physical reasons for an immensely sophisticated cell to ever exist, there are no examples of anything ever designing itself from scratch for physical reasons, things which have function, specified complexity, information, contingency planning, correct materials, viability, etc...Darwin had to break things down to a cell-level, so as to make it conceivable that giraffes and trees could invent themselves. but he didn't ever bargain that the cell-level would be as complex as a giraffe, and modern science has now simply shown his outdated belief was wrong because the cell is just as complex in it's design, whereas his idea was that it was a simple protoplasm. But the snowball effect now means that most people accept evolution, and they don't examine the initial absurdities in his book, which science now admits are absurdities, such as the protoplasm, or whatever he called it. (a simple blob, he thought the cell was).

 

Time is used to make things seem possible. Time is the great invisibility cloak, false things can hide behind.



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:39 AM

Thanks BK What If, and everyone, for your thoughts on this matter.

 

What I will say is perhaps it is more difficult to describe my position than I first thought. Perhaps a better way to put it is that for people to agree that X is true, first you must convince them it is possible. It seems to me people were convinced of Darwinism, because of scientific varnish. He basically gave explanations to make the preposterous SOUND plausible. 

 

But no circumstantial evidence coupled with mind-boggling credulous conjectural scenarios is shown to support it, because they can never under-gird an impossibility. (so basically evolution is an argument-from-credulity in it's true form; "we believe evolution therefore it did happen".)

 

There simply aren't any rational reasons to believe that the sophistication of the design could ever be responsible for itself, either piece by piece or as a whole.

 

Let's test the two scenarios by the analogy of a brick wall. If we say a brick wall built itself whole, there would never be a reason to believe that it would happen because it has no physical reason to exist, the same as a primordial cell, if it somehow appears whole, in some rudimentary form. Yet a brick wall is immensely more simple, but proteins and aminos, like bricks, have no intelligence nor any life purpose or designer ability in them.

 

Now let's take it piece by piece. We find SOME brick wall, and we suppose it built itself. Okay then, even if we say it did, what physical reason would it have to carry on with the build, and who is carrying on with the build? Not entropy - it breaks things down, but there is no natural force that designs a cell or a brick wall apart from intelligence, which means it is reasonably something impossible.

 

If a cell was built by chance, why would it continue to then build itself? "It" doesn't exist, and forces only exist that break it down.

 

People need to think it through intelligently. There simply are no physical reasons for an immensely sophisticated cell to ever exist, there are no examples of anything ever designing itself from scratch for physical reasons, things which have function, specified complexity, information, contingency planning, correct materials, viability, etc...Darwin had to break things down to a cell-level, so as to make it conceivable that giraffes and trees could invent themselves. but he didn't ever bargain that the cell-level would be as complex as a giraffe, and modern science has now simply shown his outdated belief was wrong because the cell is just as complex in it's design, whereas his idea was that it was a simple protoplasm. But the snowball effect now means that most people accept evolution, and they don't examine the initial absurdities in his book, which science now admits are absurdities, such as the protoplasm, or whatever he called it. (a simple blob, he thought the cell was).

 

Time is used to make things seem possible. Time is the great invisibility cloak, false things can hide behind.

 

"People need to think it through intelligently." :yes:

 

 

You have just described the very ESSENCIAL problem with the whole Naturalistic worldview in a nutshell... :yoda:

 

 

People DO need to think it through intelligently.... :think:

 

HOWEVER

 

If people DID just that, This website wouldn't exist... :kaffeetrinker:

 

 

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#18 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:57 AM

Gould said..

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

i seriously doubt if gould ever made such a comment.
gould knew the story about the cambrian, he knew there are no detectable intermediates between animal phyla.
as a matter of fact, almost everything koonin said about evolution, gould already knew.
 

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

this man probably doesn't know that the cell has a genetics engineering capability along with an "intelligence" to carry out the task.

#19 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:12 AM

People DO need to think it through intelligently.... :think:
 
HOWEVER
 
If people DID just that, This website wouldn't exist... :kaffeetrinker:


People have thought it through intelligently and nature speaks clearly and conclusively that naïve literal belief in Genesis is false. Your style of incredulous ranting, circular reasoning and constant ad hominem attacks is not worthy of mature debate.

Why don't you try examining your own beliefs with a bit of objectivity for once ? Oh no you won't because the Bible's true because the Bible says its true and it doesn't matter what nature shows you.
 



#20 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:17 AM

i seriously doubt if gould ever made such a comment.
gould knew the story about the cambrian, he knew there are no detectable intermediates between animal phyla.
as a matter of fact, almost everything koonin said about evolution, gould already knew.


Gould wasn't talking about transitions between phyla. There are major groups within phyla you know.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users