Jump to content


Photo

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#61 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:37 PM

Why are there so many endemic species on islands ?

interesting observation.
have any idea how these 300 species can be explained with natural selection?
remember, we are talking about an island.
  • Blitzking likes this

#62 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:26 PM

Calm down old boy, you'll give yourself a hernia. I don't know anyone who is YEC, none of my friends, colleagues or family. As far as I know they all accept evolution as true. It's a bit different here in England than in America, because the vast majority of parents don't you shove bible literalism down the throats of their kids and get consumed into the culture of believe or you're going to Hell. I also know no one who is "confused, hopeless or drug riddled" and I'm pretty sure Americans who accept evolution don't have a propensity for these things either.
Show me the studies that prove evolutionists can be categorised in this way or admit your foaming at the mouth rant is baseless.
If people can't cope with the thought of nothingness when they die then that's probably going to be a factor in why they believe but has no bearing on that belief actually being true. Just enjoy your life and be nice to people and the planet, if God consigns you to hell for that then that's a very poor reflection on his character I reckon and he should take a good hard look at himself and maybe have some counselling for anger issues.


Do you agree they are different species ? Why are there so many endemic species on islands ?


For one thing "Species" is a man made construct as were "Junk DNA" False, "Vestigial organs" Myth, "Horse evolution" Fraud, Etc.. The Bible uses the word "Kind" not species.. Endemic could just be a loss of genetic information, I certainly dont see the genetic information that is gained do you? but, Again, I just dont see the "evolution" when you have 2500 "Species" of a certain kind of fish.. (Chiclids).. Also, (What If) kind of put a huge damper on your concept when he brought up "Natural Selection" OUCH.. That was absolutely brutal....

Anyway, Why dont you ask your "Non YEC" Friends this simple question that NO ONE has been able to give me a coherent answer to..

Mans has10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems that have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which would have been the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Liver fourth? Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? Which would be first? A bag of skin with a stomach in it? Whats next? Remember, this is a real discussion about real events, Not Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.. A bag of skin with a Brain with lungs? Throw in a Liver next? Then a Heart? Pancreas? I am serious about this, please dont just dismiss it, lets try to visualize a plausible pathway to Man.. We are Irreducibly complex.. (Please dont try to prove me wrong by removing one of your 10 Vital organs..)

This stuff should be basic Evolution 101 and the FIRST thing that should have been thought through before even going one step further with the hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna!!


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

(Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities

#63 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2017 - 12:52 AM

Mans has10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems that have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.

this must be part of the "information which must be accounted for" in regards to abiogenesis.
the cell MUST possess some kind of intelligence to bring this type of stuff about.

i'm still trying to get an adequate handle on what this information is, but it must be some kind of "game plan" and it must be accounted for.

epigenetics can explain some of this, but i believe this will present an impossible scenario to how life came about in the first place.

#64 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2017 - 06:46 AM

if i'm correct, the law of biogenesis says "life comes from life".
the above has never been shown to be false.

That's not at all the same thing as being shown to be true.
 

every observation science has made supports biogenesis, every single one.
science has NEVER witnessed life coming from non life, even after countless thousands of observations.

Biogenesis doesn't answer the question of the origin of life. We know something must have happened that we haven't yet observed.
 

this is an assumption popoi, a logical assumption to be sure, but an assumption nonetheless.

Which part? We know how life comes from life (reproduction), and we know that the universe does not have an infinite history of being able to support life. With those two together, we know there must be a finite history of life, and that if you trace the ancestry of any given organism, eventually you must reach an organism that did not originate through reproduction.
 

it isn't just "a handful of experiments".
science has thrown its best engineering minds to the task and dedicated enormous resources to solving this problem.
and they have failed, and furthermore science has no clue as to how life came about.


I'll throw it on the pile with the rest of the scientific investigations that failed until they succeeded.

#65 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2017 - 06:49 AM

Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER??

Yes. This has been explained to you multiple times.

#66 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2017 - 08:31 AM

Biogenesis doesn't answer the question of the origin of life. We know something must have happened that we haven't yet observed.

exactly.
the question is, what is this "something"?
the most logical ASSUMPTION would be abiogenesis.
but yet science cannot duplicate it, despite having a working model to work from.
even given the head start of having the purified "starting material" (amino acids and so on).
 

Which part? We know how life comes from life (reproduction), and we know that the universe does not have an infinite history of being able to support life. With those two together, we know there must be a finite history of life, and that if you trace the ancestry of any given organism, eventually you must reach an organism that did not originate through reproduction.

this certainly seems to be the case doesn't it.
the thing is, you are automatically ruling out god, among other things, without sufficient cause to do so.
there is nothing anywhere that says the universe didn't just "blossom" into being with all the planets, stars, nebula, space dust, and life, already here.
ridiculous you say?
there is nothing more ridiculous than the effect preceding the cause or that particles are waves, but yet that is what quantum physics says.
this sort of thing is exactly why science papers are revised to exclude "allusion to ID".
for some reason, these morons are so adamant about this that they have resorted to legal action.
you can take it to the bank popoi that there are far more parallels to the bible than science is telling us.
we have NO CHOICE but to accept what science says about the size and scope of the universe.

the person that discovered the "radioactive timeline" published his results and it almost immediately underwent a major revision.
i can't find any trace of this revision nor his original paper.

I'll throw it on the pile with the rest of the scientific investigations that failed until they succeeded.

i choose to throw it on the following pile:
see that thing over there?
here are all the parts you need to construct it, and you can go over and examine, test, and probe the thing in question.
you have all the resources you need and the best minds to accomplish your goal.
build it.
after 60 years of intense effort, we still have no clue how that thing got here.

life is not some kind of simple thing like a string of beads that gets added to.
this stuff HAD to come together almost instantly.

as if the construction isn't enough, we still have to deal with the question of "information", and this also must be accounted for.

i don't look for it to happen . . . ever.

what does science want you to believe?
we are close to getting the job done, which nonsense, science has no clue as to how life arrived here.




4 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    mike the wiz, popoi