Jump to content


Photo

How Does Evolution Stay On Task?


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#61 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2010 - 02:27 PM

if you claim that because macro-evolution is unobservable in one generation, and that is basis for not believing in it, you might as well believe World War I didnt happen, because chances are you didnt observe that either. you didnt observe Napolean Bonaparte, so he must not have existed. and besides, observe...? if you base your belief on what you can personally observe, when have you observed God creating any plant or animal? creationism is unobservable with NO evidence, macro-evolution is unobservable with LOTS of evidence.

View Post



Again it's ok to have faith that Macro-evolution is real, but your going to need to actually back up your faith statements with actual evidence instead of just saying it's so.

Also Napolean Bonoparte, and World War 1 were both observed historical occurances. Macro-evolution at no point in time has ever been witnessed... the other two have.

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 December 2010 - 03:36 PM

if you claim that because macro-evolution is unobservable in one generation, and that is basis for not believing in it, you might as well believe World War I didnt happen, because chances are you didnt observe that either. you didnt observe Napolean Bonaparte, so he must not have existed.

and besides, observe...? if you base your belief on what you can personally observe, when have you observed God creating any plant or animal? creationism is unobservable with NO evidence, macro-evolution is unobservable with LOTS of evidence.

View Post


Yet we have photos and documents pertaining to WWI and Napoleon Bonaparte, these primary historical evidence give credence to their existance.

Evolution on the otherhand has no such evidence. Instead it is an "after-the-fact" idea, an extrapolation of what is observed.

Yes things have the potential to variate, yet can this be extrapolated to the amounts required for evolution?.... Not scientifically it can. Hence evolution is an ideology and a worldview rather than a scientific theory.


You admit it is unobservable, yet it has lots of evidence. Tell me, how do you KNOW evolution has occured when it cannot be observed? Is it because you assume it happens, hence how are assumptions scientific?

I have no problem in people believing evolution, what I do have a problem with is when they say it is science and fact when clearly it doesn't clome close to the standards of empirical viability, (one of these is being observable.... which you admitted evolution doesn't comply with)

#63 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 19 December 2010 - 07:13 PM

Yet we have photos and documents pertaining to WWI and Napoleon Bonaparte, these primary historical evidence give credence to their existance.

Evolution on the otherhand has no such evidence. Instead it is an "after-the-fact" idea, an extrapolation of what is observed.

Yes things have the potential to variate, yet can this be extrapolated to the amounts required for evolution?.... Not scientifically it can. Hence evolution is an ideology and a worldview rather than a scientific theory.
You admit it is unobservable, yet it has lots of evidence. Tell me, how do you KNOW evolution has occured when it cannot be observed? Is it because you assume it happens, hence how are assumptions scientific?

I have no problem in people believing evolution, what I do have a problem with is when they say it is science and fact when clearly it doesn't clome close to the standards of empirical viability, (one of these is being observable.... which you admitted evolution doesn't comply with)

View Post


The problem i see with this, is that photos, documents, these are also things that are after the fact. Even with photos, you still run into the problem of "Was this photo really taken in 1915, during this supposed war?" Could i hear your response to this potential problem?

#64 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 December 2010 - 07:27 PM

The problem i see with this, is that photos, documents, these are also things that are after the fact. Even with photos, you still run into the problem of "Was this photo really taken in 1915, during this supposed war?" Could i hear your response to this potential problem?

View Post


True, yet they have newspapers with the date printed on them... Also they have people who lived during those times, write poems, tell stories, make docos etc.

Nice try, but your logic has failed you.

#65 Bennedict

Bennedict

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montreal, Qc

Posted 19 December 2010 - 10:47 PM

Yet we have photos and documents pertaining to WWI and Napoleon Bonaparte, these primary historical evidence give credence to their existance.

Evolution on the otherhand has no such evidence. Instead it is an "after-the-fact" idea, an extrapolation of what is observed.

Yes things have the potential to variate, yet can this be extrapolated to the amounts required for evolution?.... Not scientifically it can. Hence evolution is an ideology and a worldview rather than a scientific theory.
You admit it is unobservable, yet it has lots of evidence. Tell me, how do you KNOW evolution has occured when it cannot be observed? Is it because you assume it happens, hence how are assumptions scientific?

I have no problem in people believing evolution, what I do have a problem with is when they say it is science and fact when clearly it doesn't clome close to the standards of empirical viability, (one of these is being observable.... which you admitted evolution doesn't comply with)

View Post


this is a fabrication. there IS evidence for evolution, you just have to look for it. apparently evidence in the form of a document is enough to convince you that something is real, even if you didnt observe it - so Darwin's endless pages of evidence would be enough, presumably.

before saying that there is no evidence for evolution, ask yourself when was the last time you visited a university or natural history museum to see if there is or is not evidence? i know i will be frowned upon for not posting any evidence unless specifics by request, but i know first hand how useless such endeavors can be with creationists.

to ask how i am able to assume evolution is possible without observing it... again, there is a million things i have not observed, that doesnt mean they dont exist. have you ever observed pluto? barely anyone has, and all we have is the blurriest of images. does that mean pluto doesnt exist? no, it does because of the huge amount of evidence we have to support the existence of pluto. we have a huge amount of evidence to support evolution as well, and if you were passionate about the issue and open-minded enough, you will take it upon yourself to talk to some professionals.

#66 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 December 2010 - 12:44 AM

this is a fabrication. there IS evidence for evolution, you just have to look for it. apparently evidence in the form of a document is enough to convince you that something is real, even if you didnt observe it - so Darwin's endless pages of evidence would be enough, presumably.

Think about your sentence. The difference in what Gilbot is saying is that there are several sources that give similar plausible firsthand observation of Napolen et al. Darwin is not doing that. He describes animals correctly and then he describes how he thinks they got that way. Darwin is stating his “opinion” of how the animals arrived at being the way he observed them.


before saying that there is no evidence for evolution, ask yourself when was the last time you visited a university or natural history museum to see if there is or is not evidence? i know i will be frowned upon for not posting any evidence unless specifics by request, but i know first hand how useless such endeavors can be with creationists.


Suppose I drop a thousand dollars in your lap and then hastily leave. You may wonder what the money was for since we had no prior discourse. You may muse, “ Maybe he just wanted to give a stranger some money or it could be stolen etc.” By analogy the money is “evidence” but for what? The point is “evidence” has to be connected by an intelligent mind to something. That’s where bias can ensue. From your point of view “evidence” proves evolution—from the creationists point of view the same ‘evidence” proves creationism—now that’s the dilemma—who is right?

to ask how i am able to assume evolution is possible without observing it... again, there is a million things i have not observed, that doesnt mean they dont exist.


Nor does it mean those million of things do exist. As our administrator would say that they do is a faith based statement

have you ever observed pluto? barely anyone has, and all we have is the blurriest of images. does that mean pluto doesnt exist? no, it does because of the huge amount of evidence we have to support the existence of pluto.


Yes I have seen blurry pictures of Pluto and no one is saying Pluto does not exist.

we have a huge amount of evidence to support evolution as well, and if you were passionate about the issue and open-minded
enough, you will take it upon yourself to talk to some professionals.


Actually my comment is the same as the first one. No one has observed evolution. According to evo scientists it takes so long. The “evidence” has been interpreted to represent the idea of evolution being true. It’s pure speculation and is in very much in dispute (especially by me and others).
As far as listening to professionals I have on both sides of the argument. Besides my brain seems to be working okay. I do my own thinking.

We offer you the opportunity to look into creationism. It has some great features, such as actually getting numerous things done in our lifetime. There is no need for long waits.

#67 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 04:57 AM

if you claim that because macro-evolution is unobservable in one generation, and that is basis for not believing in it, you might as well believe World War I didnt happen, because chances are you didnt observe that either. you didnt observe Napolean Bonaparte, so he must not have existed. and besides, observe...?

View Post


This is what known as the “Red Herring” logical fallacy; in that Bennedict is attempting to divert attention from the crux of an argument by introduction of an irrelevant detail, so as to derail the thread.
Here’s the facts:

Macro-evolution has NEVER been observed in ANY generation.
Neither Napoleon Bonaparte nor WWI is applicable, because MANT-MANY reliable “eyewitness” sources have verified the validity of both.

if you base your belief on what you can personally observe, when have you observed God creating any plant or animal? creationism is unobservable with NO evidence, macro-evolution is unobservable with LOTS of evidence.

View Post


This is what is known as a “non sequitur” because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. And that is (based on Bennedict’s line of arguementation) , because you have not observed God creating any plant or animal, macro-evolution must therefore be true; or your faith is great because you believe in God, and yet give me (Bennedict in this case) a hard time about my faith in macro-evolution, since I have not observed it either.

The above is either another attempt to divert from the thread, or just shoddy reasoning.

First – As I stated earlier; Macroevolution has never been observed. Therefore you first line of argument fails.

Second – There are MANY reliable eyewitnesses to the Life, Ministry, Miracles, death, burial and resurrection and further ministry of one Jesus (The Christ). That, plus the Life, Ministry, Miracles and death of his apostles, the Many-Many lines of argument (such as the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument etc…), the many laws and principles of unexplainable origins (for atheistic argumentation) such as the Laws of Logic, Laws of Mathematics (etc…) that greatly support a Designer/Creator, and fly in the face of atheistic evolutionary philosophy. Therefore your second line of argumentation fails.

Third – You’ve overlooked your own faith in macroevolution, while attacking the theist’s faith in a Designer/Creator. Therefore your third line of argumentation fails; because no theist denies their faith in their God; only the so-called “a-theist” denies their faith in order to make their argument.

#68 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 December 2010 - 07:19 AM

this is a fabrication. there IS evidence for evolution, you just have to look for it. apparently evidence in the form of a document is enough to convince you that something is real, even if you didnt observe it - so Darwin's endless pages of evidence would be enough, presumably.

before saying that there is no evidence for evolution, ask yourself when was the last time you visited a university or natural history museum to see if there is or is not evidence? i know i will be frowned upon for not posting any evidence unless specifics by request, but i know first hand how useless such endeavors can be with creationists.

to ask how i am able to assume evolution is possible without observing it... again, there is a million things i have not observed, that doesnt mean they dont exist. have you ever observed pluto? barely anyone has, and all we have is the blurriest of images. does that mean pluto doesnt exist? no, it does because of the huge amount of evidence we have to support the existence of pluto. we have a huge amount of evidence to support evolution as well, and if you were passionate about the issue and open-minded enough, you will take it upon yourself to talk to some professionals.

View Post


Ron and Mike have beat me to it ;)

As mentioned by Mike. Darwins book is his opinion hence cannot contest with eye-witness accounts and videos etc of ACTUAL history.

The last time I visited University was for my Chemistry exam sometime in November.

You're endeavours are only useless as we are unwilling to give in to your assumption-based logic. If you want to pass something off as "scientific", you'd need the empirical evidence to validate such.

I have heard the "pluto" arguement before, (obviously it is posted up on someones evo-blog or something). Just because YOU haven't it changes nothing as other people HAVE, and they can tell you it exists. The flaw in your logic is that NO-ONE at all has observed evolution.

#69 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 December 2010 - 07:59 AM

this is a fabrication. there IS evidence for evolution, you just have to look for it. apparently evidence in the form of a document is enough to convince you that something is real, even if you didnt observe it - so Darwin's endless pages of evidence would be enough, presumably.


Fossils are not empirical evidence, and here's why:

1) Bones are found in layers that both date the same. Only because evolutionist bar any idea of cross contamination of the dating markers from the layer to the fossil.
2) Bones tell you from what species it comes from.
3) Bones don't tell you what they ate, how they lived, or how they died. Anything beyond the point of age dating and species is pure speculation.

before saying that there is no evidence for evolution, ask yourself when was the last time you visited a university or natural history museum to see if there is or is not evidence? i know i will be frowned upon for not posting any evidence unless specifics by request, but i know first hand how useless such endeavors can be with creationists.


You mean museums that show case the speculations of how bones evolved, lived, ate, and died? Museums that have no problem adding evidence that does not exist to convince the visitors?

Posted Image

The actual bones of Lucy which had no feet.

Posted Image

And when the museum was asked why they did this.

Posted Image

It was the normal excuse of: Yes we know but are not going to admit it, and we are to busy to correct our on purpose fraud.

This fraud falls into the same category as Piltdown man.

Posted Image

But on purpose frauds are acceptable as long as the point is made.

to ask how i am able to assume evolution is possible without observing it... again, there is a million things i have not observed, that doesnt mean they dont exist. have you ever observed pluto? barely anyone has, and all we have is the blurriest of images. does that mean pluto doesnt exist? no, it does because of the huge amount of evidence we have to support the existence of pluto. we have a huge amount of evidence to support evolution as well, and if you were passionate about the issue and open-minded enough, you will take it upon yourself to talk to some professionals.

View Post


Pluto does not qualify as a biological process that has to be observed to be empirical.

#70 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:24 AM

The problem i see with this, is that photos, documents, these are also things that are after the fact. Even with photos, you still run into the problem of "Was this photo really taken in 1915, during this supposed war?" Could i hear your response to this potential problem?

View Post


This all goes directly to reputability of the photographer and News source/media outlet that released said evidenced photos. So, unless you have directly refutable evidence that show these photos are not what they seem, you need to provide it.

I would be more concerned with your unsupported relativistic accusations, and insinuations.

#71 Bennedict

Bennedict

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montreal, Qc

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:28 AM

so in other words, macro-evolution is even more difficult to prove compared with pluto. that is true. however, my argument still stands - you have not seen pluto, you have not observed it's orbit, you have not observed it's distance from us, yet you recognize it's existence based sheerly on the EVIDENCE for it. macro-evolution cannot be observed, that would be impossible. luckily enough we have evidence to support that it did happen, in the same way we have evidence to support pluto's peculiar orbit. why the double standard? why arent you radical christians attacking astrophysics? under your attacks on biology, you should have lots to say about astrophysicists "having faith in pluto's orbit" or "Gilese 581 d not being observed", unless you have a biased opinion based on religion which attacks the theory that contradicts your bible. why not attack astrophysic or for heaven's sake, atomic theory. atomic structure has never been observed, yet an entire scientific field relies so heavily on it. the evidence to support our current atomic theory is immense and the same goes for evolutionary theory.

i will agree, the zoo's representation of Lucy was most likely incorrect even slightly, however this does not discount the validity of Lucy as an early human ancestor. Lucy's bones are very convincingly intermediate. Piltdown man is not found in the biology cirriculum and is not believed to be an early human ancestor. we have plenty of other fossils to show our decendants.

#72 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:45 AM

this is a fabrication. there IS evidence for evolution, you just have to look for it. apparently evidence in the form of a document is enough to convince you that something is real, even if you didnt observe it - so Darwin's endless pages of evidence would be enough, presumably.

View Post


Bennedict, if you are going to make an accusation like “this is a fabrication”, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence of its weakness. Basically what you said was a "that's a bunch of baloney", then you went on to provide nothing but your opinion.

Also, Darwin’s “endless pages” were nothing more than mere opinion. I challenge you to provide even one piece of hard evidence from “Darwin's endless pages of evidence” that is actually evidence of macro-evolution.

before saying that there is no evidence for evolution, ask yourself when was the last time you visited a university or natural history museum to see if there is or is not evidence? i know i will be frowned upon for not posting any evidence unless specifics by request, but i know first hand how useless such endeavors can be with creationists.

View Post


I’ve spent over nine years in university (so-far. At different times for different degrees), and have been to many natural history museums. And all I’ve found is nothing more than mere opinion, and religious-like dialogue when it comes to macro-evolution. Therefore, I challenge you as well, to provide this evidence you proclaim to have, but have yet to provide!
So, before you start anymore ad Hominem attacks on Creationists, I suggest you provide the empirical evidences for macro-evolution, you claim to have.

to ask how i am able to assume evolution is possible without observing it...

View Post


That’s called faith…

again, there is a million things i have not observed, that doesnt mean they dont exist. have you ever observed pluto?

View Post


Bad analogy, there’s plenty of evidence for Pluto (no matter how you want to play the "blurry photo" card. There is none for macro-evolution!

http://www.universet...tures-of-pluto/

http://news.national...-best-pictures/

http://www.solarview...m/eng/pluto.htm

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:47 AM

so in other words, macro-evolution is even more difficult to prove compared with pluto.

View Post


No, in plane words... There is no empirical evidence for macro-evolution... period!

#74 Bennedict

Bennedict

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montreal, Qc

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:58 AM

Bennedict, if you are going to make an accusation like “this is a fabrication”, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence of its weakness. Basically what you said was a "that's a bunch of baloney", then you went on to provide nothing but your opinion.

Also, Darwin’s “endless pages” were nothing more than mere opinion. I challenge you to provide even one piece of hard evidence from “Darwin's endless pages of evidence” that is actually evidence of macro-evolution.
I’ve spent over nine years in university (so-far. At different times for different degrees), and have been to many natural history museums. And all I’ve found is nothing more than mere opinion, and religious-like dialogue when it comes to macro-evolution. Therefore, I challenge you as well, to provide this evidence you proclaim to have, but have yet to provide!
So, before you start anymore ad Hominem attacks on Creationists, I suggest you provide the empirical evidences for macro-evolution, you claim to have.
That’s called faith…
Bad analogy, there’s plenty of evidence for Pluto (no matter how you want to play the "blurry photo" card. There is none for macro-evolution!

http://www.universet...tures-of-pluto/

http://news.national...-best-pictures/

http://www.solarview...m/eng/pluto.htm

View Post


Darwin did not note this, but his theory was confirmed over and over again, and is still being confirmed by DNA analysis. this is one of thousands... hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence to support evolution. i already said, if you refuse to take it upon yourself to search for the evidence yourself, why should i waste my time outlining things you are not interested in? i am here to tell you that the evidence is there, it's abundant and it's inarguable. if you refuse to talk to professionals about the issue and still maintain your stance against it, you may stay a creationist. if you wish to learn about the issue, i would suggest getting a "Darwin" fish for your car while you can, they wont last. the point is, talk to these people and get a proper understanding of the issue before concluding that it's wrong.

ad hominem attacks?? ive been very careful to not have any, your forum has a reputation of cracking down the ban hammer, and i wish to not be on the receiving end. some of your other members do get away with them though... i apologize if i let a few slip, ill try a bit harder.

#75 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:22 AM

Darwin did not note this, but his theory was confirmed over and over again, and is still being confirmed by DNA analysis. this is one of thousands... hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence to support evolution. i already said, if you refuse to take it upon yourself to search for the evidence yourself, why should i waste my time outlining things you are not interested in? i am here to tell you that the evidence is there, it's abundant and it's inarguable. if you refuse to talk to professionals about the issue and still maintain your stance against it, you may stay a creationist. if you wish to learn about the issue, i would suggest getting a "Darwin" fish for your car while you can, they wont last. the point is, talk to these people and get a proper understanding of the issue before concluding that it's wrong.

ad hominem attacks?? ive been very careful to not have any, your forum has a reputation of cracking down the ban hammer, and i wish to not be on the receiving end. some of your other members do get away with them though... i apologize if i let a few slip, ill try a bit harder.

View Post


Because that is what a debate is! You don't go to the other side and ask them to give evidence of your claims do you?

#76 Bennedict

Bennedict

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montreal, Qc

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:34 AM

you can debate many ways, gilbo. posting evidence for a theory that people have a pre-disposed opinion against and will clearly never change their way of thinking is slighly pointless, in my opinion. if you have specifics on the evidence, i will respond to it. if you have a request for specific evidence, i will deliver. however, simply saying "there is no evidence for evolution" when there is, is a display of ignorance, sorry to say, and that argument is no better than mine. i have already responded to specifics, if you wish to add more, i will respond but i will not pointlessly ejaculate evidence which you are not interested in.

#77 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:55 AM

Because that is what a debate is! You don't go to the other side and ask them to give evidence of your claims do you?

View Post


There is no need to respond to Bennedict, gilbo, as he was Banned for numerous infractions. Not the least of which was his requesting from you (and anyone else he disagreed with) in post# 78, that which he would not provide. More specifically evidence to back up his claims.

#78 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:59 AM

you can debate many ways, gilbo. posting evidence for a theory that people have a pre-disposed opinion against and will clearly never change their way of thinking is slighly pointless, in my opinion. if you have specifics on the evidence, i will respond to it. if you have a request for specific evidence, i will deliver. however, simply saying "there is no evidence for evolution" when there is, is a display of ignorance, sorry to say, and that argument is no better than mine. i have already responded to specifics, if you wish to add more, i will respond but i will not pointlessly ejaculate evidence which you are not interested in.

View Post


We are asking for evidence to substantiate your claims... If you make no absolute claims, then you won't be asked for evidence for those claims.. Simple.

#79 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:40 PM

So, evolution doesn’t have a hand in guiding, but it does have a hand in rewarding? I’m not sure that the latter makes any more sense than the former.

View Post


Yes and no. Evolution does not do anything because it is a process (and you have pointed this out in previous threads). The creature either survives to reproduce or it does not. It's easier to think of those things as rewards and punishments but really it's neither, it's just life. Evolution does not set out to make birds or butterflies or triceratops or sharks or anything else. It's simply a process by which a creature can change to fit it's environment. Yes it's pretty astounding that creatures such as birds have evolved. That's not enough to push me over to thinking everything was created though.

There may come a time when only bacteria can inhabit this earth. Is evolution rewarding the bacteria and punishing everything else? No. Is evolution guiding life to all become bacteria. No. It's simply the creature that can best fit into it's environment.

#80 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 December 2010 - 02:41 PM

Yes and no.  Evolution does not do anything because it is a process (and you have pointed this out in previous threads).  The creature either survives to reproduce or it does not.  It's easier to think of those things as rewards and punishments but really it's neither, it's just life.  Evolution does not set out to make birds or butterflies or triceratops or sharks or anything else.  It's simply a process by which a creature can change to fit it's environment.  Yes it's pretty astounding that creatures such as birds have evolved.  That's not enough to push me over to thinking everything was created though.

There may come a time when only bacteria can inhabit this earth.  Is evolution rewarding the bacteria and punishing everything else? No.  Is evolution guiding life to all become bacteria.  No.  It's simply the creature that can best fit into it's environment.

View Post

If evo is a process whereby a creature may change to fit it’s environment wouldn’t that mean that the environment might have changed? However, did the environment have to change? Alleged common ancestors have been observed living in the exact same environment that allegedly encouraged their change. They have actually been observed living along side their alleged descendents.

As far as a bird not knowing it was going to be a bird, the small step argument gets into a lot of problems. All those small steps seem to be pointing towards birdom rather than catdom, dogdom or formation of any other creature (see my OP on evo staying on task). It takes wings, feathers, improved vision, skeletal changes, joint dependability improvements, etc to evolve from a dinosaur to a bird--all of which cannot happen, according to evo, instantaneously, No, it takes numerous small steps (obviously in the same direction). The thing is evo supposedly makes all the decisions to coordinate evolving a dinosaur into a bird without “knowing” where it is going. Miraculously it flies. So, it’s a bird. And there are millions of cretures that evolved this way? Isn't that a bit of a stretch?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users