Jump to content


Photo

A 5 Question Test For Evolutionists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 28 May 2011 - 02:31 PM

Here's your test (5 questions) and be SPECIFIC:

1. Address how MISTAKES in a SIMPLISTIC genomic sequence
led to the *specific NEW information* required for various
parts of the eye organ (SEE BELOW for a PARTIAL list),
noting that these are specific, required parts with specific
functionality - requiring MEANINGFUL sequential code for
each.

1b. Explain why we don't see supposed "beneficial"
mutations today, of the specific type that would lead to
new information that would cause new "parts" in any given
insect or animal (ex: lactose tolerance and sickle cell
anemia wouldn't ever lead to new PARTS of a human).

2. Address how random mutations could have hit the
same "eye area" in generation after generation of
a species, leading to the code that forms these
specific parts. (In other words, how could a series
of accidents be "targeted"?)

3. Address how random mutations couldn't have just as
easily caused "competing code" or "competing parts" which
INTERUPT or BLOCK the imaginary evolution of the eye organ,
rendering the many required parts completely useless.

4. Address part by part below, how and *why* natural
selection would have INDIVIDUALLY selected each of these
parts - what fitness advantage would they provide? (And if
no benefit, how would *just* the right parts to form the
eye get "left behind" in generations, and be selected for
in *just* the right "eye spot" of the organism?)

4b. Explain how "blind selection", with no end goal
of an eye organ in mind, would select for these
*specific* parts, and ZERO other parts that would
render the eye organ useless (such as the formation
of a certain tissue that blocks vision)?

5. Explain how the complex functional *relationship* between
the eye organ and the brain evolved? (The eye would
be meaningless with the necessary brain functionality,
and the brain functionality would be meaningless
without the eye.) How would one "know" what the
other needs in order to function? How would a random
mistake enable this "knowledge"? And how would natural
selection "know" to select the volumes of specific code
(i.e., the corresponding parts) required?


-Sclera
-lens
-pupil
-cornea
-retina
-optic nerve
-choroid
-zonular fibres
-posterior chamber
-ciliary muscle
-suspensory ligament
-retinal blood vessels
-tear duct
-eyelashes
-eyebrow

#2 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 28 May 2011 - 04:18 PM

Welcome to the forum. Nice to meet you too.

#3 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 28 May 2011 - 09:12 PM

Welcome to the forum. Nice to meet you too.

View Post


Thanks :rolleyes:

#4 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 29 May 2011 - 12:46 AM

I made a few final edits to the test - please use this instead of the above (thanks):

THE 5 QUESTION TEST FOR MACROEVOLUTIONISTS

1. Address how MISTAKES in a SIMPLISTIC genomic sequence
supposedly led to the *specific NEW information* required for
various parts of the eye organ (SEE BELOW for a PARTIAL list),
noting that these are specific, required parts with specific
functionality - requiring MEANINGFUL sequential code for
each.

Note: If for # 1 your answer is "gene duplication with mutation
leading to new proteins", please provide a before & after observed
example (with link) of this *actually* occurring in an insect/animal-
where such a change increased the organism's genomic sequence with
unequivocally beneficial new information overall.

1b. Explain why we don't see MANY supposed "beneficial"
mutations today, of the specific type that COULD lead to
new information that would cause new "parts" in any given
insect or animal (ex: lactose tolerance and sickle cell
anemia wouldn't ever lead to new PARTS of a human).

2. Address how random mutations could have hit the
same "eye area" in generation after generation of
a species, leading to the code that forms these
specific parts. (In other words, *targeted* accidents.)
Even though mutations get passed on, the supposed
evolution of the eye organ would have required MANY
"targeted" mistakes in *exactly* the right spots, in
many generations of organisms.

3. Address why random mutations couldn't have just as
easily caused "competing code" or "competing parts" which
INTERUPT or BLOCK the imaginary evolution of the eye organ,
rendering the many required parts completely useless.

4. Address part by part below, how and *why* natural
selection would have INDIVIDUALLY selected each of these
parts - what fitness advantage would they provide? (And if
no benefit, how would *just* the right parts to form the
eye get "left behind" in generations, and be selected for
in *just* the right "eye spot" of the organism?)

Note: If you believe each of the eye "parts" somehow all started
forming *together* via random mutation instead of independently,
explain specifically how this could possibly occur. And then
complete question # 4 above taking this factor into account.

4b. Explain how natural selection, with no end goal
of an eye organ in mind, would select for these
*specific* parts, and ZERO other parts that would
render the eye organ useless (such as the formation
of a certain tissue that blocks vision)?

5. Explain how the functional *relationship* between
the eye organ and the brain evolved? (The eye would
be meaningless with the necessary brain functionality,
and the brain functionality would be meaningless
without the eye.) How would one "know" what the
other needs in order to function? How would a random
mistake enable this "knowledge"? And how would natural
selection "know" to select the volumes of specific code
(i.e., the corresponding parts) required?


-Sclera
-lens
-pupil
-cornea
-retina
-optic nerve
-choroid
-zonular fibres
-posterior chamber
-ciliary muscle
-suspensory ligament
-retinal blood vessels
-tear duct
-eyelashes
-eyebrow

#5 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 29 May 2011 - 01:52 AM

It's like the question: Which came first, the eye or the vision center of the brain? They cannot answer. But maybe we will be surprised.

#6 LightOfLogic

LightOfLogic

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta

Posted 09 June 2011 - 02:04 PM

You're making logical fallacies with your attempts at discrediting evolution(which I find ironic since you claim that these are in fact logical).
These 'questions' are arguments from ignorance, and straw man arguments.
You are personally ignorant about genetics and how it works when it comes to mutations, insertions, deletions etc. which are very well understood but completely ignored by you.
You are being intellectually dishonest and/or purposely remaining ignorant.

Please research 'genetic insertion', 'deletion,' 'transcription'. 'mutations' etc. in order to get actual information on how these processes work. You don't seem to even understand heredity. Your questions do not relate to how genetics (or evolution) actually functions. These are strawman arguments, making genetics and evolution into something it's not or not even supposed to do, then (in the same 'question, or sentence', or by saying 'impossibility' in your post title') discredit it and argue against it as if your particular capacity(or lack there-of) towards genetics has somehow 'disproved' a scientific theory.

Eye evolution is very well understood and there are thousands(if not tens of thousands) of papers and even whole entire textbooks devoted to the subject. You're too intellectually lazy to research the subject yourself it seems or even understand the basics of genetics.

I highly doubt you wish to learn anything at all if someone wanted to teach you, since you have already made up your mind with anything to do with evolution or the like. You are simply trolling around throwing ignorant stuff such as this out as bait so that you can take someone's answers to your strawmen and ignorance and make creationism out to be the 'victor'.

You're also making an argument of 'irreducible complexity'.
This has been refuted many, many times. I don't understand why it's even used as an argument anymore.
http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/behe.html
It's such a poor argument that it didn't even work in court in the Kitzmiller Vs. Dover case when Micheal Behe tried it there.
http://en.wikipedia....School_District

The concept itself fails because simpler forms of the eye work without having the entire structure or parts of our human eye(which isn't even the best eye.) It also fails with the concept of 'being designed' implying some kind of supernatural designer which has no evidence to support itself and then begs the question of what designed the 'designer'. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Such an argument is illogical and therefore invalid.

So, in conclusion, your 'questions' can't even be answered logically because they are glorifying ignorance in those subjects to the point where it doesn't even make sense due to the overbearing strawmen in the way of any 'real' questions that could be there.

#7 LightOfLogic

LightOfLogic

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta

Posted 09 June 2011 - 02:56 PM

It's like the question: Which came first, the eye or the vision center of the brain? They cannot answer. But maybe we will be surprised.

View Post


"What evolved first, the eye or the vision center of the brain."
An eye is simply a light sensing organ.
The eye evolved first in the form of a light sensitive patch. A specific part of a brain to process more advanced sight came later.Only the most basic nervous systems (with ganglion or not) are needed to even use visual information(and in the case of the box jellyfish,it doesn't even have that).
http://www.pbs.org/w...1/l_011_01.html

There are plenty of animals with eyes but without 'brains' or 'brains with a part to process sight' specifically.
Flatworms have eyes: http://www.fcps.edu/...gy/flatworm.htm
Snails have eyes: This site even shows three different eyes for three different gastropods. http://www.molluscs....ology/eyes.html
Scallops have eyes: http://www.augsburg....allop-eyes.html
Box jellyfish have eyes: http://io9.com/57959...4-floating-eyes
Even single celled organisms like Euglena have an eyespot,but no brain.

#8 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 June 2011 - 04:39 PM

You're making logical fallacies with your attempts at discrediting evolution(which I find ironic since you claim that these are in fact logical).
These 'questions' are arguments from ignorance, and straw man arguments.
You are personally ignorant about genetics and how it works when it comes to mutations, insertions, deletions etc. which are very well understood but completely ignored by you.
You are being intellectually dishonest and/or purposely remaining ignorant.

Please research 'genetic insertion', 'deletion,' 'transcription'. 'mutations' etc. in order to get actual information on how these processes work. You don't seem to even understand  heredity. Your questions do not relate to how genetics (or evolution) actually functions. These are strawman arguments, making genetics and evolution into something it's not or not even supposed to do, then (in the same 'question, or sentence', or by saying 'impossibility' in your post title') discredit it and argue against it as if your particular capacity(or lack there-of) towards genetics has somehow 'disproved' a scientific theory.

Eye evolution is very well understood and there are thousands(if not tens of thousands) of papers and even whole entire textbooks devoted to the subject. You're too intellectually lazy to research the subject yourself it seems or even understand the basics of genetics.

I highly doubt you wish to learn anything at all if someone wanted to teach you, since you have already made up your mind  with anything to do with evolution or the like. You are simply trolling around throwing ignorant stuff such as this out as bait so that you can take someone's answers to your strawmen and ignorance and make creationism out to be the 'victor'.

You're also making an argument of 'irreducible complexity'.
This has been refuted many, many times. I don't understand why it's even used as an argument anymore.
http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/behe.html
It's such a poor argument that it didn't even work in court in the Kitzmiller Vs. Dover case when Micheal Behe tried it there.
http://en.wikipedia....School_District

The concept itself fails because simpler forms of the eye work without having the entire structure or parts of our human eye(which isn't even the best eye.) It also fails with the concept of 'being designed' implying some kind of supernatural designer which has no evidence to support itself and then begs the question of what designed the 'designer'. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Such an argument is illogical and therefore invalid.

So, in conclusion, your 'questions' can't even be answered logically because they are glorifying ignorance in those subjects to the point where it doesn't even make sense due to the overbearing strawmen in the way of any 'real' questions that could be there.

View Post


Posted Image

WARNING, WARNING, THIS IS AN ACTIVATION OF THE EMERGENCY EVO-BABBLER ALERT SYSTEM.
THIS ALERT IS ISSUED WHEN A SEVERE CASE OF EVO-BABBLER HAS BEEN DETECTED.

EVO-BABBLE WARNING FOR...
ALBERTA CANADA...
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES...
SOUTHEASTERN NOBLE COUNTY IN NORTHERN IRELAND...

AT 304 PM MST...AN ANGRY... MALCONTENT EVO-BABBLER WAS LOCATED NEAR
GUTHRIE...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 35 MPH.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS AND MIND THREATENING SITUATION. IF YOU
ARE IN THE PATH OF THIS VAPOROUS NONSENSE, ... TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY.
DO NOT SEEK SHELTER IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL. AVOID ANY COLLEGE PROFESSOR,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY DRIVE A VW BUS AND EAT TOFU.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 09 June 2011 - 05:15 PM

You gotta love how he changed it after it was quoted :D

EDIT: In response to "light of logic"

Questions asking to show the process of how something is supposed to work is not an arguement of ignorance... Its being scientific since science is about finding out the natural world and....(gasp)... how it works...

Hence Goldliger is perfectly able to ask said questions.

Furthermore YOU are making illogical connotations...

Yes there is a "simple" eye in the form of an "eye"-spot and yes there is an eye which is more complex... You have automatically assumed the premise that the complex came from the simple, despite not knowing the processes by which this occurs... (otherwise you'd have mentioned them SPECIFICALLY, rather than just say "mutations did it")..

Is such blind faith scientific? Is belief with no evidence of this supposed link scientific? Is claiming such assumptions scientific with no evidence of them, logical?

The scientific method demonstrates the lack of scientific viability in your claims.

#10 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 09 June 2011 - 08:35 PM

People who wish not to have to face reality, do not like having evolution questioned or challenged. To even ponder it makes one ignorant, uneducated, moron, etc... According to them. I actually laugh every time they do this because it just shows that when a real challenge comes their way, their theory is not suited to resist it. So they have to resort to EVO-Babble (copy paste and links to old arguments. They cannot come up with anything new so they prefer a copy and paste debate.

So they evo-babble argument posed just strengthens my faith because it reaffirms all of the problems that I already know exists concerning evolution.

#11 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:20 AM

I especially appreciate how LightOfIllogic claims I don't understand the fairytale he bases the fate of his eternal soul upon, but offers nothing of substance as to why his said claim is valid. In other words, it's a complete non-argument. Love the evo-babble reply. LOL. I hereby take the liberty of grading LightOfIllogic an "NA" for "Non Attempt". ;-)

#12 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 31 July 2011 - 07:44 PM

I'll take a stab at these since you're aiming this at anatomy. Were this a geology post, I'd happily move along to another topic ;)

As a preface, I think it's important to note that when we say "parts" or "anatomical features", such terms are human inventions. For example, the body doesn't necessarily distinguish where the parts of a cornea end and the parts of the skin begin.

Here's your test (5 questions) and be SPECIFIC:

1. Address how MISTAKES in a SIMPLISTIC genomic sequence
led to the *specific NEW information* required for various
parts of the eye organ (SEE BELOW for a PARTIAL list),
noting that these are specific, required parts with specific
functionality - requiring MEANINGFUL sequential code for
each.


Genes that encode the number/concentration of photoreceptors could easily become duplicated during meiotic crossing-over, causing an increase in color perception while at the same time passing the mutation on to the next generation (since it is a germ-line mutation). Voila, you now have a macula where there were only a few dozen photoreceptors before.

If you then ask where those photoreceptors came from, then we simply talk about the mutation that caused them in the first place; that part isn't an anatomic question, but a cellular biology question.

1b. Explain why we don't see supposed "beneficial"
mutations today, of the specific type that would lead to
new information that would cause new "parts" in any given
insect or animal (ex: lactose tolerance and sickle cell
anemia wouldn't ever lead to new PARTS of a human).


Well, typically individual "parts" don't come about ex nihilio. They are merely permutations of existing "parts" that eventually gain a new function and, thus, new advantage. Think of jaw bones being used for auditory perception.

2. Address how random mutations could have hit the
same "eye area" in generation after generation of
a species, leading to the code that forms these
specific parts. (In other words, how could a series
of accidents be "targeted"?)


Well, first off, the various anatomic and chemical components are not necessarily "stored" in the same area of a genome.

Secondly, if you mean "how could an analogous mutation keep compounding over generations", I'd say that the gene in question is probably located next to a genetic region that is particularly vulnerable to errors (deletion, multiplication, nullification, etc).

3. Address how random mutations couldn't have just as
easily caused "competing code" or "competing parts" which
INTERUPT or BLOCK the imaginary evolution of the eye organ,
rendering the many required parts completely useless.


They probably did occur. EDIT: If a child is born with a genetic mutation that encodes a cornea that is twice as thick as it should be, then you'd see him in a hospital when his parents come to you saying that he doesn't seem to be able to see.

4. Address part by part below, how and *why* natural
selection would have INDIVIDUALLY selected each of these
parts - what fitness advantage would they provide? (And if
no benefit, how would *just* the right parts to form the
eye get "left behind" in generations, and be selected for
in *just* the right "eye spot" of the organism?)


Are you asking for the specific advantages of each of the parts of the eye that you listed?

4b. Explain how "blind selection", with no end goal
of an eye organ in mind, would select for these
*specific* parts, and ZERO other parts that would
render the eye organ useless (such as the formation
of a certain tissue that blocks vision)?


Alternative purposes than those for which they are currently used. Ex: an inner ear ossicle that was originally part of a temporomandibular joint.

5. Explain how the complex functional *relationship* between
the eye organ and the brain evolved? (The eye would
be meaningless with the necessary brain functionality,
and the brain functionality would be meaningless
without the eye.) How would one "know" what the
other needs in order to function? How would a random
mistake enable this "knowledge"? And how would natural
selection "know" to select the volumes of specific code
(i.e., the corresponding parts) required?


Well, again, we humans merely "consider" them separate entities. In reality, they're part of the same system and thus would only evolve as quickly as the other components did. Think "chain is only as strong as the weakest link".
  • UB313 likes this

#13 xbox

xbox

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Northfeild, Vermont

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:26 PM

I made a few final edits to the test - please use this instead of the above (thanks):

THE 5 QUESTION TEST FOR MACROEVOLUTIONISTS

1. Address how MISTAKES in a SIMPLISTIC genomic sequence
supposedly led to the *specific NEW information* required for
various parts of the eye organ (SEE BELOW for a PARTIAL list),
noting that these are specific, required parts with specific
functionality - requiring MEANINGFUL sequential code for
each.
[...]
-Sclera
-lens
-pupil
-cornea
-retina
-optic nerve
-choroid
-zonular fibres
-posterior chamber
-ciliary muscle
-suspensory ligament
-retinal blood vessels
-tear duct
-eyelashes
-eyebrow

I will not pretend to have the answers for your questions, and I do not have the time or desire to try to find them for you.
I do, however, wonder why these questions are thought to make any sort of reasoned statement about evolution? I wonder why, for example, you think each and every one of those parts required *specific NEW information*, when most of what you listed are simply parts or layers of larger structures.

For example, the retina is actually an extension of the optic nerve, or looked at another way, the optic nerve is simply the axons of the neurons associated with the retina, which itself consists of neurons and modified neurons.

The posterior chamber is simply the space behind the iris - why does a space need 'specific new information'?

All non-epithelial tissues in the body have blood vessels, and blood vessels grow in response to various chemicals given off by cells and/or in response to hormonal gradients. Why do you think any part of the eye, which is not epithelial in nature, would require *specific NEW information* in order to have blood vessels in it?

The pupil is simply what we call the hole through which light travels. Why would a hole require *specific NEW information*?

How much anatomical background do you have? How much developmental genetics? It is a mistake to assume that there is some sort of one-to-one relationship between mutations and the production of 'specific' structures.

On a side note, Ikester writes:

People who wish not to have to face reality, do not like having evolution questioned or challenged. To even ponder it makes one ignorant, uneducated, moron, etc...
[...]
So they evo-babble argument posed just strengthens my faith because it reaffirms all of the problems that I already know exists concerning evolution.


Very revealing.

#14 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 August 2011 - 09:48 PM

Posted Image

WARNING, WARNING, THIS IS AN ACTIVATION OF THE EMERGENCY EVO-BABBLER ALERT SYSTEM.
THIS ALERT IS ISSUED WHEN A SEVERE CASE OF EVO-BABBLER HAS BEEN DETECTED.

EVO-BABBLE WARNING FOR...
ALBERTA CANADA...
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES...
SOUTHEASTERN NOBLE COUNTY IN NORTHERN IRELAND...

AT 304 PM MST...AN ANGRY... MALCONTENT EVO-BABBLER WAS LOCATED NEAR
GUTHRIE...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 35 MPH.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS AND MIND THREATENING SITUATION. IF YOU
ARE IN THE PATH OF THIS VAPOROUS NONSENSE, ... TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY.
DO NOT SEEK SHELTER IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL. AVOID ANY COLLEGE PROFESSOR,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY DRIVE A VW BUS AND EAT TOFU.



The standard creationist reply when they have nothing of worth to reply with. Be flippant, try to make it look like the post you are replying to is a joke. Do anything, but above all don't reply in an intelligent manner or continue it as a discussion cause you just might lose.
  • xbox likes this

#15 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 11 August 2011 - 10:18 AM

The standard creationist reply when they have nothing of worth to reply with. Be flippant, try to make it look like the post you are replying to is a joke. Do anything, but above all don't reply in an intelligent manner or continue it as a discussion cause you just might lose.

And what's even funnier is when someone joins the forum and takes up the worldview of agnostic, yet immediately will take sides showing that their worldview does not apply.

Also, define losing? There is nothing here or on any other forum that is going to be said that's going to be world changing. And how do you lose a debate that's rigged from the get go?

Evolution is not falsifiable for several reasons.
1) Evolutionists - atheists have the main control, so bias is always going to be there. There are no real checks and balances and the rules, standards, and criteria only really apply to everyone else. Their motto: Do as i say, not as I do.
2) Evolutionists already claim that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. So how can such a claim make a theory falsifiable when it's constantly being implied as an absolute truth?
3) A true proven fact proves itself by it's own merit. It does not require posturing, name calling, character assassination, etc... Doing this only shows that the theory cannot hold up under scrutiny and therefore requires this to cover for the flaws that exist. To claim otherwise would require one to explain why the other tactics are even needed.
4) And no one can actually name what put the Theory of Evolution over the top to becoming a Scientific Theory. What is the 1,2,3, list of the criteria that any theory has to meet to be considered a scientific theory? One does not exist because to actually make evolution have to meet a criteria would show that it does not hold up. So the theory level was made up, and evolution was placed there for show so that people would look at it in awe and never question it because minds that are smarter than theirs say so, so it must be so. Can anyone list the criteria that evolution had to meet to become a scientific theory? Or maybe the find that did this? No. because evolution was voted into this by evolutionists. Do you see the irony here?

What is proving something on it's own merit? I used to sell a product that worked so well that all I had to do was let someone use it once and they wanted more. It proved itself by it's ability to do what it "claimed" it would and then some. It required very little selling on my part. No forced or high pressure selling.

Evolution on the other hand requires so many tactics to sell a person they are almost to numerous to list. You just cannot just say: here it is and allow it to prove itself before you believe it. If it's just questioned even in the slightest, what do the believers of evolution do to help make sure the person conforms to it? You know the drill.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users