Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ron

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth

Recommended Posts

The definition of evolution is NOT in question here.

 

It's NOT "... whether Ron (or myself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?"

 

It's that evolution (Macro) should be Observable PERIOD!

 

How can one who does not even believe in evolution (and sees it as complete and utter nonsense, as I most certainly do) even answer that question?

 

It's like asking. Do you think Santa brought my gifts after 12 midnight or before? Answer: NEITHER. Why? Because...Santa DOES NOT EXIST!

 

So arguing, or questioning, as to what time we think Santa left our gifts is moot since He doesn't even exist. Just like MACRO Evolution doesn't even exist.

 

So for evolution (MACRO) to be believed, it must be "OBSERVED" period! Whether it "supposedly" happens in an "individual" or a "population"... it doesn't matter. SHOW us either case or scenario!

 

Now, not trying to get off topic here, I hope this helps give "some" clarification so that you can get back on topic. :)

65916[/snapback]

Quite right Seth :)

 

Just like in Mathematics, you have a bell curve. There will always be outliers.

 

In the same respect, there should always be some outliers for evolution, ie- there should be some individuals / populations that show macro-evolution... This should occur in all species, so it shouldn't be too hard to find at least a handful, or even one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of evolution is NOT in question here.

 

It's NOT "... whether Ron (or myself) believe that evolution, it is is true, should be observable in a single individual?"

 

Hi Seth,

 

it is, or more precisely, it is your and rons understanding of evolution which is in question - it makes little sense trying to progress a discussion unless we agree on what is being discussed.

 

It's that evolution (Macro) should be Observable PERIOD!

 

Indeed, but let's try to establish one thing first - ron made what at first appeared a rather unambiguous statement. When refuted however, he skirted around it, declared it unimportant and refused to clarify. No discussion can be progressed on that basis, hence I am asking again for clarification. If it is not important, then it should be easily dismissed with a quick yes or no answer - his and now your refusal to do so would indicate that you consider it important and dangerous.

 

 

How can one who does not even believe in evolution (and sees it as complete and utter nonsense, as I most certainly do) even answer that question?

 

It's like asking. Do you think Santa brought my gifts after 12 midnight or before? Answer: NEITHER. Why? Because...Santa DOES NOT EXIST!

 

I do not see the similarity - perhaps a question such as 'if santa delivers gifts, should you be able to see him doing so or not' would be a compatible question, in which case I would find it very easy to answer - 'yes, on the premise that santa exists, I would believe you should be able to see him doing such'.

 

 

So for evolution (MACRO) to be believed, it must be "OBSERVED" period! Whether it "supposedly" happens in an "individual" or a "population"... it doesn't matter. SHOW us either case or scenario!

 

But it does not happen in an individual, nor does anyone make the claim it does. Ron put forth that because he has not been altered, nor witnessed in any individual, that is evidence that evolution does not take place. This has no bearing on what evolution actually is, and as such I feel that to discuss evolution, it is important that we understand what each other mean by evolution. Ron's statement shows that what he understands as evolution is different that my understanding, and I would like to quickly (although that seems unlikely now) resolve this difference in order to allow the discussion to continue.

 

Now, not trying to get off topic here, I hope this helps give "some" clarification so that you can get back on topic. :)

 

I'm really unsure what the difficult in clarification is - 'yes, I believe that evolution should be observable in an individual' 'no, I do not believe evolution should be observable in an individual' or even 'I am unsure if evolution should or should not be observable in an individual'.

 

Honestly, this was a quick response to a erroneous presumption, I really cannot fathom why it is so difficult to give a clear precise answer, unless the purpose is to confuse the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has no bearing on what evolution actually is, and as such I feel that to discuss evolution, it is important that we understand what each other mean by evolution.

 

65922[/snapback]

Actually it does, if you can't observe it then evolution ceases to be empirical, hence it ceases to be scientific. Hence it is a social science, rather than actual science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?

65928[/snapback]

I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.

 

Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ron put forth that because he has not been altered, nor witnessed in any individual, that is evidence that evolution does not take place. This has no bearing on what evolution actually is, "

Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains...

65935[/snapback]

Huh, so how did I take your words out of context? I said that because it isn't observed it makes it NOT empirical, hence it does change "what it is", because things that are not empirical are not scientific.

 

Basically I am giving evidence for the claim that evolution is not scientific, on the basis that it isn't observed, (on any level).

 

You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, since it appears so difficult to answer what I assummed was a simple question, I will rephrase it. you stated

 

"

Just like in Mathematics, you have a bell curve. There will always be outliers.

 

In the same respect, there should always be some outliers for evolution, ie- there should be some individuals / populations that show macro-evolution... This should occur in all species, so it shouldn't be too hard to find at least a handful, or even one. "

 

So given that you would expect, if evolution was true, to witness it in individuals, what would you regard as evidence if you did witness it i.e. what is it that you are not seeing and would expect to see that makes this evidence that evolution does not occur? Can you give a single example of what, if you observed it in an individual, would make you say 'ok, that does fit with evolution'.

65939[/snapback]

Dude I did answer your original question, which was this... Post 80

 

"Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?"

 

I replied with this.... Post 81

 

"I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.

 

Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations) "

 

You then twist it to whatever you and Ron were saying.... Post 82

 

"Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains... "

 

To which I replied... Post 83

 

"You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again."

 

 

Your original question addressed to ME in post 80. Had nothing to do with your discussion with Ron.. You didn't mention anything about Ron, just if evolution should be observed within individuals.

 

Now you are postualting an entirely new question as your original question... I am not a fan of word games, please don't take me for a fool.

 

To answer this NEW question of yours. I'll ask it to you, can YOU show us a case of observed evolution to become a new species, since YOU are the one who believes it occurs. I am not here to give you evidence of something I don't believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I have not mentioned abiogenisis, and at no point has it come up during our sub-topic (nor was in mentioned in the OP).

65903[/snapback]

foxnsox, the below is the definition of abiogenesis. And it is taken directly from “MY†OP:

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

65422[/snapback]

If you feel the need to continually equivocate on the subject, by ignoring the OP, then you may wish to peddle your wares elsewhere. Time wasting, trolling and equivocating are not appreciated here. So I might suggest your taking a look at:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm

 

 

I have asked you a simple yes or no question to try to clarify your position. I can only assume you are trying to duck giving a clear answer, in which case I would be forced to assume that your purpose is not one of knowledge, but one of spreading doubt and confusion.

65903[/snapback]

The above is a prime example of the ad Hominem abusive with an attempt at supporting it with the False Dilemma logical fallacy.

 

**Mod Hat on** foxnsox this is a warning for your continual attempts of trolling, equivocation, and misrepresentations. Read the forum rules, that you agreed to prior to coming here, before you make another post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude I did answer your original question, which was this... Post 80

 

"Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?"

 

I replied with this.... Post 81

 

"I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.

 

Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations) "

 

You then twist it to whatever you and Ron were saying.... Post 82

 

"Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains... "

 

To which I replied... Post 83

 

"You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again."

Your original question addressed to ME in post 80. Had nothing to do with your discussion with Ron.. You didn't mention anything about Ron, just if evolution should be observed within individuals.

 

Now you are postualting an entirely new question as your original question... I am not a fan of word games, please don't take me for a fool.

 

To answer this NEW question of yours. I'll ask it to you, can YOU show us a case of observed evolution to become a new species, since YOU are the one who believes it occurs. I am not here to give you evidence of something I don't believe in.

65941[/snapback]

Gilbo,

 

foxnsox is basically trolling, and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo,

 

foxnsox is basically trolling, and nothing more.

65958[/snapback]

Thanks Ron, yeah I agree with you there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the OP is quite simple. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed in a population, or an individual.

 

Therefore the correct answer for the evolutionist would be: Yes I have faith that Macro-evolution occurs, because I have never ever observed it happening.

 

Unless anyone has actually observed Macro-evolution in an individual or a population, then the above is the only acceptable answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the OP is quite simple.  Macro-evolution has never been witnessed in a population, or an individual.

 

Therefore the correct answer for the evolutionist would be:  Yes I have faith that Macro-evolution occurs, because I have never ever observed it happening.

 

Unless anyone has actually observed Macro-evolution in an individual or a population, then the above is the only acceptable answer.

65964[/snapback]

Good summary Scott. The bad thing is that most evolutionists will never admit they are basing their belief system on faith...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how exactly did that happen? The life form just happens to replicate itself?

65794[/snapback]

Sorry to miss your post, Mama. No, there is nothing magical about a self-replicating molecule.

 

In a fluid environment (e.g. the sea) with abundant chemical resources and an energy supply (i.e. sunlight) chemical reactions are bound to occur.

Picture a molecule in the sea that can bond with passing material that is the same as its constituents. It would create a repeating chain. If the chain broke there would be two daughter molecules and self-replication would have occurred. If one of the daughter molecules hadn’t replicated perfectly but was more adapted or stable than the other daughter it would stand more chance of survival and success at self-replication. You can imagine how the long road to the cell and DNA could have begun.

 

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario. We are talking of a specific event a long time ago and the above is just an illustration of the circumstances which abiogenesis would have required. Yes, a self-replicating molecule would be improbable – but it only had to emerge once. Like you, I once thought that life required a magical input. However, at base it reduces to chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the OP is quite simple.  Macro-evolution has never been witnessed in a population, or an individual.

 

Therefore the correct answer for the evolutionist would be:  Yes I have faith that Macro-evolution occurs, because I have never ever observed it happening.

 

Unless anyone has actually observed Macro-evolution in an individual or a population, then the above is the only acceptable answer.

65964[/snapback]

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers. Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers.  Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

65990[/snapback]

You can go online to different sites that will list the different types of fossils in the Grand Canyon from bottom to top. I don't see a set progression. You can qualify your statements and say "well amphibians are higher than stromatolites" (which are bacteria biofilm buildups). If you are just looking at it that way, I could say "well fish are higher than amphibians in some strata."

 

But you see, they'll say fish were already here, because they are in lower strata also. And if a raccoon is found lower with the fish (not in the Crand Canyon, but in other areas), then it fell in the lake and got covered. So, you know the model is always the guiding force for interpretation.

 

But if you look at it from a flood geology perspective. The fish and other marine fauna are throughout the strata.

 

And now, the latest thing I've found in debating--when talking about living fossils, or fish in the Cambrian, alongside echinoderms and sponges--well it's not the same species---because it evolved.

 

I say no, it is an extinct species in the same family as modern fish--it's still a fish (a vertebrate with eyes in the one of the "first" fossil bearing strata) with sponges, and you have little more than bacteria in the Sumerian and before. That's not a good sorting job. Sounds kind of like what we got today.

 

At any rate, the bottom line. The laggerstatten and other fossil bearing strata are captured settings, rather than some progressive documentation of evolution.

 

There is order in that mammals and reptiles are generally higher, but they are also a small minority in the record. They are also land animals, and would have been higher when the flood started. Marine life was underwater, and did not escape the sediment that covered them. The land animals were seeking to stay on top of the water, and so less of them were covered.

 

But it also makes sense that marine flora and fauna would dominate the fossil record in most of the strata, if the flood occurred. And that is what we find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario.  We are talking of a specific event a long time ago and the above is just an illustration of the circumstances which abiogenesis would have required.  Yes, a self-replicating molecule would be improbable – but it only had to emerge once.  Like you, I once thought that life required a magical input.  However, at base it reduces to chemistry.

65989[/snapback]

Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein? The only thing I know about is something that produces more RNA--not protein. A self replicating molecule is not life, and if does not have additional help, it will alwys be just a purposeless nano program.

 

So you had to have more spontaneous synthesis of proteinS, to make whatever you would propose, possibly enzymes (very large macromolecules) and membranes, until the RNA started encoding proteins itself.

 

SO once wouldn't have been enough. You need many many proteins which have the proper binding sites to make a membrane.

 

It has been shown here that one 60 amino acid protein would have approximately 10 ^ 78 combinations. And you need it to happen many many times--spontaneously making the proper proteins for even the simplest of life.

 

 

It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous. And it makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be going off topic if i were to explain why this isnt faith-based?

65987[/snapback]

Well since you haven't ever seen Macro-evolution happen in an individual or a population then... no you can't explain why it isn't faith based, because that would defy logic since it is faith based.

 

If you can't show me Macro-evolution happening then yes, you are absolutely having faith in your belief of Macro-evolution. The same goes for every other evolutionist, because they haven't seen it happening either.

 

Macro-evolution is not testable, nor is it repeatable, or observable... therefore it is not truly scientific. It belongs in the Philosophical realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers.  Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

65990[/snapback]

That's fine that you have faith that Macro-evolution occurs. I can take Phylogeny, the lack of even distribution of fossils, and the lack of an actual geologic time column as evidence for Creation as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be going off topic if i were to explain why this isnt faith-based?

65987[/snapback]

Facts, and absolute truths are not faith based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein?  The only thing I know about is something that produces more RNA--not protein.  A self replicating molecule is not life, and if does not have additional help, it will alwys be just a purposeless nano program.

 

So you had to have more spontaneous synthesis of proteinS, to make whatever you would propose, possibly enzymes (very large macromolecules) and membranes, until the RNA started encoding proteins itself.

 

SO once wouldn't have been enough. You need many many proteins which have the proper binding sites to make a membrane.  

 

It has been shown here that one 60 amino acid protein would have approximately 10 ^ 78 combinations.  And you need it to happen many many times--spontaneously making the proper proteins for even the simplest of life. 

It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous.  And it makes more sense.

65993[/snapback]

I did want to add a newsclip here to verify my suspisions that self replicating RNA in primordial soup, or perhaps a clay crystal medium, would be able to do nothing but replicate itself, and nothing more.

 

Look at this quote from...

http://www.sciencenews.net.au/scientists-c...eplicating-rna/

 

Scientists create artificial self-replicating RNA!

 

Joyce's chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes, much like the ones we have in our bodies, but they don't behave anything like those in living creatures. But, these synthetic RNA replicators do provide a model for evolution  and shed light on one step in the development of early living systems from on a lifeless globe. "

 

In addition, once the replicators started going, they would occasionally suffer mutations - some would die out, but others would be more successful at replicating, thus coming to dominate the population.

 

After 77 generations, all the original replicators were gone - taken over by the new variants, stronger and mightier than before.

 

Whoa - if this isn't a compelling case for evolution! Right before our eyes!

Good case for selection. No problem. But the creationist arguement is the source or ingredients for selection have to ALREADY BE THERE. RNA is not enough, though some want to define it as life.

 

The following is the demonstration of our repeated argument. The evos will continue to hope against hope, to define things for oversimplication, and then use bait and switch. Basically borrowing a little piece of life to demonstrate one of Darwin's principles, and then say the whole theory is true.

 

From the same article, here is the demonstration of what we have been saying....

 

There is a limitation, though... for the experiment to produce artificial life, not only does it need to reproduce, it needs to develop new functions, which these replicators seem unable to do...

Do ya think? It's like we're saying we are going to make a cake with a bag of flour, and we have no other ingredients. Isn't this more than self evident??

 

DNA and RNA have an entire energy system (other biochemical systems, and/or organs) with which they work, regulating and energizing the entire living system. The research for phosphorlyzation and dephosphorlyzation of proteins is quite developed, as well as all kinds of other regulation, that enable the DNA to encode the proper proteins and enzymes at the proper time, in the proper amounts.

 

This is done in order to provide energy for an entire living system and maintain it's growth, protection, and repair.

 

Furthermore the self-replicating RNA was designed by intelligence. It was not spontaneously synthesized in primordial soup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since you haven't ever seen Macro-evolution happen in an individual or a population then... no you can't explain why it isn't faith based, because that would defy logic since it is faith based.

 

If you can't show me Macro-evolution happening then yes, you are absolutely having faith in your belief of Macro-evolution.  The same goes for every other evolutionist, because they haven't seen it happening either.

 

Macro-evolution is not testable, nor is it repeatable, or observable... therefore it is not truly scientific.  It belongs in the Philosophical realm.

65994[/snapback]

Thats not at all what i asked, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not at all what i asked, though.

66026[/snapback]

Huh, no you asked " Would it be going off-topic if I were to explain why this isn't faith based."

 

So without you being more specific it's what I assumed you asked, and no you can't show that Macro-evolution isn't faith based specifically because it's not observable, not repeatable, or testable.

 

Or you could be a little bit more specific in what you ask... so now if that's not what your asking, then what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, no you asked " Would it be going off-topic if I were to explain why this isn't faith based."

 

So without you being more specific it's what I assumed you asked, and no you can't show that Macro-evolution isn't faith based specifically because it's not observable, not repeatable, or testable.

 

Or you could be a little bit more specific in what you ask... so now if that's not what your asking, then what is it?

66031[/snapback]

The specifics of my question would be, "Is explaining how this isnt faith based, better left for another topic, or can i talk about it in here, without going off topic?"

 

Its a simple yes or no question. Yes, you can talk about it, because it is on the topic of this thread, or No, you cannot talk about it here because it is off topic, instead, make a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The specifics of my question would be, "Is explaining how this isnt faith based, better left for another topic, or can i talk about it in here, without going off topic?"

 

Its a simple yes or no question. Yes, you can talk about it, because it is on the topic of this thread, or No, you cannot talk about it here because it is off topic, instead, make a new thread.

66034[/snapback]

Talk about what? What is " It" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

macro-evolution at an individual level??? you arent seriously suggesting that evolution happens at all at the individual level, let alone macro-evolution, are you? macro-evolution takes millions of years to happen, how in the world would anyone be able to see that? we can, however observe the rare phenomenon of a ring species, or currently living intermediate species, but these are very rare cases. we have to observe the evidence collected to support macro-evolution, and there is enough of it to conclude that it happened.

66038[/snapback]

Your not seriously suggesting that Macro-evolution happens are you? Well, if you are then you'll need to provide evidence for it.

 

Ring species are fine examples of cross breeding, and it should also be noted that intermediate species dead or alive have never been found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms