Evolution, not a fact??????

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by john smith, Nov 23, 2005.

?

Do you belive in evoloution?

  1. Definatly,Evolution is the only answer.

    83.5%
  2. No, God is the creator of all things.

    7.7%
  3. Undecided.

    8.8%
  1. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Well, this thread is, oddly enough, in the Religion section so, I'm sure there are some addle-brained folk lurking hereabouts...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,894
    What was your question?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Jan Ardena:
    So we need to observe a murder to know that it occurred? We can't make reasonable inferences from the evidence left at the scene of the crime (fingerprints, DNA, firearm comparisons, blood types, etc.)?

    You are aware that we can't see electrons?

    Quite simply, you're talking trash, Jan. Direct observation of the event is not required to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that an event occured. This has been pointed out to you time and time again, but you still peddle the same old snake oil.

    'Believe' has a number of different meanings, depending on the context. The definitions of believe in the following sentences are obviously quite different...
    'I believe in almighty Ra.'
    'I believe that gravity will cause me to go 'splat' when I jump off a cliff.'
    'I do believe that I will have another tuna sandwich, thanks.'

    It is most appropriate that a Creationut would equivocate the definition of 'believe' to make a weak argument demonstrating that evolution is a faith. Surely you can do better? Oh wait, there is not real scientific argument for Creationism, so semantics is what Creationuts and IDiots fall back on.

    davewhite:
    All the evidence points to macroevolution and common descent. Once again, direct observation of an event is not required to know beyond all reasonable doubt that that event occured.

    If 'direct observation' of an event was required, you would have to say goodbye to many important theories and facts in many fields of science, such as astronomy, particle physics, quantum mechanics, forensics, paleontology and geology.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Mountainhare: Nicely put.

    It's like saying because you don't see mountains all at once being shaped by wind, rain and streams etc that you can not prove that mountains are shaped by the elements over millions of years. The Grand Canyon did not get like that over night y'know...

    Although creationists that say the Earth is 6,000 years old, try to even get around this fact

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    have you ever read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html ?
    no need to read the whole thing, just each of the evidences. You probably won't understand a word, but at least you can't say there isn't enough evidence.
     
  9. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    TheAlphaWolf:
    You expect Creationuts to read sentences longer than two words? ROFL! If it doesn't come from Apologetics Press, don't count on them doing so...

    I posted the Chromosome Challenge in this forum.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50486

    Watch as Creationuts ignore yet another powerful example of evidence for evolution. "OH NOES, IT CANTAINS SCIENCE, SUMTHING I CANT COMPRAHEND!111 HIT THE EMEERGINCY BUTTUN. 'THEIR'S A CUNSPIRACY AGINST CREATSIONISTS!!!1111OEONEONE"

    Quite simply, Creationuts are like mushrooms. They pop up everywhere. They live in the dark, and are fed on shit. I have yet to see a Creationut who doesn't parrot a distorted definition of evolution which they obtained from Answers in Genesis, or the Institute for Creationist Research.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2005
  10. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Strange method.. most people poop out the garbage.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Tell me, at what precise moment does a puppy become a dog?

    Once you answer it we can proceed..
     
  11. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Snakey:
    I think that he needs to submit his definition of 'life'. Is a virus alive? What about a prion?
     
  12. Deep_MindQuest Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
  13. Deep_MindQuest Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
  14. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    LOL, trueorigins. You've got to be kidding?
     
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    A religious nut?
    Or a nut who is religious?

    Mountainhare,

    There is no evidence that one species changed into a completely different species.

    And what does that have to do with a dog turning into a cat?

    Then don’t peddle such nonsense as scientific, keep it in the belief pile. Take a leaf out of johnsmiths book.

    So where are the “different meanings?”

    I’m not creating an argument, because there is no need of one. The concept of macro-evolution is a nonsense.

    I have better things to do, that’s for sure.
    If you want to BELIEVE that nonsense, go right ahead. But if you’re going to pedal it as “science” then show the proof. I am not interested in your personal talk.

    There is no real stand-alone “scientific argument for anything so profound, because that is not the nature or purpose of modern-science. Only when you come to the conclusion, that everything is physical can you belief otherwise, but that conclusion cannot be based on the modern-scientific method, it has to be believed.
    I try not to call people idiots on the strength of their beliefs alone, it shows weakness and ignorance, and does nothing to push foreword a good and productive discussion. For anyone who is seriously interested in understanding these matters, cancelling out an idea through denial, is simply not an option. If it can be shown that macro-evolution is responsible for the diversity of species available today, then I would most certainly embrace it, as it would be pointless not to. But to date, there is no empirical evidence which would suggest this idea, and as such I see no reason to embrace it. If I were to embrace it, I know it would be, because it acts as an argument against the creation of life, not because it holds any water. This I believe is your position.

    We can observe evolution easily enough, why is macro-evolution so unobservable?
    There should be an abundance of evidence which leaves no doubt, not personalised inferences. Why isn’t there?

    Jan.
     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    KennyJC,

    But if an explanation was given , and a simple experiment which shows how elements can shape clay, then it would be accepted. Your only explanation is similarity, and there is absolutely no experiment to back up this extraordinary claim. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do have real explanations, and experiments which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that macro-evolution is the process. If you do, then please divulge.

    Jan .
     
  17. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Because it is the episodic unintended consequence of changes in allele frequency filtered by changes in ecology stretching over millennia. In your view, Jan, what is the mechanism that constrains descent with modification to "micro-evolution"?
    That is nonsense. IBE is perfectly sound scientific methodology so long as the evidence is intersubjectively verifiable and the resulting explanation of that evidence permits testable predictions.
     
  18. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    If you have read what credible 'facts' there are and still consider it all 'nonsense', then what is your theory on the existence of life? Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that beings such as me and you appeared overnight thanks to God?

    True much of macro evolution relies on common sense, but there is overwhelming evidence which backs up that common sense. You haven't been able to say why it is nonsense, you have just said it is that. Why?

    Doubtful... I'm sure you'd stick to Genesis.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2005
  19. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    I know, we're getting round to it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The question itself will lead to that.
     
  20. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Irv whosit said:
    That's an amazing blanket statement. Does he mean that all the myriad species of dahlias were known and identified as of 500 years ago, and no new wild varieties have ever been identified?

    Jan Ardena wrote:
    Strangely enough I really thought that here on sciforums we dealt with at least a higher level than the old Creationist pamphlets as cited in Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker: "According to Evolutionists, there should be a species midway between a frog and an elephant. But has anybody ever seen a Frelephant?" That's obviously an extreme parody (or maybe it isn't - maybe he really was quoting!) but the same thing applies here. Dogs don't turn into cats or vice versa. That the dog family and the cat family each evolved from a single common ancestor (that was neither a dog nor a cat) is not an assumption, but clearly defined in the fossil record. Probably this was from two different populations of the same species that became geographically separated. Meanwhile, the very existence of the dog family from the tiniest chihuahua to the most feral dingo or hyena is an illustration of the basic fact of evolution - that everything is related.
     
  21. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Never underestimate the ignorance of the creationist. They scan the world, note the ubiquitous absence of Frelephants, and give all glory to God.
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    ConsequentAtheist,

    This is storytelling, and furthermore you have absolutely no way of proving this is what happens.

    All you need to know from me, for now, is that evolution takes place because we can observe it. And macro-evolution does not take place because we cannot observe it. The only way it does take place, is in your mind.

    IBE?

    Jan.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I was being facetious Silas.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jan Ardena.
     

Share This Page