Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer
- Thread starter Mango Elephant
- Start date
- Status
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
A muslim creationist? Meh, boring. I would love to see an atheist creationist on here
Akka
Moody old mage.
It's been specifically pointed about a thousand time (and several entire pages of this thread has been full of it) that evolution is NOT about "life appearing", but about "life evolving once it has appeared". Funnily, it has been repeatedly stated that Creationists ignore this point, and you just proved it.
On top of this first proof of how you're unable or unwilling to read basic english, here is a second one. From the VERY post you answer to, here is :
"Even if each planet have an EXTREMELY low chance of being a planet where intelligent life can develop"
As you see, I'm actually talking about the whole sequence ("intelligent life can develop") and not just "life appearing".
Twice in a row, you've proved you didn't read the posts your answered to, and just copy-pasted the same drivel.
You should try to avoid simplifying things you don't even know anythging about nor undersand.
And anyway, even if it's millions of molecules arranged in the right way (which it isn't), considering there is millions of millions of millions of nebula, each containing millions of stars, and each planet theorically able to sustain life (as we know it, I'm not even talking about other kind of life that could develop) having logically millions of millions of liters of water, each containing millions of millions of molecules, all this being mixed for millions and millions years...
Yeah, even if the chances are unbelievably small, there is such a huge amount of "test cases" that it's a given many of them will "just happen".
That was, by the way, exactly what several posts above were trying to explain to you. Third examples of you not even bothering to read, and as such just hampering any attempt of discussion and as such trolling.
To sum up : you try to antagonize people, you don't read their reply, you're disrupting and hampering exchange of ideas. You're a troll, consider yourself reported.
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
Turning down science because it says there's no evidence for God is like shunning Google Earth because it doesn't include places like "Paradise" and "Hell".
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
And Stephen Fry said, "let there be light". And it was fabulous.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
According to his avatar and the fact that he is the thread starter for "ask a Jew".
It is the way Jews translate God into English.
How did the ToE evolve from trying to understand God and creation to we do not "need" God or creation? I have found that not mentioning God does not help, as long as one argues against ToE, they are automatically assumed to belive that God is not in the evolutionary picture. It is probably safe to say that Christians in the US are starting to feel that God could have used evolution. There is just one hurdle to overcome to believe that and that is God did tell us how He did it, and He never mentioned evolution. Even Aristotle used the word creator, so he did not get the memo that evolution was used.
You keep saying that science has nothing to do with God and that mentioning G-d is a religious practice. Is it quite possible that the more a group of individuals assumes something can possible be factual, the more they rely on that assumption and refuse to hear any other logical explanation? Whatever happened 6000 years ago without a record being passed down from generation to generation is an assumption and no matter how much that assumption is "taught" as fact no one will ever really know what did happen. It is quite possible though that people will start to believe that it was an everyday occurance millenia ago, because we have been taught that for the last 75 years and no one else can bring any evidence against it.
BTW, if someone does bring any evidence, it is because they trust God and that is not science, but relagated to culture and religion. Science would never go study some one's culture or religion to prove anything scientifically, science takes cold hard facts and assumptions based on obviously God is not involved and conclude there is no other way. Then one is critized for even putting God in that sentence because once again Science has nothing to do with God. "We do not add God." "We do not subtract God." "We do not equate God with anything." We are science. So once again how did ToE evolve from expalining Creation to there was no creation and God is not "needed" in science. Has the meaning of life been brought to just mere existence?
I agree that science has amassed moutains of evidence in it's favor for evolution and yes there are things that evolve. However, it is not proof any more than one questioning the proof for Gravity. We take it for granted. Time will tell if the theories of the last 150 years hold water into the next couple of millenia, but that is all ToE has is time on it's side. Trying to convince a person who has a record of the last 3300 years in which evolution of the grand scale has not been in observance is futile. Training new generations separated from such "record" is evolutionary.
It's not Stephen Fry, it's Morgan Freeman!!!!!
civ2, did I just read you say some couple dozen posts ago that fish are not intelligent?
civ2, did I just read you say some couple dozen posts ago that fish are not intelligent?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
classical_hero
In whom I trust
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
Why I think evolution and creation are NOT compatible:
1. The idea of the holy seventh day.
If you take the creation (through evolution) to continue for billions of years - it totally annuls the notion of the Sabbath.
2. The idea of mankind being created as is and directly by G-d.
Adam was a single person, not a new species that evolved from a monkey.
The Bible narrates the history in a generation-to-generation form, which again implies that it was only one first human (and his wife).
Evolution totally says the opposite.
About juggling words like "hypothesis" and "theory" etc.
1. I don't care if I say the term 100% right - if YOU are smart enough, you'll get my point.
2. Regardless of the fancy name you'd give it, anything which can NOT be empirically proven or observed - IS "theory" as in "NOT fact".
3. This includes such things like evolution and Big Bang, but excludes gravity and electricity.
4. Therefore I never had any complains against these last ones, cause you CAN observe at least their effects IN REAL TIME. Which is NOT so with evolution and time measuring. (I'm talking about drastic evolution in MACRO life.)
timtofly
Especially since it's clearly written "proud to be a Jew" over my picture.
I also agree with you that scientists are inflating the importance of science itself.
What I mean, is they accept scientific unproven assumptions as undeniable facts more and more, which effectively leads to dismissing religion as a source of information.
The problem here lies in this:
Science is only capable of answering HOW. The WHY is absolutely out of its scope.
Religion on the contrary is the only source for WHY. And if its HOW sometimes sounds "weird", we should care much more about WHY anyways.
Why?
Cause WHY is what makes you HUMAN, whereas HOW is applicable even to ANIMALS.
Choose what you prefer to be...
1. The idea of the holy seventh day.
If you take the creation (through evolution) to continue for billions of years - it totally annuls the notion of the Sabbath.
2. The idea of mankind being created as is and directly by G-d.
Adam was a single person, not a new species that evolved from a monkey.
The Bible narrates the history in a generation-to-generation form, which again implies that it was only one first human (and his wife).
Evolution totally says the opposite.
About juggling words like "hypothesis" and "theory" etc.
1. I don't care if I say the term 100% right - if YOU are smart enough, you'll get my point.
2. Regardless of the fancy name you'd give it, anything which can NOT be empirically proven or observed - IS "theory" as in "NOT fact".
3. This includes such things like evolution and Big Bang, but excludes gravity and electricity.
4. Therefore I never had any complains against these last ones, cause you CAN observe at least their effects IN REAL TIME. Which is NOT so with evolution and time measuring. (I'm talking about drastic evolution in MACRO life.)
timtofly
Especially since it's clearly written "proud to be a Jew" over my picture.
I also agree with you that scientists are inflating the importance of science itself.
What I mean, is they accept scientific unproven assumptions as undeniable facts more and more, which effectively leads to dismissing religion as a source of information.
The problem here lies in this:
Science is only capable of answering HOW. The WHY is absolutely out of its scope.
Religion on the contrary is the only source for WHY. And if its HOW sometimes sounds "weird", we should care much more about WHY anyways.
Why?
Cause WHY is what makes you HUMAN, whereas HOW is applicable even to ANIMALS.
Choose what you prefer to be...
But the Creation is exactly that, the Creation, something happening at the beginning. Since we're som literal-minded, where did Cain find a wife? Or did he hump Eve?
You're also basically saying that if you use the wrong term it's our fault for not understanding you, not being 'smart enough' instead of you not knowing what you're talking about.
Also, the Big Bang and evolution are separate theories. The fact that many people believe in both doesn't make them connected, and one doesn't cause the other.
You're also basically saying that if you use the wrong term it's our fault for not understanding you, not being 'smart enough' instead of you not knowing what you're talking about.
Also, the Big Bang and evolution are separate theories. The fact that many people believe in both doesn't make them connected, and one doesn't cause the other.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Which theory of Gravity? Newtonian Mechanics (false), General Relativity (does not apply at the quantum level), Quantum Gravity (not yet formulated), or some Grand Unifying Theory (not yet formulated)?
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Its really quite simple, God cannot be tested. First off you cant prove any God exists or doesnt exist, and perhaps more importantly even if you want to logically say one exists there is no way to test or prove which of the hundreds of Gods humans have believed in is true. Since science cant possibly test it, it leaves it out. What is so difficult to understand about this? it isnt scientific to just say "oh well this is complicated, must be God". Molecular reactions were pretty complicated and beyond understanding until the last century and under intelligent design logic we should have just chalked it up as too complicated, must be the wonders of God. The moment science just throws up its hands and says "THIS IS TOO HARD, HAS TO BE SOMETHING BEYOND NATURE" is the day advancement stops, and that would be a terrible day.
Why do we have piles of proto-human species if he just POP made humans? Did he have to fiddle around until he got it right like some puny human inventor? "Well crap Homo erectus doesnt quite look like me and is too stupid, guess Ill have to try again"
Unfortunately, Aristotle and Carolus Darvinus never met, but oh, the fun they could have have had!
As Plotinus would tell you, that's because some Muslim scholars specialise in teaching the Qor'an as sacrosanct and inviolate, even in the face of modern science, and which is why many fundamentalist Christians have a lot more in common with such Muslims than they'd care to admit.There are more Muslim Creationists than there are Christian ones.
So why don't you believe that Ra ejaculated the world into existence or that the Norse goat Audumla shaped the first of the Aesir from hoarfrost with her tongue and hot breath? Both are as equally valid as the Genesis story, scientifically speaking.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
Gravity - FACT. Just through your cat out the window.
Electricity - FACT. Um... do I need to TYPE anything more?
Atoms/particles - FACT. Just NUKE them!
Adaptation - FACT. White, yellow, red, brown, black - we're missing only GREEN men from Mars...
Genealogy - FACT. Your grandpa had the same bad teeth as you do.
Macro evolution - THEORY. All we have is "results" with NO 100% proofs. Bones prove nothing cause they don't tell their owners' life stories.
Big Bang/universe age - THEORY. Never heard of a working TIME MACHINE.
All these are examples of what I mean by FACT vs THEORY.
Not the "formulas" involved, but the IDEAS.
Electricity - FACT. Um... do I need to TYPE anything more?
Atoms/particles - FACT. Just NUKE them!
Adaptation - FACT. White, yellow, red, brown, black - we're missing only GREEN men from Mars...
Genealogy - FACT. Your grandpa had the same bad teeth as you do.
Macro evolution - THEORY. All we have is "results" with NO 100% proofs. Bones prove nothing cause they don't tell their owners' life stories.
Big Bang/universe age - THEORY. Never heard of a working TIME MACHINE.
All these are examples of what I mean by FACT vs THEORY.
Not the "formulas" involved, but the IDEAS.
Wolfbeckett
Jerkin' and nonsense.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,682
Why do we have piles of proto-human species if he just POP made humans? Did he have to fiddle around until he got it right like some puny human inventor? "Well crap Homo erectus doesnt quite look like me and is too stupid, guess Ill have to try again"
What you're forgetting is that those fossils aren't real, they were just put there to test our faith, duh!
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Using all caps doesnt mask the fact you are showing amateurish scientific knowledge at best. The only reason people like you accept those others as fact is because they dont butt heads with your religion. The evidence for the universe's age is just as solid as the rest of those, but since it collides with Genesis, suddenly evidence isnt good enough and is just "theory". If the bible said something that suggested electricity was "God magic" suddenly all the evidence we have for electricity being scientific wouldnt be good enough either.
You won't find anyone telling you that the Big Bang was completely proven, mainly because science does not work on absolutes like religion does. You're also quite right that evolution is a theory, but that doesn't prove that the Genesis story is correct, eh?
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
True I forgot the part where the supposedly loving God was a deceptive jerk.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
When I say fossils aren't real, I don't mean the bones themselves.
I mean their INTERPRETATION!
There's NO way to be sure we're actually talking about a SPECIES and not, say, victims of radiation or food poisoning or bone diseases.
Nowadays we also sometimes see VERY deformed (and unfortunate) people.
Would you call them a new species???
"Help! It's the X-Men!!!"
This applies to ALL bones even more.
Single skeleton is worth nothing as a proof for a species, and the (very-very few) that have multiple instances also do not prove HOW they're related to any other species.
Can you discern a horse from a zebra by only looking at its BONES???
(If by a miracle, yes, what about when we talk about UNKNOWN species???)
Again, it's playing LEGO...
As a side topic:
What would you say about The Future Is Wild and Alien Planet???
I have some interesting points on it, but I'm waiting for your first.
(My point again being evolution fails.)
I mean their INTERPRETATION!
There's NO way to be sure we're actually talking about a SPECIES and not, say, victims of radiation or food poisoning or bone diseases.
Nowadays we also sometimes see VERY deformed (and unfortunate) people.
Would you call them a new species???
"Help! It's the X-Men!!!"
This applies to ALL bones even more.
Single skeleton is worth nothing as a proof for a species, and the (very-very few) that have multiple instances also do not prove HOW they're related to any other species.
Can you discern a horse from a zebra by only looking at its BONES???
(If by a miracle, yes, what about when we talk about UNKNOWN species???)
Again, it's playing LEGO...
As a side topic:
What would you say about The Future Is Wild and Alien Planet???
I have some interesting points on it, but I'm waiting for your first.
(My point again being evolution fails.)
- Status
Similar threads
