Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Macro evolution - THEORY. All we have is "results" with NO 100% proofs. Bones prove nothing cause they don't tell their owners' life stories.

Evolution has been observed on both a micro and macro level... not that it really matters because the two words refer to the same process on different time scales. It is a common misconception that macro-evolution is some kind of distinct process. You can't have micro-evolution without macro-evolution any more than you can have earthquakes without continental drift.
 
Seriously bros this is what I'm talking about, even fossils aren't good enough evidence because they could mean ANYTHING! We could have a complete fossil record of every intermediate step and it's never going to be good enough, so what is the purpose in continuing to feed this particular troll?
 
:lol: Actually Im pretty sure you CAN tell the difference between a Zebra and a Horse just by its bones.

And even if you are right and you cant just tell how species are related by the bones, that doesnt explain why an all knowing God would need to create multiple homo species before finally making one that looked like him. We have plenty of examples of the different homo species, why do they exist at all if God just created humans in his image?
 
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.
I request that you prove Creation by use of the aforementioned Time machine. Otherwise, your Creation is just as valid as my Big Bang (this comes from a Catholic, but, surely, we who believe the Messiah has already come are blasphemous heretics, eh?)
 
Seriously bros this is what I'm talking about, even fossils aren't good enough evidence because they could mean ANYTHING! We could have a complete fossil record of every intermediate step and it's never going to be good enough, so what is the purpose in continuing to feed this particular troll?
I think it's sheer disbelieve in the amount of wilful ignorance . Or rather reluctance to believe this sort of mindset exists.
 
Seriously bros this is what I'm talking about, even fossils aren't good enough evidence because they could mean ANYTHING! We could have a complete fossil record of every intermediate step and it's never going to be good enough, so what is the purpose in continuing to feed this particular troll?
Im coming close to agreeing with you. Like I said, people like civ2 would argue against electromagnetism if the bible had a passage suggesting lightening was strictly the work of God. Evidence is fine until it conflicts with a biblical passage, at that point any scientifically ignorant counterpoint is good enough to prove its just "theory"
 
http://creation.com/question-evolution
15 Questions - Feel free to answer these questions, btw.
It is really quite easy to answer all unanswered questions, with one answer

We don't know for certain, because we don't have enough currently observable evidence, but we have a number of hypothesises and theories to explain some possible reasons and as science continues to research for the unanswered questions, we can refine those theories over the next few years, decades, centuries, millennia, etc.
 
kramer
Oh, THANKS actually!
I just remembered a VERY vital point.
Atheists separate "natural" from "religious".
But the truth is, "there's nothing but G-d", which includes the "nature laws" too!
So, gravity and electricity are as much "G-dly" as are prayer and angels.
The misconception is to deny G-dliness in the mundane.
"G-d is not nature. But nature is G-dly."

kiwitt
EXCELLENT formulation!!!
Except, a typical "scientific atheist" will hold ALL those "theories" for UNDENIABLE FACTS.
And THAT is THE problem...
 
You've been told many times that there are no undeniable facts in a scientific theory. All we have are models which fit observations.

This debate reminds me of the attempted proofs for Fermat's Last Theorem. Lots of these got sent to maths faculties around the world. They got put into 2 categories:

1) Something that looks like mathematics

and

2) Filed in the bin.
 
civ2, you continue to ignore me. Are you implying that the entire universe is God? I didn't know you were a Pantheist.
 
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.

Your argument in this respect does not make a whole lot of sense. Here are the sequence of events:

1. You say that evolution is labeled a theory by the scientists, therefore it is purely conjecture and guesswork.
2. People give you the scientific definition of theory, hypothesis, and laws and tell you that it wrong to infer that because something is a theory does not make it conjecture.
3. You say you don't care what the actual definitions of "theory" is, which makes makes what you said in 1. nonsensical.
 
Let's keep it simple; :D

A lay-person's (non-scientist) view.

Hypothesis = IDEA which needs to be tested
Theory = IDEA with some observable evidence via testing
 
Wolf
First, give me a full record, then we'll talk.
Again, FACT vs THEORY.

I don't think you really know or understand what a scientific theory is or how it differs from a regular run of the mill theory.

As such, anything you say about the Theory of Evolution can be ignored
 
I don't think you really know or understand what a scientific theory is or how it differs from a regular run of the mill theory.

As such, anything you say about the Theory of Evolution can be ignored
Because it wasn't obvious before this ? :-/
 
kramer
Oh, THANKS actually!
I just remembered a VERY vital point.
Atheists separate "natural" from "religious".
But the truth is, "there's nothing but G-d", which includes the "nature laws" too!
So, gravity and electricity are as much "G-dly" as are prayer and angels.
The misconception is to deny G-dliness in the mundane.
"G-d is not nature. But nature is G-dly."
No the point of what I am saying is that if there were a passage, that directly said lightening was directly God throwing thunderbolts in anger, people like you would promptly ignore all the electromagnetic science behind it, and insist all that was just theory and not fact. The only reason people like you have issues with evolution or the origins of life or the age of the universe is because it doesnt work with that god forsaken fairy tale in genesis. The evidence for these things is solid to anyone not blindly trying to figure out ways to prove the bible isnt speaking in parables, just like the evidence for electricity and gravity are solid, but you and your ilk insist the evidence isnt there because that's the only way for Genesis to not be a pile of rubbish.
 
How did life originate? How did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Random chance, around volcano of heat vents. Possibly through comets delivering things as well.
How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?

Natural selection. RNA more than likely came first as it is able to carry very simple things and could be used to pass on traits. DNA is less fragile than RNA however and eventually DNA became the gold standard.

How could such errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? How can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines?

You'd be surprised how long four billion years is.

Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Natural selection means species with the best traits for their environment will get to reproduce to pass on their traits. Because not all traits are favorable to all conditions, there is diversity.

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Natural selection is my short answer here. To be fair, I haven't read that deeply into it.

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

This is a fallacy. Just because something "looks" as if it was designed means nothing. Because of this, logical doesn't even begin to factor in since the alternative to evolution isn't logical.
How did multi-cellular life originate?

The same way protocells originate. Natural selection is about getting the best traits for the environment. Like DNA, mulch-celluarity proved beneficial to prokarayotic (sic) and eukayrotic (sic) cells.
How did sex originate?
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Because the world isn't perfect.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

Because eventually, a species achieves genetics that is perfectly suited to its environment.

How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Emergent properties of all these things.

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Huh?
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Umm...what?
Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

The same way the Theory of Gravity is taught as why big, heavy things are attractive.
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Well, because biology is built around evolution. Evolution isn't a religious idea, it is a scientific idea. While there are disagreements to how exactly life started, there have been experiments done including experiments that determined that life probably sprung around volcanoes or that comets brought amino acids.
----------

Also, scientific theory is extremely different from normal theory. If you believe in micro evolution, you have to accept macro evolution occurring over long periods of time.
 
Macro evolution - THEORY. All we have is "results" with NO 100% proofs. Bones prove nothing cause they don't tell their owners' life stories.
Actualy, they do. Scientists can identify with a reasonable degree of certianty where a person was from, how old they were, what diet they had, whether they traveled alot (based on diet), and many other things based on bones and teeth of a skeleton.
Big Bang/universe age - THEORY. Never heard of a working TIME MACHINE.
Don't need a time machine, just use gravitational lensing and redshift/blueshift. Scientists aren't sure exactly what happened to start the universe, but through gravitational lensing and redshift, we can tell the universe is expanding and that it is around 13 billion years old.
 
13.75 billion years or thereabouts, Ajidica - 13.75 giga-annums (Ga). :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom