Questions to Evolutionists

mdwh
1. MY "knowledge" (of any subject) is not the same as yours - therefore stop asking me to explain to you.
You have your own brain.:D
(This was a joke - better use reliable information.)
2. That's exactly my point - you don't have ANY complete proof of ANY species.
You have only fragments (same concerning the majority of fossils) - how can you be sure you didn't make a mistake?
And since you're not a scientist yourself (if YOU are then many others are not anyway) - how can you be sure that scientists made no mistakes?
It's definitely a matter of BELIEF - but this time the "priests" are called scientists.:D

Do you believe in UFO?
Why many people do - though it's obvious that it's a total crap?
Because some "scientists" said so!
Same goes to any fossils - you "see" what you wish to see.
Again - which percentage of fossils was found UNTOUCHED and SOLID???
A very small definitely - but you still believe there was no mistake.
(Key word - BELIEVE.)
 
civ2 said:
And about evolution - where are all the missing links (thousands of them are needed to prove a single evolution event)???
Click to expand...

God took them all to heaven just to mislead us :lol: :lol:
 
I love Civ2. We had chritian literalists, we now have a jewish literalist. I'm waiting for the muslim one, it would be a lot of fun.
Civ2, I know there is no way to make you change your mind about Evolution. As long as your Bible, Torah or whatever tells you, or at least as long as you think it is telling you, that Evolution is not compatible with the word of God, I know you'll never change your mind. I mean when you can find people in todays world believing that the Universe is some 6000 years old, it is very likely you'll find people saying Evolution is not science in 200 years from now.
 
mdwh said:
I disagree - a law does not dictate to the Universe. A law is an observation on how the universe behaves. Theories on the other hand are models explaining how and why the universe behaves in this way.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am missing your point.

You used "how" in both your definitions. You additionally used "why" to define a Theory. Scientific theories do not attempt to answer the question "why?".

Newton wrote some Laws of Motion. Einstein wrote a Special Theory of Relativity. These documents both seek to identify formulae that predict the motion of objects in the universe. The difference in terminology reflects a reduction in arrogance rather than a change in purpose.
 
For what it's worth, Sakhunder, my religion has been increasing in size throughout its entire history.

Civ2: You don't understand that a feature like lungs doesn't have to sudden;y appear. What happened was that a feature used for something else - a swim bladder - slowly became adapted as a supplement to gill breathing, because due to water conditions it was helpful to be able to come to the surface to breath air. That means there was a creature than could breather water and air simultaneoulsy.

Try this - you seem to think that if we don't have the remains of every single ancestor of a creature that it didn't evolve, ie is not related to other organisms. I bet you can't show me the remains of every single one of your ancestors, as some have been lost. That means there are serious gaps in your ancestry. Where is the transition from great^30 grandfather to great^20 grandfather? I'll bet you don't know. Clearly, then, you are not related to the rest of the human race but were an act of special creation sometime in the last couple centuries. You can't be connected to Adam.
 
civ2 said:
4. One thing is species (btw they are also defined subjectively sometimes) and another is appearance of serious changes - not in color or size but such as wings or legs or lungs etc.
There were some threads about these and others parts but all this suggests "intelligent evolution" - like birds KNOWING that wings are good for flight or similar.
Would YOU consider wings useful for flight if you never saw any flying beings?
Now about lungs:
Air is the very essence of life.
It CAN'T take generations to provide a useful feature to breathe - if a fish gets off water - it dies!
And after getting "lungs" - what would make them go out of water?
If you're a fish - then water is the only thing you know and stick to.
The "evolutional appearance" of lungs implys that either fishes were "smart" enough to decide going out of water - or they got their lungs during ONE SINGLE generation - which is absolutely impossible.
Click to expand...
I THINK the proposed sequence is;
Fish start taking air into their digestive tract (mouth) to enable higher levels of activety in low oxygen water.
These fish develop mouths that are more suited to gas exchange.
These fish are then able to leave the water for short periods.
These fish then develop further adaptations for living on land.

This is a well studied field and I think you will find it is quite easy to explain the adaptions with the theory of evolution.

[EDIT] Cross posted with Eran. I expect he is right and it was the swim bladder not the mouth.
 
Indeed, this is pretty standard for Creationists. There are well studied processes by which a new structure or behavior develops over time. But the Creationists ignore the existence of these studies and then claim that there is no way it could have happened, saying it would have had to happen in a single generation. Just as they demand transitional fossils, but the thousands we already have somehow don't count.
 
civ2 said:
And that's exactly what most scientists do!
Not nessesarily change the facts themselves but the interpretations are changed in any form you'd like...
Click to expand...

That's because scientists realize they are not infallible, and don't believe that they are. When proof is shown otherwise, they change their way of thinking to conform with that which has been proven.

They're willing to change their mind. Are you?
 
civ2 said:
One thing is species (btw they are also defined subjectively sometimes) and another is appearance of serious changes - not in color or size but such as wings or legs or lungs etc.
There were some threads about these and others parts but all this suggests "intelligent evolution" - like birds KNOWING that wings are good for flight or similar.
Would YOU consider wings useful for flight if you never saw any flying beings?
Now about lungs:
Air is the very essence of life.
It CAN'T take generations to provide a useful feature to breathe - if a fish gets off water - it dies!
And after getting "lungs" - what would make them go out of water?
If you're a fish - then water is the only thing you know and stick to.
The "evolutional appearance" of lungs implys that either fishes were "smart" enough to decide going out of water - or they got their lungs during ONE SINGLE generation - which is absolutely impossible.
Click to expand...

Well, no wonder you don't accept evolution. This childish, unbelievably inept misconception of what evolution is and how it supposedly "works" wouldn't be believable to anybody EXCEPT Creationists. Fortunately, what you presented is a laughably awful charicature of evolution, nothing resembling the realities of the science. I find it particularly amusing that you think evolution requires some sort of "will" of a creature to evolve. :lol:
 
puglover said:
1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?
Click to expand...

I believe that the mutations that viruses undergo is a fairly specific example of evolution.
 
The most unforgettable thing I read about palaeonthology was that they attached Bronthosaurus' (might be another "long-neck" dino) head to his tail at first!
And you still say palaeonthology is truthful?!
You get a sack of detached bones - and then you "make" a skeleton out of them.
You can match most bones however you wish.
I'm not sure whether all bones even belong to the same organism.
And that's not something "creationistic" - rather "sceptic".:D
 
civ2 said:
HannibalBarka
:D
One thing is to change others' mind - another is to explain your opinion.
Click to expand...

Civ2, I truly think there is no hope with you my friend. Your religious convictions are so deep, that you can't even consider questioning them. It is not a matter of scientific proof, as for you, when science and dogma conflicts, science is necessaraly wrong.
 
The Last Conformist said:
:rotfl:

Creationists are programmatically unconvinced by evidence.
Click to expand...

Creationists are in it for power, not for anything else.

.
 
civ2 said:
The most unforgettable thing I read about palaeonthology was that they attached Bronthosaurus' (might be another "long-neck" dino) head to his tail at first!
And you still say palaeonthology is truthful?!
You get a sack of detached bones - and then you "make" a skeleton out of them.
You can match most bones however you wish.
I'm not sure whether all bones even belong to the same organism.
And that's not something "creationistic" - rather "sceptic".:D
Click to expand...

This guy is killing me :lol: :lol:
Civ2, can you tell me how did Noah manage to put all those big animals in his arch?
 
HannibalBarka said:
This guy is killing me :lol: :lol:
Civ2, can you tell me how did Noah manage to put all those big animals in his arch?
Click to expand...

Two at a time apparently :)
 
civ2 said:
The most unforgettable thing I read about palaeonthology was that they attached Bronthosaurus' (might be another "long-neck" dino) head to his tail at first!
And you still say palaeonthology is truthful?!
You get a sack of detached bones - and then you "make" a skeleton out of them.
You can match most bones however you wish.
I'm not sure whether all bones even belong to the same organism.
And that's not something "creationistic" - rather "sceptic".:D
Click to expand...

So, are you denying dinosaurs exist?

And if you are supporting creationism, please explain how an old man built
a boat that was big enough to house millions of animals and how he done
this alone. How did he gather all these vast diverse species...???

How did he get the insects? How did he gather the deadly predators?

Answers on a mental ward document, please!

Anyone who thinks ancient myths are actually real...Needs help.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
Being a Tourist in Italy
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
5K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
bene_legionary
Moments of Spontaneity
Replies
1
Views
372
warpus
warpus
Valka D'Ur
Crowdfunding questions
Replies
7
Views
702
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Bibor
The thing that irks me most about Sherlock Holmes screen adaptations
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Plotinus
Plotinus
King Phaedron
Game ages in Civ 7
Replies
2
Views
462
Senethro
Senethro
Back
Top Bottom