Evolution is an exercise in creative thinking.

originally posted by: john666
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

How did the evolution from Cynodonts to mammals occur?

a reply to: john666

To quote the Hon. Mp. Peter Garrett -



The Evolution of Mammals

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: reploid
This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps of imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

Some people want there religion to be true so bad they'll believe anything.....not "evolutionists".... I mean the OP. Every point you made is ridiculous. Obviously your only reading Christian conspiracy sites.

You do realize that about half of modern medicine is from evolution. .... Don't fall for there garbage.

the funny thing is that there is no such thing as modern medicine, the medicine we are seeing today is a god damn boredom killing business making profit for the BIGpharma and their corporate greed, the pesky doctors prescribing drugs for their own profit and introducing the "new kind of drugs" or "new methods" via advertising and another marketing strategies gaining profit for another bunch of folks ... damn, the ancient people knew a helluva more about medicine than we do today.
We don't cure the disease, we conceal and mask the symptoms. We already know that the vast, vast majority of illnesses comes from the mind, yet we decide to cure the body. Why?... Money.

btw, you just can't spell "THEIR" as "THERE".

WOW some many conspiracy CLICHES in just one paragraph!!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

I'll try to make more paragraphs for you next time, buddy.
Anyways, don't worry, these ain't conspiracy clichés. It's bloody true and it's saddening.

This is why i always liked the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy book.

I wont explain exactly why for spoiler reasons, highly recommended to the uninitiated.

a reply to: Biigs

I'm initiated but I still don't see the connection?

"Human beings are not proud of their ancestors and never invite them around for dinner" ? That's about as close as I can get..

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

History and mistakes (mistakes being badly though out plans or just a good plan that met bad odds on the day) are past.

The future is ideas and plans that just havnt happened yet, god doesnt decide these things we do, but once its past if we dont like it we find it awfully convenient to blame a "person" that doesnt exist.

Make better plans and you wont need a sky pixie scapegoat.

a reply to: reploid

So I guess it was god then.. Lol.

originally posted by: demus
just to say:

why wouldn't God use evolution?

The only people who say he can't are creationists, and not all creationists for that matter. Usually the YEC crowd. Everyone else recognizes that if god exists then evolution is a tool it uses to develop life in the universe.

Of course saying that god can't use evolution to develop life is a contradiction since those very same people who deny evolution also say that god is supposed to be all powerful.

why would religion and evolution be mutually exclusive?

They aren't.

evolution is a very nice theory, but it still a theory and it is constantly changing; with new evidence and insight comes new additions to the theory.

Until something comes along that COMPLETELY flips evolution on its head, for the most part, evolutionary theory stays consistent. Sure new knowledge updates the theory, but it's not like we discover some new ancient history and it COMPLETELY contradicts evolution or something. Usually the new evidence just requires scientists to tweak the theory a bit. Like the addition of the punctuated equilibrium idea that the OP brought up (though he used it incorrectly by trying to show it as evidence that evolution is wrong strangely)

there had to be a point where humans somehow started to develop in a different way from other animals and evolution has some answers to that but than why and how exactly did that happen?

Time will (hopefully) tell. There could be any number of factors that caused us to evolve into what we are today, but we are going to have to develop the historical record WAY more before we could adequately answer that question.

and are we going to see super human sometime in the future; meaning a start of a new race - superior to humans?

Well I don't know about the X-men or anything, but the answer to your question is yes. Humans haven't stopped evolving or anything. We will continue to evolve. In fact we are. Humans over the years have lost much of their body hair, have grown taller, live longer. We are breeding out traits like blonde hair.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And then there are those who claim that evolution is impossible without a god in charge of it...

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Biigs

I'm initiated but I still don't see the connection?

"Human beings are not proud of their ancestors and never invite them around for dinner" ? That's about as close as I can get..

Perhaps you should watch it a couple more times. I found it highly insightful on par with Monty Python.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And then there are those who claim that evolution is impossible without a god in charge of it...

While those people are also making assumptions about things they don't know, at least they are easier to deal with since they at least acknowledge that evolution is a real thing. They just think that it HAS to be guided by an intelligent hand.

I find the hardest people to talk to are the ones who just flat out don't believe in evolution. I can come to an understanding with anyone else. But those people just won't listen to any rational discourse and will plug their ears no matter what evidence is presented. To them the bible is the end all be all of everything. I'm sure that there are a few YECers on these forums who think I won't listen to any evidence that is contrary to my position, but they are wrong. I've had some deep and meaningful conversations with believers who can accept that evolution is real. I don't question their belief in a god since I have no evidence of one not existing and we get along just fine. Even if they ask my opinion on the matter, I just say that I don't know and leave it at that. I may tell them that they are being intellectually dishonest by assuming things that they don't have the evidence to support, but that is on them. At least they aren't flat out denying mountains of evidence staring them in the face.

originally posted by: tsingtao
wake me up when you people find out how life evolved from a bunch of stuff.

why don't we have the respiratory system of birds?

Sleep tight sweet prince, sleep tight... (Everybody back away, be quiet)

originally posted by: john666
A question for evolutionists.
Was the first human, male or female?

This is a great example of the dualist, black-and-white thinking that plagues our western tradition of humanities. I'm not saying western science is bad, I think it's the best. But not perfect. Sometimes we just get blinded and think we can reduce astounding complexity to a simple yes or no question like this.

a reply to: john666

Every organism is exactly the same species as its parent or parents.

There was never any 'first Homo Sapiens'.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Given all the silly grammar rules in English writing, that is hard enough as it is, let alone trying to correct someone else's grammar.

I am not even a native English speaker and when I see an AMERICAN or someone from the UK not knowing the difference between they're, their and there, worse, COULD OF...I am very, very, very sorry but I have to assume you're (lol!) IQ is less than that of a tomato. You should actually be ashamed not even to be able to speak your own language correctly.

The internet is not an excuse because texting short-forms like U, 'coz etc. are different to making blatant mistakes like "could of" their/they're etc. What do you think I think if we have a debate going on about politics, science, religion and you cannot even write properly? I CAN not take such a person's opinion seriously. Sorry.

Thank you for OT rant. Back to topic.

Edit: Silly grammar? English grammar is simple compared to many other languages.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Let's play a game called "What's the difference"

What's the difference between:
then/than
its/it's
your/you're
there/their/they're
affect/effect
accept/except

Those are just a few of the common mix-ups people make on the internet (there are of course more). Can you adequately tell the difference between all of them without looking them up? If you can't then you have no business judging others' grammar.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Biigs

I'm initiated but I still don't see the connection?

"Human beings are not proud of their ancestors and never invite them around for dinner" ? That's about as close as I can get..

Perhaps you should watch it a couple more times. I found it highly insightful on par with Monty Python.

Please, the less said about that awful movie, the better.

If you want to experience proper HHGTTG, it HAS to be either the radio plays or the books (or the BBC TV series).

As if Arthur would get together with Trillian. Pure Hollywood rubbish.

what does science say:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
--Max Planck

“When the answer is simple, God is answering.”
--Einstein

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
--Dr. Fred Hoyle (scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" who was unafraid to go wherever the facts led him, and who consequently recanted his atheism.)

Head of Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, converts to Christianity
"I set out to prove that my atheist position was correct."

“Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover.”
--Aristotle, “Physics”

“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
--Werner von Braun, Letter to CA State Board of Education, 9/14/72

"The laws of nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen, must conform. Just as the rules of Arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions of money, must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant "
"For every law says in the last resort: 'If you have A, then B."
But first catch your A.
The laws will not do it for you."
--C.S.Lewis
12 min

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: reploid

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. That word doesn't exist.

i believe there is according to Webster's

evo·lu·tion·ist noun -sh(ə-)nəst
Definition of EVOLUTIONIST :
a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution
evolutionist

they even have a audio file you can play and hear the word.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Like my literary and scientific hero Richard Dawkins, I am very happy to call myself an evolutionist, as I do here.

(If you plan to comment on that thread, please respect the topic. Thanks in advance.)