Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Seriously....
and your wife's a veterinarian.
No offence but seriously I wouldnt let her near my pets.

I hope you both know you can look for an answer online, study it, its not hard to find the reason.
Thats basic biology

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Seriously....
and your wife's a veterinarian.
No offence but seriously I wouldnt let her near my pets.

I hope you both know you can look for an answer online, study it, its not hard to find the reason.
Thats basic biology

I think that question was used as an illustration of evolution happening and being observed rather than a specific answer being required.

a reply to: borntowatch

You can't get information magically forming from rocks, water or anything else unless someone is doing the informing, the miller/urey experiments prove it. In the Biblical account, it is stated that all life was formed from the dust, or material of the earth. It didn`t just magically transform from rocks or water all by itself, it occurred because there was a being called Yahweh, also known as Jesus doing the informing.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: borntowatch

You can't get information magically forming from rocks, water or anything else unless someone is doing the informing, the miller/urey experiments prove it. In the Biblical account, it is stated that all life was formed from the dust, or material of the earth. It didn`t just magically transform from rocks or water all by itself, it occurred because there was a being called Yahweh, also known as Jesus doing the informing.

How do you know that?
Seriously, how do you really know that?
Please don't use the "because it says so in the Bible" answer.

a reply to: Pardon?

No, because it has never been proven by the scientific method of observation to occur. The high priests of materialism would like you to believe this occurs by the magic wand of time, because of their fairy tales about what they believe happened in the past. Their "evidence" boils down to "I see the building blocks of life, therefore it evolved". This is what classifies as "evidence" for evolution for everything, "I see life, therefore it evolved, because I say so".

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

No, because it has never been proven by the scientific method of observation to occur. The high priests of materialism would like you to believe this occurs by the magic wand of time, because of their fairy tales about what they believe happened in the past. Their "evidence" boils down to "I see the building blocks of life, therefore it evolved". This is what classifies as "evidence" for evolution for everything, "I see life, therefore it evolved, because I say so".

Irrespective of whether it's never been proven, tell me how you KNOW god did it as you stated.
Not how you believe god did it, but how you know.

That was the question I asked you.

a reply to: Pardon?

Well this is a philosophical/theological argument, its up to you if you accept it as the most plausible. This goes back to my earlier response about understanding who and what Yahweh is, as supernatural in origin verses all other gods where there is no distinction between the creator and its creation, where they all form themselves out of a primordial watery chaos or pre-biotic soup as forces of nature. If these stories had any truth to them at all, then we would see proof of it by the scientific method.

This also goes for those who believe E.T, or "ancient astronauts" are the reason we exist. If E.T created us, than all you are doing is throwing the problem for the origin of life into outer space, not realizing that you will also have to provide an answer for who created them as well, creating a never ending problem for the origin of life. This is why I believe that life can only exist from a supernatural source, and the only source described in this manner is Yahweh.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

Well this is a philosophical/theological argument, its up to you if you accept it as the most plausible. This goes back to my earlier response about understanding who and what Yahweh is, as supernatural in origin verses all other gods where there is no distinction between the creator and its creation, where they all form themselves out of a primordial watery chaos or pre-biotic soup as forces of nature. If these stories had any truth to them at all, then we would see proof of it by the scientific method.

This also goes for those who believe E.T, or "ancient astronauts" are the reason we exist. If E.T created us, than all you are doing is throwing the problem for the origin of life into outer space, not realizing that you will also have to provide an answer for who created them as well, creating a never ending problem for the origin of life. This is why I believe that life can only exist from a supernatural source, and the only source described in this manner is Yahweh.

So what you're saying is you don't know isn't it?

Which, coincidentally, is exactly what science says about the origin of life.
It doesn't know.
But because it doesn't know it doesn't just make things up to fit.
It puts forward hypotheses and then tests them.
And it will keep on doing that until these hypotheses become more robust and testable.
And if they don't it'll look elsewhere.
That's what science does.
It doesn't say it can't explain it so therefore it must be god, as you do.

Why don't we look at every aspect of science like that?
Why bother doing anything?

a reply to: Pardon?

You are missing the entire point I made. If science claims that it cannot explain the origin of life by naturalistic means, then that makes Yahweh, being supernatural the most likely source among all other gods. If a Christian or anyone else wishes to believe that Yahweh did it by common descent despite scripture stating the exact opposite, then that`s between you and God.

a reply to: BlackManINC

You are missing the entire point I made. If science claims that it cannot explain the origin of life by naturalistic means, then that makes Yahweh, being supernatural the most likely source among all other gods. If a Christian or anyone else wishes to believe that Yahweh did it by common descent despite scripture stating the exact opposite, then that`s between you and God.

science has never claimed it cannot. it claims that it is currently investigating. there is a huge difference there. but it doesnt just claim, it also proves. every day new evidence is found and new theories are examined, and that is proof that we are always investigating and always asking questions. always testing, to use the word pardon? used. but to use the words of others, there can be no testing god. that means there can be no verifying him-her-it. and that means it can never be fact. ergo faith. unless you want to start testing it...hint hint. personally i enjoy using a rotten banana as the control group.

the 2,000 year old testimony of ignorant sheepherders or a field of study that attracts new evidence and yields more breakthroughs every year? to say that creationism is just as good a theory as evolution is one thing. to claim that evolution is worthless as a theory is another.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I`ll take the testimony of a "sheepherder" who knew God over some know it all fool declaring himself to be wise who was born yesterday in comparison stating what they believe happened as a scientific fact. Why? Well its simple, because the Bible is not hearsay or what the author believe happened in the past, it is an eye account of historical events, written as the author saw it. When you understand this, then understanding the creation account will come a lot easier for you and you will see no contradictions in it.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Seriously....
and your wife's a veterinarian.
No offence but seriously I wouldnt let her near my pets.

I hope you both know you can look for an answer online, study it, its not hard to find the reason.
Thats basic biology

I think that question was used as an illustration of evolution happening and being observed rather than a specific answer being required.

At least someone who gets the point ...
So, borntowatch, since I'm born to laugh, why don't you give us your best shot at that one ?
How does that simple biological process confirms/deny any of the arguments presented here ?
Please explain us ... should you be able to.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I`ll take the testimony of a "sheepherder" who knew God over some know it all fool declaring himself to be wise who was born yesterday in comparison stating what they believe happened as a scientific fact.

oh ho ho. scathing.

Why? Well its simple, because the Bible is not hearsay or what the author believe happened in the past, it is an eye account of historical events, written as the author saw it.

including some pretty spectacular methane trips. oh wait, "holy spirit visions".

a reply to: borntowatch

oh, so biology, which is a science, is ok?

what is this, science is only ok, if it allows you to belittle people?

a reply to: BlackManINC

and is this any worse than YOUR chosen flavor of fairy tales about what you believe happened in the past?

at least we have taken the time to actually THINK about these matters, instead of just lazily(and quite ignorantly, i might add), attributing what we can't understand, or haven't figured out yet, to some theoretical supreme being, who's existence we cannot prove...

when science is proven wrong, it changes, to come into line with proven fact....

a reply to: BlackManINC

OR...let's think a little..

it could be argued that quantum mechanics is correct, and the nature of the universe is not entirely as we understand it currently...it could be that "we" don't actually exist, and that "we" are actually just fragments of the collective consciousness of the universe, playing itself out....we create our own reality, and the only reason earth, and everything else exists, is because we will it so...

i don't really believe this idea either, but it is another school of thought that would quite handily explain the nature and origin of existence, without having to resort to some supernatural, bi-polar, all-powerful master/father figure...

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

You are missing the entire point I made. If science claims that it cannot explain the origin of life by naturalistic means, then that makes Yahweh, being supernatural the most likely source among all other gods. If a Christian or anyone else wishes to believe that Yahweh did it by common descent despite scripture stating the exact opposite, then that`s between you and God.

Science doesn't say that at all though.
It says it can't explain it at the moment but who knows, maybe it will be able to tomorrow.
What it doesn't do is stop dead and rely on fantasy to make up the gaps.

And even if it comes to a point where it definitely can't go any further, that doesn't make an (not THE) alternative true by default.
You can't prove something by disproving something else.

As I said earlier though, when (and not if) the origin of life is shown to have occurred as is postulated beyond all reasonable doubt you still won't accept it.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: TzarChasm

I`ll take the testimony of a "sheepherder" who knew God over some know it all fool declaring himself to be wise who was born yesterday in comparison stating what they believe happened as a scientific fact. Why? Well its simple, because the Bible is not hearsay or what the author believe happened in the past, it is an eye account of historical events, written as the author saw it. When you understand this, then understanding the creation account will come a lot easier for you and you will see no contradictions in it.

Why do you even bother to argue about it if you will never accept anything contrary to what you believe?
Why do you feel the need to suggest science is wrong?

They are two questions you really need answer only to yourself.

a reply to: Daedalus

Translation: When evolution is proven wrong by science, the science is either twisted to fit into the evolutionary paradigm or the evidence is ignored altogether.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Wait... are you seriously saying you believe that giants roamed the earth??