Creationists, may I ask you...

Again this is from my own perspective and life experiences. As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense. I am not going to try and make an argument for or against evolution only the idea of evolution as we understand it now is incomplete.

For example, Harvard released a video years ago showing the inner workings of a single cell. One of the most basic forms of life. I have not seen a fossil that would explain this process. Incredible complexity! Check it out.

I think it would be a big mistake to look to fossils to understand evolution. It might give some clues I guess.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: TheSorrow
Again this is from my own perspective and life experiences. As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense. I am not going to try and make an argument for or against evolution only the idea of evolution as we understand it now is incomplete.

For example, Harvard released a video years ago showing the inner workings of a single cell. One of the most basic forms of life. I have not seen a fossil that would explain how this process. Incredible complexity! Check it out.

youtu.be...

you are not an expert in fossils. but you could always google them. this is public information, its not hard to do a little research.

its also easy to underestimate the scope of 3.5 billion years worth of constant arbitrary fine tuning (including the extinction of far more species than are alive today) when you have only been alive for half a century.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TheSorrow
Again this is from my own perspective and life experiences. As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense. I am not going to try and make an argument for or against evolution only the idea of evolution as we understand it now is incomplete.

For example, Harvard released a video years ago showing the inner workings of a single cell. One of the most basic forms of life. I have not seen a fossil that would explain how this process. Incredible complexity! Check it out.

youtu.be...

you are not an expert in fossils. but you could always google them. this is public information, its not hard to do a little research.

its also easy to underestimate the scope of 3.5 billion years worth of constant arbitrary fine tuning (including the extinction of far more species than are alive today) when you have only been alive for half a century.

We have a different approach. It appears to be taking us to different conclusions. Where you look to rocks and fossils, I look to the science of biomechanics and genetics. I still don't believe the fossils will help you understand or prove the process of evolution as we think we know it today.

originally posted by: TheSorrow

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TheSorrow
Again this is from my own perspective and life experiences. As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense. I am not going to try and make an argument for or against evolution only the idea of evolution as we understand it now is incomplete.

For example, Harvard released a video years ago showing the inner workings of a single cell. One of the most basic forms of life. I have not seen a fossil that would explain how this process. Incredible complexity! Check it out.

youtu.be...

you are not an expert in fossils. but you could always google them. this is public information, its not hard to do a little research.

its also easy to underestimate the scope of 3.5 billion years worth of constant arbitrary fine tuning (including the extinction of far more species than are alive today) when you have only been alive for half a century.

We have a different approach. It appears to be taking us to different conclusions. Where you look to rocks and fossils, I look to the science of biomechanics and genetics. I still don't believe the fossils will help you understand or prove the process of evolution as we think we know it today.

geology, archaeology, chemistry and biology are all very related fields. most fields of study overlap if you dig deep enough.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Nah.

a reply to: TheSorrow

As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense.

As a chemist that has both a BS and an MS, and did both lab and field work in applied biochemistry, it's very obvious that your statement here is nonsense.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
Again this is from my own perspective and life experiences. As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense. I am not going to try and make an argument for or against evolution only the idea of evolution as we understand it now is incomplete.

You don't think there's just a touch of intellectual dishonesty to start off a statement with a claim that it's "very obvious that evolution as we know it is nonsense" and then finish the statement off with a duck and cover maneuver? If you think you can support the position then why not explain just what it is you feel is wrong with MES?

For example, Harvard released a video years ago showing the inner workings of a single cell. One of the most basic forms of life. I have not seen a fossil that would explain this process. Incredible complexity! Check it out.

You say you have a degree in chemistry yet instead of supporting your position with arguments based in science you instead rely on personal incredulity because a video you saw gives the impression of irreducible complexity?

I think it would be a big mistake to look to fossils to understand evolution. It might give some clues I guess.

The bigger mistake is taking such a myopic view of the mountain of evidence proving MES MES is supported by data from many overlapping disciplines as Tzarchasm points out. To ignore one piece of the puzzle blinds you to the full picture.

originally posted by: TheSorrow

a reply to: TzarChasm
Nah.

Well that's certainly the most scientific response so far in the thread. You certainly do your field a great deal of justice!
Again, what are you afraid of that you refuse to actually support your argument with science? It should be a walk in the park for a chemist, no?

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: TzarChasm
Nah.

well, that was a very succinct rebuttal.

a reply to: scorpio84

Lol, ur mother and father created you. They are God then because they created you. Yet, they had no part in your creation besides feeling each other sexually. We all do not know how to create cells and DNA yet they happen at intercourse. Screw ur logic. It holds no water.

originally posted by: Gyo01
a reply to: scorpio84

Lol, ur mother and father created you. They are God then because they created you. Yet, they had no part in your creation besides feeling each other sexually. We all do not know how to create cells and DNA yet they happen at intercourse. Screw ur logic. It holds no water.

I think we may actually have some idea how to create cells.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: TheSorrow
Again this is from my own perspective and life experiences. As a chemist it's very obvious that evolution, as we know it, is nonsense. I am not going to try and make an argument for or against evolution only the idea of evolution as we understand it now is incomplete.

You don't think there's just a touch of intellectual dishonesty to start off a statement with a claim that it's "very obvious that evolution as we know it is nonsense" and then finish the statement off with a duck and cover maneuver? If you think you can support the position then why not explain just what it is you feel is wrong with MES?

For example, Harvard released a video years ago showing the inner workings of a single cell. One of the most basic forms of life. I have not seen a fossil that would explain this process. Incredible complexity! Check it out.

You say you have a degree in chemistry yet instead of supporting your position with arguments based in science you instead rely on personal incredulity because a video you saw gives the impression of irreducible complexity?

I think it would be a big mistake to look to fossils to understand evolution. It might give some clues I guess.

The bigger mistake is taking such a myopic view of the mountain of evidence proving MES MES is supported by data from many overlapping disciplines as Tzarchasm points out. To ignore one piece of the puzzle blinds you to the full picture.

originally posted by: TheSorrow

a reply to: TzarChasm
Nah.

Well that's certainly the most scientific response so far in the thread. You certainly do your field a great deal of justice!
Again, what are you afraid of that you refuse to actually support your argument with science? It should be a walk in the park for a chemist, no?

Are you guys suggesting that fossils are proof or evidence of evolution and explain the complexity of life and how it evolved? I have never seen any scientific theory with any standing that would explain how life and all of its complexity to be achieved through the process as we know it of evolution. Smh

originally posted by: TheSorrow


Are you guys suggesting that fossils are proof or evidence of evolution and explain the complexity of life and how it evolved?

Im not suggesting anything, I'm stating quite matter of factly that the fossil record quite succinctly demonstrates profound evidence for Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. The fossil record in combination with the geologic column and genetic data proces that evolution is a fact.

I see you still have yet to describe errors or issues with MES let alone support your statements to the contrary. That to me is quite fascinating.

I have never seen any scientific theory with any standing that would explain how life and all of its complexity to be achieved through the process as we know it of evolution. Smh

You should smack yourself in the head then. If you managed to get a science based degree and still claim to have never seen anything related to Modern Evolutionary Synthesis then where did you get your chemistry degree? Bible College?
MES is hands down the most well researched and best evidenced theory in the history of science. To claim you don't know anything about it and then add in your refusal (or inability?) to actually describe the errors in the science seriously calls into question your credentials.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Nah.

a reply to: peter vlar

Nah. The theory of evolution is not a law. It fails to answer many basic questions. For example, please explain to me how information could be processed and organized and then used to Evolve a species? Please explain to me how even the simplest forms of life such as a single cell could just happen by chance? Show me a single example of various species breeding to create a new species... I could go on for sometime. I have little confidence in fossils as scientific evidence for anything. I know that theories such as evolution, ancient aliens or alien seeding are popular ideas however I believe them to be fiction. I certainly would not criticize anyone who does believe in such things.

a reply to: TheSorrow

have little confidence in fossils as scientific evidence for anything.

Your counter-theory, please?

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: peter vlar

Nah.

The theory of evolution is not a law.

I'm sorry if this comes off as rather rude but I have an extremely difficult time buying that you actually have a degree in any scientific discipline if you don't understand that a Scientific Law is not superior to a Scientific Theory. They describe different things. A Scientific Theory describes HOW something happens or works. It is a testable, falsifiable explanation by offering the reason behind it and how this natural phenomena works.

A Scientific Law on the other hand don't get into the mechanisms nor do they explain a particular phenomena as a Scientific Theory does. Instead, it is a declarative statement based on observations that describes the behavior of a naturalistic phenomena. Newtons Law for example does this quite succinctly when he says that 'Objects in motion remain in motion and objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force".

What you seem to believe a theory to be is actually the definition of a hypothesis.

It fails to answer many basic questions. For example, please explain to me how information could be processed and organized and then used to Evolve a species?

The storage apparatus is our DNA. The organizational processes are mutations, recombination, gene conversion, genetic drift and a combination of natural and sexual selection.

Please explain to me how even the simplest forms of life such as a single cell could just happen by chance?

Abiogenesis isn't evolution nor is it a part of evolutionary theory. It's an organic, biochemical process. Surely with a degree in chemistry you should have some knowledge of these processes.

Show me a single example of various species breeding to create a new species...

If to chimpanzees mated and their offspring were somehow magically a new species, this would disprove MES not support it.

I could go on for sometime. I have little confidence in fossils as scientific evidence for anything.

Again, the fossil record is just one of several pieces of critical evidence that support each other. Nobody believes in the accuracy of MES based solely on the fossil record.

I know that theories such as evolution, ancient aliens or alien seeding are popular ideas however I believe them to be fiction.

Two of those three are not theories at all let alone Scientific Theories.

I certainly would not criticize anyone who does believe in such things.

That's certainly your prerogative and based on how little you seem to know about MES it's likely a good thing.

originally posted by: blueman12
Why do people even argue with creationists? They are clearly bias with religion and will make up any argument to support their beliefs.

Creationism falls in the same catagory at flat earth, the moon being made of cheese, and superman.

Because everyone knows Theories of Evolution are totally incomplete, and therefore boring and meaningless, and will never even attempt to address anything of interest.

How do the 2 differ in any way ??

I detest both , as they BOTH propose things which are likely nowhere near the truth.

Why do we think Evolutionists are likely even more boring than Creationists ??

Because you actually believe you do not find solace in unverifiable fairy tales.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Murgatroid

I don't need to disprove your posts. There is no benifit in trying to make idiots understand science if they refuse to read a beginner science book.

Jesus man, Do you even know how a cell works? Or is the inner workings of a cell just a "belief" by scientists?

I really can't argue much further if you think science is a cult. A cult doesn't have arguments, unbias studies, differing views, methods for testing ideas, ect...

I don't know if you are a good troll, or just really really really really stupid.

Let us know when your cult comes up with how everything appeared.

Who actually cares about anything else ???

a reply to: peter vlar

FYI- many of these theories regarding evolution have been disproven.

A few thoughts: Read it again. That's what I said... It's not a law. You are arguing that it's only a theoretical... That's exactly what I said. Evolution is a theory.

There is not a natural mechanism for reorganizing DNA. Although it can be done in a lab. However, I am not aware of any new species having been created even in a lab. I suppose this might give those who believe in alien seeding somewhere to go.

In closing, if I remember correctly, Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Some even believe that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical accident. Once again, there is no evidence of this being possible. Although many have tried over the decades. To believe it could happen randomly takes a lot of faith.

We can go back and forth forever, but one must admit that evolution as we know it today is silly science. It does nothing to even resolve other "lesser" issues such as the spark of life. Evolution (as we think it happened) can not have produced this and many other aspects of life.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm not desperate to minipulate your emotions. You just don't understand science. A concept that can be easily understoud by reading a book.

If you don't understand science but are constantly saying incorrect things about it, then you are dumb.

It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, religion, or any beliefs. Either you understand science or you don't. And you clearly don't.

How is it, that you can understand what SCIENCE is, and not understand that SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is a system that when involved with EVOLUTION, is just bizarre, and lacks the tools to EVER make any inroads on the subject of WHERE EVERYTHING CAME FROM.

You are NOT going to reverse engineer the Universe without breaking free from the CULTS involved in the SCIENTIFIC WORLD, that do everything they can to make sure it is far harder than it should be to find the answers.

Why is it, that you believe this kind of approach, is somehow the best way ever, and can only lead to the answer ??

You are NOT going to find what you are looking for, and trying to believe that SCIENCE is somehow all on its own and incorruptible is an amazing leap.

Finding out just how you can believe that SCIENCE is so unstoppable in certain areas should be in a class of its own.

The INCREDIBLE FAITH, that you have for this, is as astonishing as every other religion out there..........how can we shake you loose from it ??