Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: ParasuvO

Do you have an alternative to propose or just a bunch of random words with no actual substance?

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: peter vlar

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

Which "theories" have been disproven? MES is hands down not only the most widely researched subject but also the most evidenced theory in the history of science. All you're doing is continuing to demonstrate your willful ignorance to well documented, testable and verifiable science. It's your prerogative to remain in disbelief but at least do yourself the favor of engaging in some due diligence.

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.

No, I'm not arguing that it's "only theoretical" This statement makes it appear as if you've never taken basic high school biology let one sat down in a lecture hall. The "only a theory" bit is a strain and entirely fallacious.

Evolution is a fact. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the theory that explains how mechanisms of evolution work. You still don't seem to understand the difference between a Scientific Theory and a laymans theory not to mention the difference between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law. If you don't understand some of the most basic concepts of science there's not much of a conversation to be had and there's no possible way ou have a degree in any scientific discipline as you claim.

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.

I could give two screws about alien seeding. We're discussing science not speculation. DNA can't reorganize in nature? Please explain the fusion of human chromosome 2 then. As for new species... myxo.css.msu.edu...

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.

And not a lick of that has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a measurement of the change inelegant frequencies over time. It has nothing to do with the origins of organic life on earth so there's little point in going off topic and addressing your errors regarding the hypothesis of Abiogenesis

We can go back and forth forever, but one must admit that evolution as we know it today is silly science.

No... One does not. The only way to deny the evidence is to stick your head in the sand.

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.

Again, how can you argue against a Science you clearly know very little about? It's intellectually dishonest at best. Abiogenesis and Panspermia have zero to do with MES. Whether you want to do the work and learn or not is your deal but it doesn't change the fact that multiple scientific disciplines confirm each other's data concerning Modern Evitionary Synthesis and ALL life has evolved, is still evving and will continue to do so until life no longer exists.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yikes! Ok. If you take the many gaps in evolution and ignore them or just close your eyes hard enough, then yea, evolution makes sense.... :-/

a reply to: TheSorrow

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

Which ones? By who? Do you have sources citing that they 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.

Can you explain how scientific theories and laws are related in your mind?

There is not a natural mechanism for reorganizing DNA.

This is simply incorrect. Deletions, duplications, insertions, inversions, translocations... all observed in nature. Just because you're not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you're ignorant of the facts.

However, I am not aware of any new species having been created even in a lab.

Speciation has absolutely been observed in both the laboratory and in the wild. Again, just because you're not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you're ignorant of the facts.

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.

That's why abiogenesis is a hypothesis. If you call the ability to generate the molecular bases for life from constituents found on primoridal earth "no evidence", then I'd argue that the issue is with the incredibly high bar you've set for what constitutes evidence, not the evidence itself.

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.

It's only "silly" if you're grasp of science is tenuous, in spite of your supposed degree in chemistry, and you choose to ignore the evidence that is there.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: peter vlar

Yikes! Ok. If you take the many gaps in evolution and ignore them or just close your eyes hard enough, then yea, evolution makes sense.... :-/

Which gaps are those? You have yet to describe any. Again, if you don't understand some of the most basic aspects of science, how can you honestly try to argue against it? When a person claims to have a degree in science but doesn't understand the difference between a Scientific Theory and laymans theory or what a Scientific Theory does vs. a Scienific Law you lose all ground to stand on. Please use SCIENCE to explain what is wrong with Modern Evoltionary Synthesis. Show me what the errors, or as you claim, what the gaps are. You keep repeating the same thing as infinitum yet refuse to address any specific questions. I don't think you're able to do so however.

a reply to: peter vlar

Did you read my post? I said very clearly- that evolution IS a theory. I never said it was a law. In fact I said it was not a law. You are making my case for me.

Concerning gaps, there are many in regards to evolution. For example how did nonliving chemicals and elements evolve into a living biological entity? Such as a cell...? May be a magic rock that was struck by lightning? Maybe ancient aliens!? Ridiculous smh

a reply to: TheSorrow

What you're describing is abiogenesis, a hypothesis for the origin of life. Evolution only deals with what life does once already present. They are two separate facets of biology.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: TheSorrow

What you're describing is abiogenesis, a hypothesis for the origin of life. Evolution only deals with what life does once already present. They are two separate facets of biology.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: peter vlar

Did you read my post? I said very clearly- that evolution IS a theory. I never said it was a law. In fact I said it was not a law. You are making my case for me.

Yes, I have been hooked on phonics and read your posts. But no...I'm in no way making your argument for you. You're making a mockery of your own position by not grasping what you're arguing let alone what I'm saying. You keep repeating the same tripe about evolution only being a theory when the word does not mean what you seem to think it means. I know exactly what Modern Evitiomary Synthesis is. I have an Anthropology degree and have studied the subject for nearly 30 years. I've worked on digs, Ive worked in the lab and done the actual work.

Why don't you describe to me what the differences are between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Can you do that? WILL you do that?

Concerning gaps, there are many in regards to evolution. For example how did nonliving chemicals and elements evolve into a living biological entity? Such as a cell...? May be a magic rock that was struck by lightning? Maybe ancient aliens!? Ridiculous smh.

This isn't a gap in evolutionary theory. If you knew what Modern Evolutionary Synthesis was, you would know that. If you really had a degree in chemistry you would know that while MES is a Biological science, the HYPOTHESIS of Abiogenesis is an organic, biochemical area of study. The above "gap" is in regards to Abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution which as I stated previously is measurement of the change in allele frequencies over time. It deals with how life has changed since it began. It has nothing to do with the origins of life. The only thing ridiculous here is your unbridled and willful ignorance towards the subject. Are you sure you're not just trolling the thread?


And anytime you want to address some of my specific questions to you such as how you explain the fusion of human chromosome 2 or the Lenski experiment( you did read the link right?) I'm happy to discuss the science involved and what you think the errors are in the science.

a reply to: peter vlar

Lol, nah. Not trolling you. Just amused. People who believe in ancient aliens or magic rocks hit by lightning... Good times.

Evolutionary researchers have given up on the idea of creating life from non living, non biological, elements or chemicals. Why...? Because it's ridiculous! Haha.

You are right. Evolution doesn't answer any fundamental or basic questions. But keep the faith bro.

originally posted by: scorpio84
...why do so many of you not believe in evolution?

I honestly do not get it.

Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors


I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

This is an honest question and if it some how offends it, then I'm sorry...that you are so easily offended. But seriously, if anyone here can give a good (i.e. logical and valid) reason as to why creationism makes more sense (i.e. is more correct, not is easier) than the theory of evolution, I'd love to read about it.

BTW, if this has been answered before, pardon me. I'm not about to go through thousands of posts which are invariably interspersed with a bunch of bickering.

Oh man, where to start...

First of all, you claim it's based on date eh ? Data you can't prove ? Like some huge "bang" that happened "billions" of years ago..the Ole something from nothing non sense.

I ask you, show me an example whee you can physically see one species that evolved, not adapted, into another species. In other words, show me one species that I can physically see, then show me where it "evolved" into another species. You can't.

Now about all these "errors" in the bible. Show me a single one, & I'll show you how wrong you are.

Evolution isn't real, it's a theory, & a pretty bad one. Something didn't come from nothing. We didn't come from monkeys.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: peter vlar

Lol, nah. Not trolling you. Just amused. People who believe in ancient aliens or magic rocks hit by lightning... Good times.

That was a really long winded way of saying that you're incapable of refuting the science, rather interesting.

Not sure where ancient aliens or magic rocks come in to play here. None of it is now nor has ever been a part of evolutionary theory though.

Evolutionary researchers have given up on the idea of creating life from non living, non biological, elements or chemicals. Why...? Because it's ridiculous! Haha.

See, now I know you're a lying fraud and don't have a chemistry degree. Otherwise you would be all too aware that it is CHEMISTS who study abiogenesis and in the last few years have done impressive work demonstrating that it is entirely possible for organic compounds to assemble into short strands that are capable of becomimg RNA. I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty in these threads but someone lying about their credentials is pretty gnarly.

You are right. Evolution doesn't answer any fundamental or basic questions. But keep the faith bro.

That's cute how you put words in my mouth to distract from your fraudulent claims and lack of knowledge on the subject. Go get yourself a library card, read a few books and then come back and try again when you've educated yourself. Because if you're only capable of circular reasoning and deflection tactics as opposed to discussing the science, there isn't really a discussion to be had is there? My offer still stands, anytime you're willing to address the actual science let me know.

a reply to: TheFirstL19

Haha! I am loving this thread. If people want to believe in magic rocks and chemicals that evolved into monkeys and that ancient aliens altered DNA to evolve the human race... Why would you argue against that. Just sit back and enjoy!

a reply to: peter vlar

Wait, back up. Are you suggesting that researchers have created life with their magic rocks and lightning? I haven't seen that one. You would need a lot of intervention including programming and some life to start out with. As a chemist I can assure you that no mixture of chemicals, magic rocks, elements, ancient aliens, or electricity could create a cell. Smh

a reply to: TheSorrow

You're not a chemist. You have no background at all in science. Otherwise instead of trolling you would... Address the science and what is wrong with the science. But you don't do that. You utilize vague and veiled condescension to avoid addressing it at all costs. You make incorrect statements regarding what the science actually says and then toss in a few ad hominems for good measure. Please keep going... Keep up your SMH routine. Ill stick to peer reviewed science and colleagues with actual degrees.

a reply to: peter vlar

Huh... So they haven't created life from non living, nonbiological elements? Wierd. Maybe if the ancient aliens return they can show us how it's done. Or maybe another life form will evolve next week and can explain it all to me. I doubt it though. But be strong.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: peter vlar

Did you read my post? I said very clearly- that evolution IS a theory. I never said it was a law. In fact I said it was not a law. You are making my case for me.

Concerning gaps, there are many in regards to evolution. For example how did nonliving chemicals and elements evolve into a living biological entity? Such as a cell...? May be a magic rock that was struck by lightning? Maybe ancient aliens!? Ridiculous smh

I am not that concerned if people believe in creationism or evolution because belief is personal.

Still, the blatant word twisting needs to end. No one is claiming Evolution is a Scientific Law, those require some mathematical proof. Instead, most people are trying to tell you that you are confusing a Scientific Theory with a lay theory.

This site explains with great detail what constitutes a Scientific Theory

In cause you don't want to take a look I quote this:

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis.

Evolution is no longer a hypothesis, for it has been tested and those tests were peer-reviewed, so it is a Scientific Theory, but that makes it as strong as the layman's idea of a law.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

I've never heard anyone credible ever make a claim like this. Life did not and could not evolve from chemicals and nonbiological elements. I have never read a peer reviewed article claiming otherwise!

I have heard time and time again that a rock was hit by lightning or ancient aliens came and seeded life or engineered it... Silly science! Haha! I have never seen a credible peer reviewed research paper that has made this claim. I don't know where you're getting this from

This is real simple....No good evidence of apemen changing into humans.Just all theory and the Big Bang is not really proven either.

Fact is we do not have a clue where we came from.I believe a Creator we call God made us.I believe it was the Judeo Christian God as well and believe that the bible is telling the truth about all the events it mentions.But I take that by faith.

No one knows if we actualy came from stardust.It is more theories and speculation.

a reply to: Jobeycool

Nah, we were seeded by Xenu! Haha! Not really. I didn't realize people still believe that we evolved from Primordial Soup! Evolution is silly science. Adoptation- that's science!