The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

You all keep on saying... "... evolution is wrong... evolution is conjecture... evolution of a monkey to a tree has never been seen... etc. etc..."... but you never suggest what is right, what isn't conjecture but a solid line of inquiry to follow that isn't evolution.

If you can't offer an alternative, it suggests that maybe evolution is right... and is a fact that you just don't like.

Evolution is made as an alternative for the creation theory.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

So what you're saying is that since creationism was inadequate and has no facts, we observed the natural environment, recorded a bunch of data and as a result evolution has slowly developed over decades as an alternative to creationism?

Sounds about right.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

So what you're saying is that since creationism was inadequate and has no facts, we observed the natural environment, recorded a bunch of data and as a result evolution has slowly developed over decades as an alternative to creationism?.....for those that just don't want to beleive in God.

Sounds about right.

Fixed that for you

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self assembly is a fundamental principle which generates structural organization on scales from atomic nuclei to solar systems and galaxies. Covalent, non-covalent, weak and strong bonds would not exist if self assembly was not the principle mechanism for molecular organization.

Yes, I perceive this as the perpetuation of laws enacted by God to uphold his creation. All laws are made by intelligent beings. until we have evidence that laws can be made by something that is not an intelligent being, then an intelligent Creator is the most logical conclusion regarding the laws of the universe.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Thank you... ... but there was no need... I thought it was self evident in the "... creationism is inadequate..." bit.

You're right... when it comes to figuring out how the natural world works, I don't want to believe in a fiction, I want facts, and repeatable science.

So yes, since you offered nothing other than more unverifiable god stuff... it does seem that the factual alternative to the fantasy of creation is indeed evolution.

Makes sense.

a reply to: cooperton

So what's the problem with evolution being the "... perpetuation of these laws enacted by god..."?

Who cares who or how the "laws" of nature came to be many billions of years ago (though you have never shown the proof for... "All laws are made by intelligent beings."... so onus is on you to show it... the onus is not on anyone else to prove the negative of "... laws can be made by something that is not an intelligent being".)... regardless, it's irrelevant to figuring out how those laws work now.

Also, a creator is not "the most logical conclusion... it is a possible conclusion among many... and the only really honest position to the question of what started it all, is a big fat "I don't know!".

So the "clock-maker" god could put evolution in motion. No?

a reply to: edmc^2

Proponents of creation start with a pre-concieved awnser and try to prove it. That's not how science should work.

Dbl post

a reply to: cooperton

I think it could be either or. Nature may have it's own attachment to some consciousness that somehow builds upon and evolves the species. Evolution has been proven to occur, but it in s possible that this was by design. Wether it was "god" or brahmin or some hive conciousness, who knows.

Is it possible that evolution was built in by design to allow species to grow?

Lots of different awnsers. I don't think truth will be found if we start with a pre-concieved awnser to these questions.

A universal intelligence would be vastly beyond our comprehension as humans, and it almost seems naive to just assume things.

Anyway, that's the end of my rant...

originally posted by: blueman12

Is it possible that evolution was built in by design to allow species to grow?

I was 100% an evolutionist from 8th grade til mid college... Then after studying neural circuits I realized that random chance mutations could by no means have created the intricately wired mammalian brain. So I mixed the two thinking that evolution was intelligently guided. But then after looking for the missing link fossils, I realized they are all incomplete, and there are no unambiguous fossils between, for example, apes and humans. It turned out to be a house of cards. I can empathize with everyone's zealous belief in evolution, we get it crammed into our heads from all angles, and the supposed "mounds of evidence for evolution", but in actuality the empirical evidence is lacking.

Dinosaurs between 4,000-40,000 years old according to Carbon dating data, soft tissue in dinosaur remains, the oldest ice sheet on earth being less than 5000 years old (as shown by the WWII plane found beneath an enormous layer of ice in Greenland), and so on, all showed me that the intelligent agent that created life did it relatively quickly, as was told to us by the ancient civilizations that were not far off from the original prototype human.

I realize this is not a popular opinion, but I cannot shy away from this truth, so I try to explain it as level-headed and logically as possible to those seeking the truth. To be a creature, even a child, of God, has much greater implications for our ontological dilemma than being the accidental offspring of mutant apes.

Lots of different awnsers. I don't think truth will be found if we start with a pre-concieved awnser to these questions.

Exactly, to assume evolution is true is the same logical fallacy as blind belief in a creator. I have come to answers through rational pursuit though.

A universal intelligence would be vastly beyond our comprehension as humans, and it almost seems naive to just assume things.

It is also naive to assume naturalism is responsible for our existence. If God is responsible, there is purpose. If naturalism is responsible, then our life is an accident and soon we return to the oblivion that we came from.

a reply to: cooperton

Hmm.. Thanks for responding and I like a lot of what you said. But it does ignore the fact that evolution has been proven to occur in modern times.

and so on, all showed me that the intelligent agent that created life did it relatively quickly, as was told to us by the ancient civilizations that were not far off from the original prototype human.

Yea there is a gap of knowledge that we don't know. I think the problem a lot of people have is that "createionists" resort to religion to answer that gap and mystery rather than science.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

So what you're saying is that since creationism was inadequate and has no facts, we observed the natural environment, recorded a bunch of data and as a result evolution has slowly developed over decades as an alternative to creationism?

Sounds about right.

Yes, we can clearly see this evolution theory is more than just science from your post. It all has to do with ignorance derived from unprovable data to counter the real nature of our reality to ridicule and mock the aware.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self assembly is a fundamental principle which generates structural organization on scales from atomic nuclei to solar systems and galaxies. Covalent, non-covalent, weak and strong bonds would not exist if self assembly was not the principle mechanism for molecular organization.

Yes, I perceive this as the perpetuation of laws enacted by God to uphold his creation. All laws are made by intelligent beings. until we have evidence that laws can be made by something that is not an intelligent being, then an intelligent Creator is the most logical conclusion regarding the laws of the universe.

The evidence is everywhere. You just refuse to recognize it. The number of examples, research papers etc are voluminous. Self assembly is the ultimate evidence that no third party interference is required for natural molecular structures to be formed.

Willful ignorance is your way of life. Even your "creator" would agree.

a reply to: cooperton

P.S. I would remind you that you're the one with no evidence. As I have stated before there are over 500 recognized journals and thousands of research articles and projects analyzing results of investigations on every aspect of evolution.

You have been challenged many times by myself and others to select one or more papers and describe why the research is wrong. To date, you have never done this. Why? Because you can't. All you can do is post your canned responses and hope that someone bites. You seem to think that this provides some sort of "cover" for you. It doesn't. You're transparent. You have been "outed" so many times that your brain must be organized like a programmed loop - reruns ad infinitum.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: edmc^2

Proponents of creation start with a pre-concieved awnser and try to prove it. That's not how science should work.

To the contrary, unlike evolution, proponents of Creation start with what's logical. In other words, since it's illogical and highly unscientific (if I may add) to say that absolute nothing started the material universe and life (for that matter), then the obvious and only logical conclusion is, "something" or "someone" eternal, always existing, started it all.

From that starting point, we seek to find the evidence. And the evidence shows - both by logic and science - that life can't come from "nothing" or from non-life but from existing life.

It's simple as that.

Unfortunately, evolution muddied it.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

You all keep on saying... "... evolution is wrong... evolution is conjecture... evolution of a monkey to a tree has never been seen... etc. etc..."... but you never suggest what is right, what isn't conjecture but a solid line of inquiry to follow that isn't evolution.

If you can't offer an alternative, it suggests that maybe evolution is right... and is a fact that you just don't like.

Evolution is made as an alternative for the creation theory.

Blatant lie. Keep em coming.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: edmc^2

Proponents of creation start with a pre-concieved awnser and try to prove it. That's not how science should work.

To the contrary, unlike evolution, proponents of Creation start with what's logical. In other words, since it's illogical and highly unscientific (if I may add) to say that absolute nothing started the material universe and life (for that matter), then the obvious and only logical conclusion is, "something" or "someone" eternal, always existing, started it all.

From that starting point, we seek to find the evidence. And the evidence shows - both by logic and science - that life can't come from "nothing" or from non-life but from existing life.

It's simple as that.

Unfortunately, evolution muddied it.

And where is that evidence that "life can't come from nothing"? Can you give a few citations? Your logic is faulty and factually based.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: edmc^2

Proponents of creation start with a pre-concieved awnser and try to prove it. That's not how science should work.

To the contrary, unlike evolution, proponents of Creation start with what's logical. In other words, since it's illogical and highly unscientific (if I may add) to say that absolute nothing started the material universe and life (for that matter), then the obvious and only logical conclusion is, "something" or "someone" eternal, always existing, started it all.

From that starting point, we seek to find the evidence. And the evidence shows - both by logic and science - that life can't come from "nothing" or from non-life but from existing life.

It's simple as that.

Unfortunately, evolution muddied it.

And where is that evidence that "life can't come from nothing"? Can you give a few citations? Your logic is faulty and factually based.

don't forget non-life, no life, not living things, non-living, inanimate materials, dead things - am I forgetting anything? Oh, dead meat.

There's no scientific way to get life from the things I listed above - unless you are God! Or possesses life.

No laboratory in the world from the beginning of time has produced life from the things I listed above, unless...

It's mathematically and scientifically impossible to get life from the things I listed above unless you...

No scientist had ever created life from the things I listed above unless of course, one is ...

Life begets life is a fact.

death (non-living) - is a dead end is a fact.

Now if you still don't get it, sorry.

a reply to: edmc^2

Cloning animals from dead meat is possible and has been done.

Cattle, sheep, cat, deer, dog, horse, mule, ox, rabbit and rat.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

Cloning animals from dead meat is possible and has been done.

Cattle, sheep, cat, deer, dog, horse, mule, ox, rabbit and rat.

Are you people just too ignorant or just can't accept the truth?

Cloning requires an intact DNA then cloned from a living source.

It involves cryonics to preserve the tissue and prevent it from falling apart.

here's a kid video for you:





Now please show me your evidence that life can be created from a lump of dead meat or a non-living thing. If you have one, you're now God.