Evolution - defies accepted science

reply to post by milkyway12

The Law of Biogenesis
All observations have shown that life comes only from life.

And the theory of evolution makes no claims regarding how life started...that would be abiogenesis. It's therefore completely irrelevant and not a prerequisite for evolution

Acquired Characteristics (some call it)
Characteristics cannot be passed to the off spring that was acquired after birth, for example, a body builder's physique. Another example, Giraffes could not get long necks because they began having to reach higher and higher for food (stretching their necks).

Do you understand the difference between a change in skeletton and simply working out to grow muscles? The giraffe's neck grew over all those generations because those with that mutation had a better chance of survival...and therefore procreated more. Those mutations can obviously be handed on to other generations.

Mendel's Law

In that paragraph you are directly contradicting yourself. First you claim there are massive amounts of microbal species, and in the very next sentence you claim there are only few. Also, you are completely missing the point of Mendel's laws.

Natural Selection
True, and has been observed. I do no dispute this. I am unsure how this supports evolution personally

There's so much wrong in that paragraph I don't know where to start.

The best example to show that your entire paragraph is nonsense is this:

There are now bacteria that eat nylon, an artificial material that was never around until recently.

Natural Selection stops major evolutionary changes ...

You mean "fosters"...not "stops".

Mutations
Almost all mutations are harmful, meaningless, or are simply lethal. As far as we know or have observed, no mutation has ever created a more complex life form than its parents.

No...most are completely meaningless or beneficial. How do I know? Statistics! If most were harmful, species would die out rapidly...but they DON'T. And that means those mutations (and there are literally dozens and hundreds) are mostly meaningless or beneficial.

Complex Organs
DNA, RNA, and proteins are very complex. So complex, in fact ... there is absolutely zero experimental evidence supporting they can evolve "create" new genetics, other than mutations, which again, has never produced a more complex or viable organism.

That is complete nonsense.

Also, you're using a very common argumentative fallacy...the argument from complexity.

Fully-Developed Species
All species seem to be fully developed, and not partly into the evolutionary process. No feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (internal - veins, and intestines) show part way developed. For example, a leg of a lizard or reptile is not half mutating into a wing. The leg would become a hazard way before it became a functional and viable wing. Natural Selection would obviously kill off this mutation.

If you think that's how evolution is supposed to work, you really don't get it. At least read the basic Wiki article about evolution

Distinct Species

Again, you don't understand the theory in the first place. Do you realise how long changes take? You will never see a half duck half turtle, sorry. That's not how it works and NOT what the theory claims has to happen.

Language
Children as young as 7 months old can learn and understand grammatical rules. There are also 38 documented cases of kids raised without human contact (feral). They show that language is learned only from other people, humans do not automatically speak. There is no evidence supporting language evolved. If it did, our earliest languages should have gone from being simple to being more complex. Exactly the opposite happened. We went from complex languages to simpler languages. For example, Latin, Greek, Linear, and Vedic Sanskrit was all complex languages, and we dumbed them down. If we evolved, shouldnt we have had a very basic language forming into a complex language, evolving with us?

That too is a complete lie. For example, when Shakespeare was alive, English was a LOT simpler than today. He would be blown away by our vocabulary today.

Speech
Only humans have a "pre-wired" brain (from birth) capable of learning and to convey abstract thoughts. We are also the only organisms made with such an ability to produce such a wide range of sounds, only a few animals can approximate the sounds of humans. Apes do not have a "pre-wired" brain remotely close to humans in terms of speech and abstract thought. Apes also do not even have the required physical traits to produce human speech.

Yes, and that proves what? We can't swim like Dolphins, so what?

reply to post by milkyway12

Codes and Information
Morse Code and Braille are the form of code I am speaking of. The genetic "code" or material that control the physical aspects of life are obviously "coded" information. The genetics code permits functions such as transmission, translation, correction, and duplication. Without the Genetic Code, life would not be possible. If you think for a moment, doesn't it seem obvious that the genetic code and its accompanying processes it governs transmission, translation, correction, and duplication were I don't know ... "created or came into existence" at the exact same time. You cannot have one without the other. No natural process has ever been observed to create / make a "program." By definition (Program) is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Take computers, for example, we had to create the computer with our "intelligence," and it wasn't a natural process from nature.

So we're back to the old "god of the gaps" argument? "Scientists can't explain that, ergo god did it!"

Funny how that never seems to work out. Gods causing storms, proven to be nonsense. Gods causing plagues, proven to be nonsense. Comets being a sign of god, also total nonsense. Should I go on? Stop living in the middle ages and start caring about actual evidence.

You believe a creator did it? Fine. Provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE...not childish "science can't explain that, ergo god did it" like a damn 2000 year old goat herder. Welcome to the 21st century!

Evolution or Design?
It doesn't make sense to say that similarities between different forms of life always relate to a common ancestor. It seems to imply a common "designer" more than a common ancestor. For example, the small bones in the ears of mammals came from the reptiles' jaw. That doesn't make sense, why didnt natural selection destroy the transitionary species who couldn't hear because the bones from the jaws were growing slowly into their ears long before they became their final product?

OMFG!! PLEASE read the basic article on evolution on Wikipedia. That's NOT how evolution works. A bone moving doesn't mean a transitional species suddenly can't hear anymore.

Hell, we are ALL transitional species, just like everything else alive...a mere snapshot in evolution.

Vestigial Organs
Some organs in humans were believed to have come from our evolutionary ancestors. Take the appendix, for example, we now know the appendix is very much active in the human body. The appendix helps produce antibodies, protects the intestines from disease, prevents tumors, and stores good bacteria for an emergency. This organ isn't very useless.

Doesn't change the fact that we see vestigial organs all throughout nature. The fact that some might (!) still have beneficial functions doesn't change that. Take the whale's "legs" for example

Cell Life
A lot of single-celled forms exist, but as far as we know, no 2,3,4, or 5 celled animals exist. 6-20 cells are considered parasites; they need a complex life form to exist. According to evolution, shouldn't we be finding many life forms between 2 and 20 cells? You know, showing the transition from one-celled forms to a many-celled form?

Who says the change needs to be 1 cells to 2 cells? Or 2 cells to 3 cells?

Again, that's not what the theory states

You really need to read up on it because I think you don't understand it at all.

Missing Fossils
I find it weird how they say "links" are missing from the evolutionary chains. No, no it's not. Entire CHAINS are missing, not just links.

Read the article about transitional fossils on Wikipedia to understand why this isn't an issue...

Earliest Fossil Records
The lowest sedimentary layers, life starts SUDDENLY, I mean out of no where, complex, and diverse. I find it strange how many of today's plants and animal phyla (vascular and vertebrates) show up at the very bottom of the fossil record. Actually, they found many MORE phyla than there exists today. Not to mention, you have picture perfect fossil records matching insects, fish, jellyfish, ect. I guess they didnt evolve.

I wouldn't call "billions of years" suddenly

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by sweetooth

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

If you have an alternative theory or a better theory then present it with evidence.

I know you were asking someone else but this is the theory I subscribe to.
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu...

Lots of evidence.

I believe in design. I also think creationism should NOT be taught in schools. Although I think students should be exposed to the debate and ALL of the evidence. It's healthy and promotes critical thinking. But somehow there is much fear surrounding that.

very good post btw. this is what i have been trying to say but in a different manner. i am neither a believer in the big bang theory or a creationist. my mind continues to be open to the FACTS but so far no-one from either side is able to come up with any.

Let me offer you a fact to help you on your journey.

Evolution has nothing to say about creation. Evolution has nothing to say about how life began. Evolution explains the diversity we see around us today and in the fossil record.

No one has the answer to how life started and evolution does not even attempt to do so. Please tell me why you feel so threatened by what evolution explains. Why are you so angry at something that shows every spec of life on this planet is connected, related and special?

In that I fully concur.I offered transpermia as a vessel for how life may have started on earth but it doesnt explain any origins.Abiogenisis is a theory that could but I don't feel it's conclusive by any means.The origins of life,just like the question of an afterlife are beyond my reason,understanding to fully and satisfactorily explain.

I've never claimed evolution even began to answer the origin question.As a theory for the natural selection and diversity of species we see today I think the accumulated evidence is pretty much conclusive but i'm open to other possibilities.My video works but my sound doesnt so would you be able to point me to more documented,text based resources for the link you posted - though with a pointer I can certainly research it myself but a pointer always is welcome.lol

No I didn't aim my question at you but I'm glad someone with some degree of wits and the ability to see beyond their 'trench' did respond.It was pretty much rhetorical as I wasn't expecting anyone to take me on but thanks for your reply.

I'm not angry at the theory,or a god but the way this debate endlessly deteriorates into almost a battle of faiths where both sides seem so invested in their belief systems that attempt to find common ground seems like treachory !!!

I expect I seem more 'fed-up' with the Creationists,in general as I feel their argument mostly comes down to proving evolution wrong rather than proving whats right about their theory.I know it's unfair of me to demand evidence of the creator,proof that he even exists without reference to the bible as how can you produce proof of a god when religion is based on faith.You can't anymore than it's possible to prove god doesn't exist.but that's another circular arguement,lol.

The point I was trying to put across is that if you want a theory to seriously challenge the accepted one then isn't it far better to prove just how much better your theory fits the facts rather than to tear the opposing theory apart and assume when that's done you can just fill it's place.

Not how it works,it's not a case of either or.For all we know the truth may not even be remotely comprehensible to us in our childlike state of understanding (compared to our expected understanding a millenia hence when we do find the truth - that's hypothetical of course !!) so burning one theory doesnt validate yours unless it can be proven to fit the facts much better than the original.I just feel much of the creationist arguement I've read focused on damning evolution and not promoting what it is they plan to replace it with.Easily achieved - a bit like being shadow prime minister.lol !!!

I also have to be honest and admit I've a general dislike of religion,the more organised the less it appeals to me.Judeaism,Christianity and Islam are much of a muchness but I suppose being from the UK I do tend to feel a little more scorn for christianity as it's 'our' adopted religion historically.

I tend to let that knee jerk reaction colour my view of a supreme being,creator the inherent parallels in terms of being god have christian overtones which wrankle with me.It's a particular failing I need to overcome myself !!!

Anyway I'll go and look into what you've suggested objectively and critically as I can.I'll certainly let you know what I think after an honest look into it.

Haha i just went to that link you provided,,ok a good honest look may not be enough there's an avalanch of material here.

Certainly providing me with some new reading material to be getting on with.

Thanks.

Bob !!!

reply to post by milkyway12

Weird Sequence of Fossils
Hmm, if i remember correctly 80+ HOOF prints, consecutive, were found in the rocks dating back to the age of the dinosaurs. Doesn't that predate hoofed species by 100 million something years? I find it weird how pollen was also found in pre-Cambrian rock, 200 million years plus, before they were supposed to be there. Petrified trees in, I believe Arizona, show fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasp. Isn't that almost 100 million years to early? Furthermore, let's not forget the fossilized insects and flies who have tubes perfectly suited, like today, for sucking nectar from flowers, and they were about 25 million years to early, according to their dating process.

Please at least make a tiny effort in researching stuff before posting it. Those petrified forests for example are less than 3m years old, at which point insects have been around a LOOOOOOOOONG time.

You have your dates all mixed up and apparently don't understand plate tectonics

Early Man?

Do yourself a favor and read at least the basic Wiki article about human evolution...because listing the 1-2 hoaxes that exist and then claiming the rest is nonsense is laughable.

Why is it laughable?

Homo Habilis (man) showed in more studies this animal had "ape" like proportions and should not have been classified as (Homo).

Because you post nonsense like this! The great apes are of the same genus...HOMO. So of course they can be classified that if great apes (and humans) are

Fossil Man
We have found fossils to be in existence much earlier than what evolutionist said. For example, the Castenedolo and Reck's skeletons are found deep in un touched rock. Incomplete skeletons, are Swanscombe skull, Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszollos fossil. These are ignored ...

They aren't being ignored...they fit the timeline

Homo Steinheim for example wasn't homo sapiens, but a relative who was alive around 250k year ago.

Chemistry
- Rocks that we believe were in existence before have very little carbon. You would need a very toxic carbon-rich environment for life to have evolved. Today, the atmosphere is only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been around since the first fossils formed. Why is that?

- Why does Earth still have so much oxygen if we have been evolving for so many billions of years? I mean, even if oxygen managed to be this plentiful, what about the Amino Acids need to evolve? Wouldn't oxidation destroy those Amino Acids? Okay, then we had no oxygen, but if we had no oxygen, you have no Ozone, which is death for all life. Hmm, weird.

- How come the sediments which proceeded life have very little nitrogen? Doesn't clay and some types of rocks absorb nitrogen? If i am correct, we have never found any such sediment.

Yes, the chemical composition of earth's atmosphere changed over time...and your point is? Life changed with it...and scientists have a word for it...let me thing...EVOLUTiON!!

Proteins
In the early stages of life, proteins could not have formed because it would be no way for the Amino Acids to exist in a non pure state of liquid. Obviously, lots of things were occurring on Earth, and the oceans / water would have been ... not very pure. So, how do Amino Acids link up to form proteins if the earth's heat, electrical discharges, and solar radiation destroy the protein products many times faster than they could form?

Confusing evolution with abiogenesis again?

Everything created out of nothing
Last but not least, evolutionist also say the big bang was the start of the universe. However, how did the gases come into existence, or the particles? In other words, you believe something was created out of nothing or you believe the universe has existed forever and you should be able to understand the God argument easily.

"Science can't explain that, ergo god did it!"...and we're back to the old god of the gaps argument like people in the middle ages.

Originally posted by fastbob72
The two parties,except the few on either side that can see beyond their bias,aren't going to find common ground and they rarely even try.

There is no common ground to find with people who reject empirical evidence in favour of literal interpretations of their particular holy book. This isn't a debate. There is no debate. There is nothing that creationists can come to the table with, as is evident in every single thread in this forum. There is no discussion, all it is correcting ignorant statement after ignorant statement, with a few straight up lies thrown in for good measure. It's the same fallacy after fallacy. Intelligent discourse cannot occur when one party refuses to acknowledge reality, instead relying on religious faith. It is not "bias" to accept empirical evidence. There is no "bias" towards not believing fanciful myths that are completely unsubstantiated and even directly contradicted by empirical observation. Are you suggesting that people such as myself have a bias towards reality? If so, I take that as a compliment.

reply to post by milkyway12


"Speech
Only humans have a "pre-wired" brain (from birth) capable of learning and to convey abstract thoughts. We are also the only organisms made with such an ability to produce such a wide range of sounds, only a few animals can approximate the sounds of humans. Apes do not have a "pre-wired" brain remotely close to humans in terms of speech and abstract thought. Apes also do not even have the required physical traits to produce human speech. "
------
How do you know that only humans have a brain pre-wired to convey abstract thoughts? I believe comedy is an abstract thought, and my black lab is capable of tricking other dogs into doing foolish things for which he is very pleased (smug) with himself. Thus he has performed a form of comedy, ie. Practical joking. I've seen this ability in horses as well, and you should see them laugh when they have succeeded.

Yes humans are the only species capable of "human speech". BUT that doesn't mean lower order animals don't try. If you haven't been around animals, then you won't know that they indeed do try. The reason humans are capable of speech is that our mouth and nasal area are so constructed as to allow what other animals do not have.

I don't know if a 2nd row of teeth is considered a mutation but if it is then I would say its a beneficial mutation.

I have 2 supernumerary teeth behind my top row of teeth, my brother has 2 supernumerary teeth in front of his top row of teeth (looks like a vampire lol).

theres no argument that we're meat eaters

With that being said, couldn't we claim evolution has taken its course if our offspring continue to develop these supernumerary teeth?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by milkyway12
I will try to keep my post to the point. In my opinion, Evolution has no place in schools; however, science has no other way to explain how mankind is in its existence. So at the least, Evolution and Creation should be taught in schools. Hopefully my grammar and spelling isnt to bad.

Here we go...this sh^t again.

...Fine. Let's take them one at a time.

The Law of Biogenesis
All observations have shown that life comes only from life. There is no way, according to observations and this accepted law, that life can come from nonliving matter using a natural process. One either believes that life (mysteriously) came to and evolution began, or life was created and evolution began from that point.

Incorrect.

When Louis Pasteur first postulated this it was a well founded observation relative to the data and scientific instrumentation that he had available. However since then scientists have learned how to replicate the primordial soup in a lab and can now create self-replicating strings of organic RNA using nothing but heat, water, pressure, and the occasional jolt of electricity (simulated lightning) to act as a catalyst. Thus the theory of Abiogenesis from fellow scientist Henry Charlton Bastia was ultimately proven to be correct in the macro whilst Pasteurs Theory of Biogenesis is most commonly ascribed to in the micro.

Acquired Characteristics (some call it)
Characteristics cannot be passed to the off spring that was acquired after birth, for example, a body builder's physique. Another example, Giraffes could not get long necks because they began having to reach higher and higher for food (stretching their necks).

This one is so comically wrong I don't even know where to start. First off...no scientist on planet earth thinks that "stretching" was the Mechanism of Action which acted as the causal agent for a giraffe to get a long neck. Evolution and Natural Selection states that the proto-giraffes who simply happened to be genetically predisposed to having longer necks would have a survival advantage in over the short-necked proto-giraffes...especially in climates which are dependent upon seasonal monsoons and droughts. Thus...over time the short-necked proto-giraffes simply starve to death. "Stretching" is neither here nor there.

That being said, it's common knowledge within the scientific community that certain sequences of the human genome remain inactive or "switched off" until/unless external factors put the organism in a situation where such genetic sequences must be "switched on". Thus, if Organism A is suddenly thrust into a new set of circumstances which requires Genetic Sequence X to suddenly be "switched on" any offspring AFTER this event will have a statistically higher probability of inheriting the "switched on" version of Sequence X than offspring produced PRIOR to the shift in external conditions. Thus,..the idea of "acquired characteristics" not being passed is on has proven to be bit antiquated. In fairness science is just beginning to understand how these genes flip "on" and "off" and we must wait for either Moore's Law or more practical forms of quantum computation to develop to fully unravel this mystery. However...none of this changes anything about the whole "stretching" idea.

Mendel's Law
Breeding experiments and other common observations have confirmed his law. Genes are simply "reshuffled" from one generation to another. No new genetics are created, but simply changed around. Another example, microbials have massive numbers per species, un countable numbers, and are dispersed throughout most of the world's environment types. However, there are only a relatively few species. Apparently, variations in characteristics are bounded, or otherwise these microbials would have many varieties species. According to Macroevolution, microbials have the greatest opportunity to evolve new features and species, which they are failing to do.

Wrong again.

Mendelian Genetics was first postulated (once again) in the 19th century and is referred to as "Classical Genetics". If you join the modern world, you will learn that in the 21st century the study of genetics ALSO includes Reverse Genetics and Molecular Genetics...both of which quite succinctly answer this problem. Think of it like Physics. We know that Relativity "works" and anybody who has ever used a gps has benefited from Einsteins work. The relativistic nature of time and space is how we are able to the clocks on satellites in sync w/ earth time. However...this doesn't mean that Newton was "wrong" when he pioneered Classical Physics. Newtonian Force equations still "work out"...it's just that we know that Classical Physics is best applied to baseball games and missile trajectory instead of particle physics or astronomical observations in deep space.

cont. in next post.

Your lack of comprehension of scientific concepts is amusing.

I would try to explain them to you, but I'm sorry, if you don't realize that evolution is true, and the earth isn't 6000 years old, at this point in the game, there's not a damn thing anyone could say to change your mind.
Seriously, there's no point in talking to these people.....do you see the things they are saying?

Mendel's Law
Breeding experiments and other common observations have confirmed his law. Genes are simply "reshuffled" from one generation to another. No new genetics are created, but simply changed around. Another example, microbials have massive numbers per species, un countable numbers, and are dispersed throughout most of the world's environment types. However, there are only a relatively few species. Apparently, variations in characteristics are bounded, or otherwise these microbials would have many varieties species. According to Macroevolution, microbials have the greatest opportunity to evolve new features and species, which they are failing to do.

..cont. from previous post.
Likewise...there is nothing at all in Macroevolution that states that "tiny" organism have the greatest opportunity to evolve new features and species. Absolutely ZERO. The degree of elasticity in a genome in relationship to it's ability to mutate and adapt is not in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER dependent upon the organisms size...or even the size of it's genome. Ferns are some of the oldest of the leafy plants. The family of ferns known as Ophioglossum has 768 chromosomes (384 base pairs) whilst a human being has only 46 chromosomes (23 base pairs). On both counts you are confusing complexity with "size". Think of it like an algorithm....whether the algorithm is expressed and recorded in a binary, hexadecimal, octal, or decimal numerical system is irrelevant to it's complexity...it's just a different way to express the same thing using a different base system.

Natural Selection
True, and has been observed. I do no dispute this. I am unsure how this supports evolution personally; it is just an observation. Natural selection only "selects" from pre-existing genetics and does not create new ones. The gene pool actually decreases with Natural selection; variations are eliminated. For example, people believe that insect or bacterial infections can evolve to form new species.

Well of course...mutation is what creates new genetic traits...Natural Selection simply gives the advantage to those traits that come in the handiest. This is the first thing you've gotten correct so far.

- Why couldn't the bacteria have reestablished a trait that was it was no longer using in its genetics pool? The environment or anti-biotics activates this trait through stress that it began to replicate in the replications process. Making it seem like it evolved.

- Perhaps it had a mutation which made it harder for pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism's proteins, or a mutation changed the regulatory function / transport function of certain proteins.

- Perhaps a few resistant insects and bacteria were already in existence to that specific antibiotic or pesticide. We finally killed off most of the competition for the resistant bacteria or insects, and now we are left with those that we are having a hard time killing. Natural selection.

This DOES HAPPEN (see previous post about genes "switching on/off")...that's why it's part of modern evolutionary theory. Thanks for acknowledging that Evolution makes perfect sense to you, and in fact, describing perfectly why Evolution is 100% factual through your three hyphenated points above.

Mutations
Almost all mutations are harmful, meaningless, or are simply lethal. As far as we know or have observed, no mutation has ever created a more complex life form than its parents.

Ahhh...I see you're back on the Crazy Train.

Here are just a teeny, tiny handful of "helpful" mutations in human beings alone.

-Lactose Tolerance- By default humans have a hard time digesting cow's milk. Over the course of many millennia of farming, herding and ranching this changed for much of the worlds population.

-Tetrachromatic Vision- Is a mutation which occurs rarely in human females allowing them to see a wider range of the color spectrum than any other humans on earth.

-Malaria Resistance- I'm assuming you aren't going to argue that hemoglobin mutations HbS and HbC clearly confer benefit to living in tropical, mosquito infested, environment...right?
Here's a link to read a little more if you want. Link: bigthink.com...

continued again in next post.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Complex Organs
DNA, RNA, and proteins are very complex. So complex, in fact ... there is absolutely zero experimental evidence supporting they can evolve "create" new genetics, other than mutations, which again, has never produced a more complex or viable organism.

- The human eye, ear, and brain are very complex. The brain alone has 10 to the fourtenth (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections. Some how, radiation caused that to mutate into existance? Right?

OK...put down the comic books and pick up a science book. "Mutations" aren't ONLY caused by radiation. I know it's a cool way to explain how the Hulk came into existence to an 8 yr old...but c'mon dude..seriously?? Your genetic code is CONSTANTLY mutating based upon such factors as disease, altitude, diet, exposure to chemicals, random chance, etc. By the way...see "tetrachromatic vision" for a beautiful example of a mutation to the human eye which is both beneficial and profound.

Fully-Developed Species
All species seem to be fully developed, and not partly into the evolutionary process. No feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (internal - veins, and intestines) show part way developed. For example, a leg of a lizard or reptile is not half mutating into a wing. The leg would become a hazard way before it became a functional and viable wing. Natural Selection would obviously kill off this mutation.

This lie has been repeated so many times it's downright nauseating. There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of fossils showing these sorts of partially formed transitions. They are called "transitional fossils" the only way to deny these exist is to simply refuse to look at them. Time and time again...no matter how many hundreds and hundreds of times there is evidence presented which anyone can go see in public museums across the country this "argument" keeps getting bandied about. I just don't get it. You have Google...right? Look it up!! Go to a couple of Natural History museums in your area and you can even see some of these real, actual, fossils yourself if you want to.

Here is just a small sample and a partial list of them.
link: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Ghost375
Your lack of comprehension of scientific concepts is amusing.

I would try to explain them to you, but I'm sorry, if you don't realize that evolution is true, and the earth isn't 6000 years old, at this point in the game, there's not a damn thing anyone could say to change your mind.
Seriously, there's no point in talking to these people.....do you see the things they are saying?

Yeah...your're probably right. I foolishly took the time to show this guy how completely wrong he is about his entire understanding of the world around him...but it won't matter.

There is no way in hell this guy will go to his church next week and tell everyone "Hey...you know what? I did some research and this is just NONSENSE!!" The data doesn't matter...the pressure he feels from his social group/sense of identity is strong enough to over-ride his better judgement and reasoning.

You can't fight that w/ reason, logic, facts, and empirical evidence.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by fastbob72
The two parties,except the few on either side that can see beyond their bias,aren't going to find common ground and they rarely even try.

There is no common ground to find with people who reject empirical evidence in favour of literal interpretations of their particular holy book. This isn't a debate. There is no debate. There is nothing that creationists can come to the table with, as is evident in every single thread in this forum. There is no discussion, all it is correcting ignorant statement after ignorant statement, with a few straight up lies thrown in for good measure. It's the same fallacy after fallacy. Intelligent discourse cannot occur when one party refuses to acknowledge reality, instead relying on religious faith. It is not "bias" to accept empirical evidence. There is no "bias" towards not believing fanciful myths that are completely unsubstantiated and even directly contradicted by empirical observation. Are you suggesting that people such as myself have a bias towards reality? If so, I take that as a compliment.

edit on 13-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Tell me about. I swear if I hear "how come they haven't found the missing link" one more time...I'm going to lose my f^cking marbles. The "missing link" has been found time and time again. There's a whole bunch of them...just like Darwin predicted.

There is no common ground to find with people who reject empirical evidence in favour of literal interpretations of their particular holy book. This isn't a debate. There is no debate. There is nothing that creationists can come to the table with, as is evident in every single thread in this forum. There is no discussion, all it is correcting ignorant statement after ignorant statement, with a few straight up lies thrown in for good measure. It's the same fallacy after fallacy. Intelligent discourse cannot occur when one party refuses to acknowledge reality, instead relying on religious faith. It is not "bias" to accept empirical evidence. There is no "bias" towards not believing fanciful myths that are completely unsubstantiated and even directly contradicted by empirical observation. Are you suggesting that people such as myself have a bias towards reality? If so, I take that as a compliment.

edit on 13-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

I think maybe my point has become obscured in my reply somewhere.I think you'd find fundementally we're making the same case.
Speaking for myself I came into this debate with a bias towards evolution as i believe,and said to me it was almost unassailabe with the multi disciplinary - biological,geological,genetically proven evidence in layers that support the facts time and time again.

I also stated that to tear down evolution in anyway validates creationism was a fallacy.

I wrote that reply with the inten intent of demonstrating that the thread should be debated in terms of reasoned argument,logic,evidence,back up etc,etc because i know full Well i can debate the case for evolution in those terms to anybodys satisfaction as i've no doubt you could too and asked for creationists to do the same.Talk of common ground and non bias was to extend the fairest non-dismissive appeal for the creationist lobby to put their case forward instead of simply attacking evolution as the basis of their argument.

I challenged twice for anyone to prove a creator.

I had one reply who offered me a link of video resources i'm unable to watch but hopefully can research into because it would seem there those who base their belief on more subsantial ground than just god did it.

Personally i think that someone has cited more than the bible is owed the respect of having their case looked into.dont you ??

Isnt your certaintity strong enough to see what the other forms of evidence might be.Doesnt mean i am not sure of evolution does mean i'm intrigued that someone may have evidence that could be objective aswell.

remember that theorys stand until its modified or replaced in light of a fuller understanding.

Just because 99% of creationist argue fröm a false position and equate faith with evidence then doesnt mean we should lose our objectivity and join in the slanging tactics.

Although at times the temptation to laugh at real god loving types is so strong

The idea that life can come about through natural processes does not have to be at odds with the idea that there is a creator or designer.

One would still have to question why physical laws and natural processes are just so, that life and all it's complex associated formations come about.

It is not true that there is no proof that life can come about through natural processes.

There are experiments where ancient environments were recreated and sparks induced in them to simulate lightning. This resulted in the creation of complex amino acids which are the building blocks of life.

(Of course this is not absolute proof, but it is something.)

Even if there were absolute proof that life can come about through natural processes, this should not give anyone justice to act like jerks with one another, or to lose mutual respect for each other. The value of these things should be based solely on reason, for what is best for everyone.

Also, if one exclaimed that there is a creator/designer, then one has to question who created it.

reply to post by fastbob72


My philosophy is extremely simple: if you can present an argument supported by objective evidence that challenges my opinion or world view, I will adjust my opinion or world view accordingly. That's all there is to it. There has been no objective evidence presented to me or anyone else that supports the notion of a creator or the Abrahamic account of creation, ergo I do not entertain the possibility. Evolution has objective evidence to support it, creationism has none. This is why I say there is no middle ground: how can one meet in the middle if one side has evidence and the other has nothing? One side has all the cards, the other isn't even sitting at the table. To those who genuinely want a discussion on the matter, bring the objective evidence, then we can have a discussion. Until then, no meaningful discussion can take place.

Aagghh !!!!!!

No,no,no you're taking that middle ground stuff the wrong way entirely.

I'm not meaning middle/common ground between the opposing theories.The only link is that both sides are refering to life on earth.Beyond that there's more overlap and dovetailing between a single spoken word and a fried egg.lol.

When i was talking about middle ground i meant in between the styles of argument.

Those in the middle ground could at least discuss the subject to a point.

I mean i wouldnt advise reading every reply,all 20 pages as thats 15 mins you wont get back but if you did you'd find that not all creationist are bible bashers in gods army.Some have entirely different notions about what created life.

And strictly speaking evolution is the process that life was/is subject to but it doesnt actually explain the origin of life,the mechanism that turned chemical,compounds,protiens etc into an organism that had life.

Me I think something occured within the primordial soup.A bolt of lightning plus other factors pressure,heat maybe but i dont know really.Also maybe primitive extremophiles arrived by meteorite but again i couldnt say with any surity.

Some of the more unique,free thinking,indepentantly minded and by no means religious on the creationist side could offer an origin scenario better than my vague attempts

But once life got going then evolution comes into play,of that i'm certain.

Again middle ground is in terms of debating style,compatibility of what definerg a debate not some mythical dovetailing of evolution n creationism.

I hope you can see where i'm coming from by that !!!

Originally posted by pacifier2012
A fish trying to walk on land will die. Every fish that tries, (why would they try?) would die. You can't pass on a gene for trying to walk on land if your a fish if you die because you can't reproduce if your dead.

There is no argument to reverse this death producing a gene that creates a fish that successfully grows legs because the gene cannot be reproduced.

Those that believe in evolution have more faith than those that believe in God.

And THAT ... I can respect! Evolutionists have awesome faith.

The fish developed fins that could be used to move on land that first may have been perfected walking around river/seabed have you never heard of a lung fish.

Lung Fish

Oh and this little guy can call you a liar!!!



He can climb on small rocks and tree roots!!!

reply to post by milkyway12


Good read. Great thread.

Left me thinking...