It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 58
12
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
There's another way to approach the creation argument:

If god created all animals on earth at one time and evolution does not occur, he/she/it has killed off most of them and started over again several times.


That makes me wonder what animal will spontaneously poof into existence next!

I mean, it has happened in the recent past (according to the OP) where some animals become extinct while other animals later just appear onto the scene...so the sudden "poofing into existence" of different species must be something that just happens from time-to-time.


edit on 2/13/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Answer
There's another way to approach the creation argument:

If god created all animals on earth at one time and evolution does not occur, he/she/it has killed off most of them and started over again several times.


That makes me wonder what animal will spontaneously poof into existence next!

I mean, it has happened in the recent past (according to the OP) where some animals become extinct while other animals later just appear onto the scene...so the sudden "poofing into existence" of different species must be something that just happens from time-to-time.



I personally hope T-Rex makes a comeback. It would take about 2 days before a bunch of rednecks created the first dinosaur rodeo.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.
So... The evolutionary processes have been observed in a lab, but speciation hasn't... Do those processes that we do observe directly indicate that speciation will occur given enough time?
Other question is, when is something considered speciation? Does speciation differentiate between, say an ancestor 'speciating' into a chihuaha and a bulldog, and an ancestor 'speciating' into a seal and a wolf?


originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen the evidence in fossilized remains which strongly suggests that species branch off from a common ancestor and they can extrapolate data from the surrounding strata, fossils of other species living at that time, and what is known about the world's climate during that time period to piece together a puzzle that indicates "this species developed these traits because of XYZ."
How does the climate really indicate evolution through natural selection, rather than say selective adaptation?


originally posted by: Answer
Applying what is known about natural selection thanks to observations in the lab, scientists apply that knowledge to the grander scale of speciation.

I've posted an example above but I'll repeat it: whenever fossils are found in a particular strata but they are not found in others, it suggests that a particular species developed and then went extinct during a certain time period i.e. the ice age.
If fossils are so rare and only have a very small chance to form, how can the distinction be made between certain conditions disallowing fossils to form in certain strata and certain species not existing at all in a certain time period?


originally posted by: Answer
Obviously the ice age did not happen overnight so species adapted to the cooling temperatures over many many generations. Some species did not or could not adapt quickly enough to the cooling temperatures and they died out. Some of the species that thrived during the ice age such as large furry herbivores that relied on large protein-rich plants and large predators that preyed on the large furry herbivores went extinct toward the end and shortly after the end of the ice age because their food sources dwindled and/or they were not fit for a warmer climate. There are times when a "rapid" change in climate is the cause of extinction because the process of natural selection simply can't keep up. Keep in mind that when I use the term rapid in this context, we're still talking about hundreds of thousands of years.
If every species is subject to natural selection, what makes the difference between the species that can adapt fast enough and the species that can't, if their environment changes at the same time?


originally posted by: Answer
The dinosaurs were not completely wiped out in the explosion from the asteroid strike. The strike threw so much material into the atmosphere that it partially blocked out the sun, causing rapid cooling of the earth which led to the extinction of vast amounts of large plant life. The huge herbivores that relied on the huge vegetation eventually died out and along with them, the huge carnivores that relied on the huge herbivores eventually died out. Many smaller species were able to survive but, over time, they branched off into new species that were better suited to their new world i.e. birds. Obviously, there are species in the ocean that have changed very little since the age of the dinosaurs because water-borne species were not as effected by climate change. We humans have slowed our own evolution because we developed the tools to control our environment. Cooking food, growing protein-rich food, using fire and shelter for warmth, etc. have completely changed the process of natural selection.
Are you implying that a species can actually have control over their own evolution by controlling their environment? And considering that most species do control their environment (whether consciously or not), doesn't that sort of negate natural selection? Prime example:




originally posted by: Answer
Logically, if species did not evolve through natural selection, they would all die in these various extinction events. Luckily, thanks to natural selection, certain species are able to adapt and survive. If the earth were thrown into a sudden ice age again today, the vast majority of species would die out because they've evolved to our current climate.
Ok.
edit on 14-2-2015 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.


You may want to read the last 10-15 pages of this thread to understand why it has devolved to asking for the evidence that has already been posted. Born has said we must back up our claims, but won't allow us to use links, which is kind of a joke. You know as well as I do that I've personally posted evidence for you multiple times. Fossil record, genetics, chemistry and geology all point to evolution as a fact of life.
Maybe the understanding of the confusion needs to be expanded upon. You'll see what I mean.


originally posted by: Barcs
Without evolution, biology makes no sense, and still after all these years of asking, not a single evolution denier has answered the question of why genetic mutations do not add up over thousands to millions of generations, like they do in the hundred or so that we have observed. They all just say "I believe micro evolution but you'll never see a monkey turn into a human", a response that is a complete strawman, not to mention it's completely wrong and dishonest. It would be nice if somebody would finally tackle that question, but creationists / science deniers dodge the question and change the subject every time.
@Bold part... I'll repeat what I posted before on the last page, but I'll change it just enough to make it relevant to that post;

When it's regarding God, it's up to the believer to prove that God DOES exist, and asking the non-believers to prove he doesn't exist is stupid.
Apparently, when it's regarding anything correlated to evolution, in this case genetic mutations adding up to millions of generations, it's up to the non-believer to prove that x IS NOT adding up, and asking the supporters to prove that it is, is stupid.
Yay for double standards.


As for the rest of that part of your post... You have to understand their point of view before you can try to explain it to them. The argument asking for someone to prove that genetic mutations do not add up over thousands to millions of generations seems to be like this to the layman;
We've seen cars go over 60 miles an hour in 3 seconds. Prove that given enough time it does not reach the speed of light.

You have to understand that it's not the acceleration that is the problem. It's the speed. With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.


originally posted by: Barcs
To answer your question, we actually CAN observe the process in real time. Speciation has been done for multiple species in a lab. Genomes have been mapped from generation to generation showing the exact differences in genes. In organisms with short lifespans, we can observe, but expecting a human that only lives 100 years to sit back and watch a process that takes 7 million years is ridiculous. If we can observe genetic mutations slightly altering a species over time, then why would you expect these changes to stop happening? Deniers seem to construct this magical barrier that prevents the changes from adding up enough to change the way we classify the organism, but there is no evidence of this limitation. It is a false limitation imposed by deniers that has no evidence to back it. Care to tackle THE question? Maybe I'll make a new thread asking it and see if any denier or creationist is willing to even attempt it. So far nobody has.
The barrier is not as magical as you believe. I hope the car analogy above explains the problem.
edit on 14-2-2015 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.

So... The evolutionary processes have been observed in a lab, but speciation hasn't... Do those processes that we do observe directly indicate that speciation will occur given enough time?


My question to you is what makes you believe that they do not? Speciation actually has been observed in a lab but the creationist view of speciation seems to be "a frog giving birth to a goat." Of course there's no evidence for that because that's a ludicrous notion. Just like Barcs has asked multiple times and multiple times creationists misinterpret his question and answer with "why do I have to prove something doesn't exist?"

Barcs' question is actually "given that scientists can observe genetic mutation in a lab and most creationists believe this happens as "microevolution", why then can creationists not accept that millions of years of these mutations would eventually lead to a new species?" Do the genetic mutations just stop at some point?


Other question is, when is something considered speciation? Does speciation differentiate between, say an ancestor 'speciating' into a chihuaha and a bulldog, and an ancestor 'speciating' into a seal and a wolf?


The definition of speciation has been posted many times in this thread. It's defined as the point at which the evolved organism can no longer reproduce with its ancestor. If you take Rat #1 and try to mate it with its descendant: Rat #7,900,432,812 and it is not compatible for reproduction, then Rat #7,900,432,812 is a new species.


How does the climate really indicate evolution through natural selection, rather than say selective adaptation?


"Selective Adaptation" is controversial and not yet recognized as legitimate. Creationists like to seize on every off-shoot of evolutionary science in order to validate their beliefs while simultaneously ignoring the mainstream principles. It boggles the mind.



If fossils are so rare and only have a very small chance to form, how can the distinction be made between certain conditions disallowing fossils to form in certain strata and certain species not existing at all in a certain time period?


It's a very easy distinction to make. Just because fossils are rare does not mean that it's not a fair assumption to say "we've only found this species in a layer of strata that spanned 5 million years so it's safe to say they only lived during this time period."



If every species is subject to natural selection, what makes the difference between the species that can adapt fast enough and the species that can't, if their environment changes at the same time?


There are several factors affecting the speed at which various species evolve. Their particular ecosystem, their mating habits, their natural predators/prey, food sources, etc. Just like in my example, woolly mammoths could not survive on the flora that was available and the food went away faster than they were able to evolve. Sometimes evolution can't keep up when environmental changes happen relatively quickly. A lot of megafauna died out around the same time.



Are you implying that a species can actually have control over their own evolution by controlling their environment? And considering that most species do control their environment (whether consciously or not), doesn't that sort of negate natural selection?


I've seen that video before and love it but it doesn't negate natural selection in the slightest. It only highlights how species can have a dramatic effect on their ecosystem. A species doesn't consciously change its environment to survive, it just does its thing and sometimes the environment is affected. When beavers build dams to flood an area, they're just doing their instinctual duty.

We homo sapiens have absolutely negated natural selection through tool use, technology, medical advancements, etc. Nature has very little effect on who survives in our modern world. The evolutionary path changes constantly for every species and it has been dramatically affected in humans. We are obviously unique in that we harnessed tool use and fire... Again, you're trying to use these examples as proof that natural selection/speciation is invalid but your argument falls very short.


Ok.


Great response to the last one. I guess you couldn't come up with anything solid in response to such a valid point.

I'd still appreciate if someone, anyone on the other side of this argument could explain how all of today's modern species survived along all other species in the past and somehow, these are the ones that made it through. Were today's animals the only ones allowed on the ark? If god created all current species and they've been around relatively unchanged since the beginning (which I really hope you don't actually believe was 5,000 years ago), then how/why did modern species survive and so many others have died out? How/why aren't fossilized remains of modern species found alongside fossilized remains of ancient/extinct species? If a scientist produced the fossils of a modern Lion (been around 800,000ish years) alongside the fossils of a Nimravid (predecessors of lions that lived 30 million years ago), or ANY other modern species alongside its now-extinct family members, the creation belief might actually gain some validity.
edit on 2/14/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga


With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.


Say what now?

What "massive increase of cognition" are you talking about?

Something tells me your understanding of the process of speciation is wayyyyyyy off.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Answer
Scientists have seen evolution through natural selection in a lab setting. They have observed the processes.

So... The evolutionary processes have been observed in a lab, but speciation hasn't... Do those processes that we do observe directly indicate that speciation will occur given enough time?


My question to you is what makes you believe that they do not?
Next time you ask someone to prove that God exists, I'll answer "what makes you believe that he does not", just to see how you like that answer.


originally posted by: Answer
Barcs' question is actually "given that scientists can observe genetic mutation in a lab and most creationists believe this happens as "microevolution", why then can creationists not accept that millions of years of these mutations would eventually lead to a new species?" Do the genetic mutations just stop at some point?
See my car analogy above.



originally posted by: Answer
The definition of speciation has been posted many times in this thread. It's defined as the point at which the evolved organism can no longer reproduce with its ancestor. If you take Rat #1 and try to mate it with its descendant: Rat #7,900,432,812 and it is not compatible for reproduction, then Rat #7,900,432,812 is a new species.
So a donkey and a zebra are the same species then, but the Zebroid is a different species. So is a tiger and a lion, but the liger is a new species.


originally posted by: Answer
"Selective Adaptation" is controversial and not yet recognized as legitimate. Creationists like to seize on every off-shoot of evolutionary science in order to validate their beliefs while simultaneously ignoring the mainstream principles. It boggles the mind.
It boggles the mind that any question regarding evolution is immediately labeled as 'creationist'. And something being 'controversial' does not mean it's false. The earth being round when everyone thought it was flat was also controversial. So in fact, you didn't actually answer my question. You just avoided it with fallacies.


originally posted by: Answer
It's a very easy distinction to make. Just because fossils are rare does not mean that it's not a fair assumption to say "we've only found this species in a layer of strata that spanned 5 million years so it's safe to say they only lived during this time period."
How many fossils of the same species is actually found on average? And at what number of fossils within a specific layer is this a reasonable assumption to make?


originally posted by: Answer


Are you implying that a species can actually have control over their own evolution by controlling their environment? And considering that most species do control their environment (whether consciously or not), doesn't that sort of negate natural selection?


I've seen that video before and love it but it doesn't negate natural selection in the slightest. It only highlights how species can have a dramatic effect on their ecosystem. A species doesn't consciously change its environment to survive, it just does its thing and sometimes the environment is affected. When beavers build dams to flood an area, they're just doing their instinctual duty.
So you're saying that beavers building a dam is instinct to survive, and humans building a house is somehow not?


originally posted by: Answer
We homo sapiens have absolutely negated natural selection through tool use, technology, medical advancements, etc. Nature has very little effect on who survives in our modern world. The evolutionary path changes constantly for every species and it has been dramatically affected in humans. We are obviously unique in that we harnessed tool use and fire... Again, you're trying to use these examples as proof that natural selection/speciation is invalid but your argument falls very short.
Are you saying that the modern world is not an environment? If it is, the same rules still apply.


originally posted by: Answer

Ok.


Great response to the last one. I guess you couldn't come up with anything solid in response to such a valid point.
Lol. I left it for what it is. Not all replies deserve an in depth response. All I did was ask questions. Either I was satisfied with the answer, or I wasn't. I could live with that answer, so, I said ok. I'm sure that doesn't have to be a problem.


originally posted by: Answer
I'd still appreciate if someone, anyone on the other side of this argument could explain how all of today's modern species survived along all other species in the past and somehow, these are the ones that made it through. Were today's animals the only ones allowed on the ark? If god created all current species and they've been around relatively unchanged since the beginning (which I really hope you don't actually believe was 5,000 years ago), then how/why did modern species survive and so many others have died out? How/why aren't fossilized remains of modern species found alongside fossilized remains of ancient/extinct species? If a scientist produced the fossils of a modern Lion (been around 800,000ish years) alongside the fossils of a Nimravid (predecessors of lions that lived 30 million years ago), or ANY other modern species alongside its now-extinct family members, the creation belief might actually gain some validity.
The creationist story is not my thing. Just FYI.


originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga


With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.


Say what now?

What "massive increase of cognition" are you talking about?

Something tells me your understanding of the process of speciation is wayyyyyyy off.
Evolution works from the first cell up to all modern life right? I'd say the amount of cognition between the first cell and humans is quite large, wouldn't you say?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

"Honest question"

Bull#.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Next time you ask someone to prove that God exists, I'll answer "what makes you believe that he does not", just to see how you like that answer.


You're still not getting the nature of the question...


See my car analogy above.


I did. It was a terrible analogy.



So a donkey and a zebra are the same species then, but the Zebroid is a different species. So is a tiger and a lion, but the liger is a new species.


I don't even know what point you're trying to make with this and I'm beyond caring at this point.


It boggles the mind that any question regarding evolution is immediately labeled as 'creationist'. And something being 'controversial' does not mean it's false. The earth being round when everyone thought it was flat was also controversial. So in fact, you didn't actually answer my question. You just avoided it with fallacies.


If evolution is not legitimate and you don't believe in creationism, what possibility is left?

There was never a time when "everyone" thought the earth was flat. People like you love to use that fallacy to discredit modern science and, just like your car analogy, it's asinine. It was mainly religious folk at the time who claimed the earth was flat and scientists were often persecuted for heresy... fancy that. I'm at the point where your questions just aren't worth answering because every evolution thread turns into a game of repetition and I'm tired of wasting my time.


How many fossils of the same species is actually found on average? And at what number of fossils within a specific layer is this a reasonable assumption to make?


Google. Use it and educate yourself. I'm not here to teach you everything you should have learned in school.



So you're saying that beavers building a dam is instinct to survive, and humans building a house is somehow not?


What does that stupid question have to do with anything? Of course humans build houses for survival. When our ancestors sought shelter in caves, they were trying to get out of the cold and wet. Was there a point to this comparison?


Are you saying that the modern world is not an environment? If it is, the same rules still apply.


Again, I don't know what point you're trying to make.



Evolution works from the first cell up to all modern life right? I'd say the amount of cognition between the first cell and humans is quite large, wouldn't you say?


It took billions of years, so yes... quite a lot of cognition can be gained in that amount of time. Modern humans have only been around about 100,000 years but look what we've accomplished in that time. I'm sure you've seen the "how long have humans been around compared to the overall timeline" graphical representations before so I won't bore you with that. The way you asked the question seemed like you think it happens quickly.
edit on 2/15/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Without evolution, biology makes no sense, and still after all these years of asking, not a single evolution denier has answered the question of why genetic mutations do not add up over thousands to millions of generations, like they do in the hundred or so that we have observed. They all just say "I believe micro evolution but you'll never see a monkey turn into a human", a response that is a complete strawman, not to mention it's completely wrong and dishonest. It would be nice if somebody would finally tackle that question, but creationists / science deniers dodge the question and change the subject every time.



originally posted by: vasaga
@Bold part... I'll repeat what I posted before on the last page, but I'll change it just enough to make it relevant to that post;

When it's regarding God, it's up to the believer to prove that God DOES exist, and asking the non-believers to prove he doesn't exist is stupid.
Apparently, when it's regarding anything correlated to evolution, in this case genetic mutations adding up to millions of generations, it's up to the non-believer to prove that x IS NOT adding up, and asking the supporters to prove that it is, is stupid.
Yay for double standards.


LMAO. There is no double standard here. When evolution supporters post the links to scientific studies they get ignored. Case in point, I referenced 2 experiments and here you are, not reading the thread, acting like it hasn't been posted or that "micro" evolution hasn't been proven. Maybe you don't understand the purpose of the thread.

I'm not asking people prove that it doesn't happen. I'm asking for people to explain why it would stop, when all current scientific studies show that it does happen. It's not like I'm making up some imaginary mechanism or an unprovable idea like god . Speciation events have been recorded. Speciation events have also been observed in a lab. This is based on an observed and confirmed mechanism. I'm asking for an explanation for the stop or for the reason it won't continue to add up as we've seen in experiments. If we can observe the earth revolving around the sun and rotating its axis, then logic would state that this process would continue unless interrupted by some type of natural disaster. Acting like mutations will not add up, is like acting like the earth will suddenly stop rotating without cause. It is an assuming based on nothing. My position is based on what we already know happens.


You have to understand that it's not the acceleration that is the problem. It's the speed. With evolution, you have to understand that it's not speciation that people have a problem with. It's the massive increase in cognition of the 'new' species, where cognition means the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and experience.


So basically people don't understand that a new species doesn't mean a new entire kingdom or family of animal. You can't have a giraffe give birth to an elephant or suddenly become one through a single speciation change. This is what people are having difficulty grasping. It's not one single mutation that affects one individual, is it about a trait becoming dominant within a population and causing enough different in DNA to make it incompatible for breeding. One mutation usually does not do this, but in the rare event where it happens, the creatures die out. When a fly speciates, it becomes a slightly different version of fly. Now when you think of this happening thousands or even millions of times, it is logical to think that it would eventually become much different from the original. I'd like a counter argument to this point that isn't flat out denial.


The barrier is not as magical as you believe. I hope the car analogy above explains the problem.


No it does not. I don't care about the analogy. Analogies are used to explain things that folks might not understand. They don't prove anything. I used rain water filling up a bucket as an example of accumulation. You mentioned a car going the speed of light, which is flat out impossible and illogical. Sorry, it's not related to my point or my analogy in the least. Answer the question of mutations with evidence and logic. Analogies are not that.

edit on 15-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.


If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.


I couldn't have said it better myself! You, Borntowatch and others do not understand evolution, and aren't willing to learn how it works, so the conversation never really even began. At least you admit it.
edit on 16-2-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.


No, a refusal to ignore evidence, research and basic science is where the conversation ends.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.


If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.


Arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2
Evolution and big bang arithmetic 0 + 0 = EVERYTHING. Your imaginary method and bananas, kind a sorta makes you and your species look very unevolved in my opinion.




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.


If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.


Arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2
Evolution and big bang arithmetic 0 + 0 = EVERYTHING. Your imaginary method and bananas, kind a sorta makes you and your species look very unevolved in my opinion.




Your ignorance is staggering.

You're still holding onto the false notion that the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory have ANYTHING to do with the origin of matter despite the repeated frustrated efforts to show you otherwise?

What, exactly, is creationism if not "0 + 0 = Everything"?

Is "0 + magical sky daddy = everything" somehow more logical?

What a joke.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer


Your ignorance is staggering.

You're still holding onto the false notion that the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory have ANYTHING to do with the origin of matter despite the repeated frustrated efforts to show you otherwise?

What, exactly, is creationism if not "0 + 0 = Everything"?

Is "0 + magical sky daddy = everything" somehow more logical?

What a joke.



and sadly this is the kind of evidence you suggest the last pages are full of, an invalid emotional driven content based of arrogance and self righteous where attacking a person's faith is the only valid argument.

Ok I dont believe in creation by God anymore, so that leaves you a clean slate to prove your theory about evolution.

How did life evolve from nothing for it to start evolving or do I have to have faith in nothing to accept life evolved for evolution to start.

Mathematically you start with zero and you have nothing, no skydaddy, just science to explain your reasoning.

So far you have zero the next step is all yours.
Lets break some ground.

Lets go mr arithmatic

it is a joke when you have to attack religion because you cant justify a valid comment.
What is staggering is your ability to explain what you believe based on valid evidence.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: vasaga
Refusal to understand the position of someone else is where the conversation ends.


If I attempt to teach arithmetic to a child and they prefer to rely on their imaginary method they've dubbed "magical happy number time" which makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to understand the child's position no matter how confidently they believe that 2+2=banana.


Arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2
Evolution and big bang arithmetic 0 + 0 = EVERYTHING. Your imaginary method and bananas, kind a sorta makes you and your species look very unevolved in my opinion.





......bananas? Seriously? Is this some kind of ape-related creationist humour? And what 'imaginary method'? Is this some kind of confused reference to all the evidence plus the science?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

......bananas? Seriously? Is this some kind of ape-related creationist humour? And what 'imaginary method'? Is this some kind of confused reference to all the evidence plus the science?



No it was not serious, it was a comment reflecting a comment that Answer made a few posts above mine.
I wasnt sure what banana was related to either but for a bit of fun I thought I would throw it in as well.

Relax, you will blow an artery if you dont calm down a bit
I dont believe in evolution, it hasnt been proven in my opinion, I also dont agree that the scientific understanding and classification reflects the true notion of speciation



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch



... the anti creationists resort to a common "abiogenesis is not evolution" stance.


I don't understand this statement. Who exactly said that chemical evolution is not evolution? Abiogenesis is something that definitively must happen if we want to see unicellular lifeform emerging from complex assembly of organic molecules. In fact the clear distinction between lifeless molecular assembly and living "thing" can be blurred sometime (ex. virus and prion).

But if we are talking about large and complex organism emerging spontaniously from lifeless molecular building blocks, that's not gonna happen, unless in some futuristic bioconstruction machine I think is not yet invented.




top topics



 
12
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join