Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Science isn't sophistry, you cannot attack a theory by attacking the definition. You attack the theory by attacking the evidence and proof provided.

Only the hacks of creationism even attempt to attack the definition, the swindlers like Hovind.

to the OP. All your "test" confirms, is that everyone who took it agrees that all of the objects on the right were manmade, and all of the objects on the left were not. Nice test though, for a four year old. Your argument is flawed because creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive principles as you are trying to compare them to be. Evoluion happens. Evolution may have happened after creationism. Now, if you want to make an argument, then what you shoud be trying to "test" is evoluition versus intelligent design. Unfortunately, there isn't any real way to test for intelligent design unless G-d himself comes down to tell us how and why he designed everything the way it is and how it will be in the future. Try again.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


actually, evolution is based less on inheritence, and more on gene mutation. If inheritance was all that happened, we would all look exactly like our brothers and sisters, and successive generations of all animals would be the same today as they were millions of years ago.

Originally posted by trouthash
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

actually, evolution is based less on inheritence, and more on gene mutation. If inheritance was all that happened, we would all look exactly like our brothers and sisters, and successive generations of all animals would be the same today as they were millions of years ago.

Good to hear...then just take 'inherited' out of the definition and the falsehood is solved.

I'm looking forward to that defintion.

And to answer another members totally illogical comment about attacking a definition is nonsense or some such drivel.

What the heck are you talking about?

If I made the defintion of evolution that evolution means God exists would you have a problem with that?

According to your inane logic that you wrote - you would not have a problem with my new definition of evolution.

But in reality, you'd throw a gasket and take complete offense to evolution being defined that way.

So why do you talk down to those of us who have a problem with just one word of evolutions definition?

Which by the way, the original definition of evolution did try to explain the origin of life.

So why are we to believe that it does not now?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Why would they take it out if in fact we DO inherit traits from previous generations. It's a fact, it DOES happen. Not evolution's fault if you don't like that...but it clearly happens and has been proven over and over again.

I have a feeling I know why you don't like the word though. It means you are connected to animals, which means you aren't that special and your current form doesn't represent the image of god as is claimed in the bible. Sorry to burst your bible, but the truth and facts aren't something you can ignore...well, you can, but it makes you look silly and like a brainwashed blind sheep.

Children generally resemble their parents at least a bit...big nose, weird ears, whatever. Children INHERIT traits from their parents. If a zebra mates with a horse, you get something that has some stripes, but less than a zebra...plus, as evolution predicts, it's also sterile. Whales have hands like all mammals they just evolved into fins over time, the bone structure is almost the same.

"Why would they take it out if in fact we DO inherit traits from previous generations. It's a fact, it DOES happen. Not evolution's fault if you don't like that...but it clearly happens and has been proven over and over again."

Yep. It sure does. Thanks for proving my point exactly.

From previous generation, upon previous generation to...? What?

What was the first generation?

Where did the first generation come from?

Where? Please enlighten us.

Since you and no one else can scientifically prove how it all started then take the word out of the definition of evolution. Evolution is not suppose to address the origin of life right? So get a new definition that doesn't try to.


p.s. What the heck is the following quote? This doesn't sound like you at all - it sounds petty, childish, sort of like you have a hidden agenda. That isn't what you're really like is it? I pray not. I have a lot more respect for you than that. So I'll give you a pass on it and pretend you didn't even write it.

"I have a feeling I know why you don't like the word though. It means you are connected to animals, which means you aren't that special and your current form doesn't represent the image of god as is claimed in the Bible."

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Is your brain impaired or do you have dislexia? I'm not asking as an attack on you, I'm asking because you keep on coming up with this point when numerous people in here have explained you before that "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION". We already stated that the theory of evolution makes NO STATEMENTS regarding the origins of life, it only explains biodiversity. It DOESN'T MATTER what/how life started as it wouldn't prove the theory wrong. We still know how biodiversity came to be through evolution, and that wouldn't change based on the "first creature". Evolution still happens and is responsible for us having a common ancestor with today's apes because we INHERIT traits from common ancestors. This happens, so the word should DEFINITELY be in there

I know you really wanna say evolution talks about the origins of life, but it doesn't. Saying otherwise just shows a lack of education tbh...and in your case it shows ignorance because we've told you that at least 20 times by now. You refuse to accept facts (like the fact that the theory doesn't care about the origins of life) which isn't a surprising trait for a creationist.

reply to post by MrXYZ


This.



Face it, knight, evolution wouldn't care if life started out because an omnipotent space taco was bored one day and decided to create a single-celled organism (why yes, I just had Mexican food, how'd you guess?).

Do I have to come up with more crazy examples or will you just finally put it to rest that evolution concerns itself with nothing further than biodiversity?

reply to post by edmc^2


Yes, the human mind is mind-bogglingly complex. Or sort of. But the nerve nets of jellyfish, on the other hand, are not. The nerve rings - not centralised, but less diffuse than the nervous systems of jellyfish - are not a huge step up from that, and nor are the nerve bundles of planarians, or the nerve cords of earthworms with their multiple "brains" en route... from that, the nervous systems of, say, lancets, aren't exactly rocket science, and it's a tiny step up to the brains of hagfish. And while the brains of bony fish are a lot more complex, some of them aren't much more than the brains of hagfish, but one of them is the most energy demanding brain in the world (gymnothorax) relative to the energy demands of its owner... from these, it's practically a step down to some of the amphibian brains, and a lot of reptile brains can't really compare to Gymnothorax. Of course, the varanid (monitor lizard) brains are impressive, and function on a higher level than some birds and mammals.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Yes, a single feature looked at in isolation can seem incredible, but if you look around the animal kingdom you can normally find out how it got to be the way it is. NB, the whole brain thing doesn't make these groups inferior to humans, because after all, we don't have nematocysts like the jellyfish do, and we can't grow back 4/5 of our bodies in one go like some echinoderms can, we just have a bigger brain where they haven't needed one.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Uh, the first generation happened when life started. Say a bunch of RNA drifting around in a protein rich environment under the highly organic atmosphere of the primeval earth, passively being translated into yet more proteins and a couple of them twisted by - passive - hydrogen bonding into ribosomes got trapped in a hydrophobic lipid membrane... or god did it, or chaos did it, or something else did it. Point is, it's about as relevant to evolution as your grandmother's opinion on dandylions is to anything you say. Yes, it preceded it, but evolution isn't about what happened then, that's what abiogenesis is for, and, it being so firmly in the past, it's kind of hard to be sure about.

Seeing as you haven't stated your grandmother's opinion on dandylions, I cannot take anything you say seriously.

reply to post by TheWill

Originally posted by TheWill:
[...]
Point is, it's about as relevant to evolution as your grandmother's opinion on dandylions is to anything you say.
[...]
Seeing as you haven't stated your grandmother's opinion on dandylions, I cannot take anything you say seriously.

Bwahahahaha ty!

reply to post by edmc^2


Because I feel it is relevant I am going to Quote one of my own Posts On MIMS thread
Evolution: PROVE IT!
I only do this because there seems to be a profound misunderstanding on how evolution works
and what a vital role it plays in the modern understanding of all fields of biology.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
[

Originally posted by ELahrairah
Ok I will make a go at it given some of the things I know about the natural world.

Evolution claims that at one point all animal life lived in the oceans or fresh water bodies and at some time moved on to land.
So one would guess that there are species that demonstrate a half way point between aquatic and land bassed existence.
Well the good news is there are species in the animal kingdom that do demonstrate this for example
the Christmas Island crab spends most of its life on land in the rainforest's of Christmas Island.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70f993eb7933.jpg[/atsimg]

However this species of crab has not completely severed it's ties to it's aquatic ancestors it must still return to the ocean
to spawn. The larvae of the crab must still undergo part of their development in an aquatic environment.

Next up is Amphibians like frogs, salamanders, and newts. Each of these species begin their life cycle in the water where they are dependent on gills to breath only latter do they develop legs and eventually lungs to breath
on the land.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb1b44be91dd.jpg[/atsimg]

Amphibians would seem to be at a midpoint between fish that spend there entire life in water and reptiles which spend their entire life on land and are not dependent on water for their developmental life cycle.

However some amphibians do not let go of their gills and keep them their entire life.
Like this little fellow the Axolotl
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0230809ac68d.jpg[/atsimg]

Last example the snakehead.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4eb2baa25f53.jpeg[/atsimg]

This fish is an invasive species yet it has an evolutionary advantage that gives it an edge.
It has a primitive lung and can live out of water for up to 3 days and move on land!

Just some examples that I think make a strong case for evolution.
cheers

edit on 30-12-2010 by ELahrairah because: url link

reply to post by ELahrairah


Hey Elahrairah, - thanks for the post - interesting video.


'Just curious - in your own understanding, can you please explain how fish scales 'evolved' into shells - as in crab shells? Logically of course to stay on topic.

In other words - what would it take to convert (evolve) a fish structure into a crab structure?

ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by trouthash
to the OP. All your "test" confirms, is that everyone who took it agrees that all of the objects on the right were manmade, and all of the objects on the left were not. Nice test though, for a four year old. Your argument is flawed because creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive principles as you are trying to compare them to be. Evoluion happens. Evolution may have happened after creationism. Now, if you want to make an argument, then what you shoud be trying to "test" is evoluition versus intelligent design. Unfortunately, there isn't any real way to test for intelligent design unless G-d himself comes down to tell us how and why he designed everything the way it is and how it will be in the future. Try again.

Interesting take trouthash. But as you can see the goal of the thread is to simply point the illogical reasoning behind evolution. And per your post you've just proved it:

"that all of the objects on the right were manmade, and all of the objects on the left were not".

That is, if inanimate things require a maker/creator - why not living things?

Simply saying that "Evoluion happens" is not a logical reasoning - even for a four year old. Interesting though is that even four year olds can see thru logic and yet proponents of evolution can't seem to figure it out. Why's that?

So trouthash - why not living things? What's your logic?

ciao,
edmc2

p.s.

"you shoud be trying to "test" is evoluition versus intelligent design" - good suggestion, I might take you on this.

reply to post by edmc^2


wait a minute, are you saying that there is a god? just because nature is complex?




what does this statement "That is, if inanimate things require a maker/creator - why not living things?" have to do with evolution?

evolution is a random process right?

reply to post by edmc^2


That would require inanimate objects like stones to require a creator as you claim...we know they don't..so your whole argument is seriously flawed. You just CLAIM inanimate objects require a creator, but that's demonstrably WRONG.

reply to post by MrXYZ


i think he/she is speaking of inanimate objects with the complexity of living things, like computers and robots...

reply to post by edmc^2


reply to post by edmc^2


Welcome back.

edmc^2, there is no answer to your question, as your question is a nothing like what the evolutionary timeline predicts. Arthropods (which include crustaceans like crabs and lobsters) arose about 570 million years ago, whilst fish were a bit later to the party, showing up around 500 million years ago.

So...fish didn't evolve into crabs.

reply to post by edmc^2


The basic fallacy is this. We have actual indicators that manufactured objects were manufactured. We know that they cannot arise naturally. On the other hand, we are certain the biodiversity arises naturally.

Of course, we also see examples of natural structures that have the same function as artificial structures arising. As PZ Meyers pointed out once, driftwood walls forming upon shorelines serve the same function as man-made walls, are incredibly complex, and are actually more complex than the man-made version.

Why? Because manufactured items tend towards less unnecessary complexity.

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by edmc^2

 

wait a minute, are you saying that there is a god? just because nature is complex?

edit on 1/3/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

what does this statement "That is, if inanimate things require a maker/creator - why not living things?" have to do with evolution?

evolution is a random process right?

edit on 1/3/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

As stated in the OP - my answer is Creation which logically point to a Creator - possessing knowlegde and power greater than creation itself. We or I refer to him a the "True God" (since there are many who are called gods). Biblically speaking - he is known by the Hebrew tetra "YHWH/JHVH" - as Yahweh / Jehovah.

As for "what does this statement ... have to do with evolution" - nothing or everything - depending on how you look at it.

For "evolutionist*" nothing because it has no or cannot explain how life came to be.

For proponents of Creation - everything because it cannot explain how life came to be.

Thus you are reffered to the following theories:

> Abiogenesis theory.
>The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis

Which one do you think is the accepted theory as far as orgins is concern?

ciao,
edmc2


* Meriam Webster

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

i think he/she is speaking of inanimate objects with the complexity of living things, like computers and robots...

edit on 1/3/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. A tree is no more complex than a computer, and vice versa if you look at the cells. Either way, he's trying to fill a gap in knowledge (since he doesn't have evidence to support his claim) with a mythical creature...it's the typical god of the gaps trap he's falling for