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

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
OP, how then do you explain.... the origin of feces?

Is it man made or does god play a role in every dump I take?

Do you feel the power of god's creation every time you drop a brown bomb??

I'm guessing you've never seen a cell divide under a microscope?

edit on 3-1-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)

haha.. funny RIP.

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by MrXYZ


Wow, that video made my day. That pretty much sums up my feelings.

The evidence of horrific design flaws exist to such an extent that a creator either does not exist, or is completely incompetent.

reply to post by edmc^2


I'm sorry, but you can't appeal to popular opinion or to any sort of 'common sense'. Please demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, argue your point with a single quote one scientist made 35 years ago

So that's how it works. Interesting - if it contradicts your pov - they are disregarded as 'old'. Are you doubting your fellow evolutionist?

Especially one of the best recognized proponents of evolution ( prof. W.D Hamilton)? Do you doubt what he said? What if I provide more statements from other well reconized 'evolutionists'. Will you invalidate them too as 'old' so that you'll appear to be more knowlegeable than them?

Really - what made his statements invalid?
Care to elaborate?


Honestly, I've seen quotes from your fellow evolutionists quoting a much older statements - and no complaints there.

as for this statement:

I know you'd love to group abiogenesis with evolution in your hilarious to then state "oh look, they're unsure about abiogenesis, that means they're unsure about evolution too".

missed the point again MrXYZ - 'evolution or to be precise organic evolution (as explained by madness) "does not care about origins but biodiversity" thus it has no foundation on its own. But in order for the theory to exist imho it must have a foundation - thus abiogenesis was born (from spontaneous generation). Since noone is sure about the 'abiogenesis theory' itself, thus evolution has a very weak foundation. Do you agree?

ciao,
edmc2

gotta go...

reply to post by edmc^2


I guess all that medicine that was researched based on findings from the theory of evolution are just hokus pokus then, right? And all the DNA evidence too...as well as the fossil record, right? Some super being spread all that evidence to mislead "his" people, right?

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't require a solid theory of abiogenesis. We KNOW the theory is sound as we are actively observing it on a daily basis. It "works" as is evident by by observing reality...no matter the end findings in abiogenesis, it doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution

If your best attempt at "debunking" (lol) evolution is you trying to link it to abiogenesis...good luck, you'll need it

Let us assume for a moment that the universe did have a creator. Then that creator would have made the universe a very long time ago. Not the 6000 to 10000 years creationist like to claim. Astronomy is dependent on the universe
being very old in order to see the large amount of stars and other celestial phenomena.
Now let's talk about LIGHT YEARS

A light-year is a unit of distance. It is the distance that light can travel in one year. Light moves at a velocity of about 300,000 kilometers (km) each second. So in one year, it can travel about 10 trillion km. More p recisely, one light-year is equal to 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Ok now that we know that a light year is the distance that light travels in one year lets find out how big the milky
way galaxy is which is home to our solar system.

The stellar disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years (30 kiloparsecs, 9×1017 km) in diameter, and is considered to be, on average, about 1,000 ly (0.3 kpc) thick.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...
Ok so we now know the milky way is 100,000 light years wide and astronomers are able to see the stars toward the center of the milky way at about 50,000 to 40,000 light years away. that means the light took 50,000 to 40,000 years to reach earth putting it 30,000 years over 10,000 year mark of the more liberal creationist. If the earth was only 10,000 years old we would not even be able to see the stars toward the center of the milky way!

Lets Move on to our nearest galactic neighbor Andromeda
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a958a1f94f16.jpg[/atsimg]

The Andromeda Galaxy (pronounced /ænˈdrɒmədə/) is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years away[4] in the constellation Andromeda.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thats right our galactic neighbor Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away and given what I said above about light years it would mean that it took 2.5 million years for the light to reach earth's astronomers.
So in order to be able to view Andromeda the universe would have to be at least 2.5 million years old.

But wait let's not stop there

Astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, along
with colleagues elsewhere in the United States and in the United
Kingdom, have discovered the most distant object in the universe -- a
spectacular stellar explosion known as a gamma-ray burst located about
13 billion light years away.

www.spaceref.com...

So the furthest visible phenomena is 13 billion light years away meaning in order for scientist to view this phenomena the universe has to be at least 13 billion years old which is a far cry from 10,000 years old or 6,000 for that matter. So even if the universe was created by a God/Godess/Entity they would have had to have done it 13 billion years ago in order for the majority of the universe to be visible to astronomers.

So, here is my interpretation on this (if I understand this correctly).

1)Human Body, Robot Body.

Both require a creator.

A child does not just appear, therefore people must be made. Similar to the robot body.
And if two people are required to make a child, then going back through geneaology we would find a common ancestor (ex:Cro Magnum, which means somehow, Cro Magnum produced a current Homo-Sapien)

Following that process it doesn't matter what "common ancestor" one shares, there would have to be either species intermingling, or a species that suddenly appears.
If you want to say that over a period of time Cro Magnum produced a Homo Sapien-not through crossbreeding, then Homo Sapien suddenly appears, which contradicts evolution, because for something to evolve it must have something new introduced. Breeding a blackbird and a blackbird will always make a blackbird. Breeding a Horse and a Donkey makes a Mule, however, Mules are sterile and will not reproduce. Therefore a Mule is a new species, but will not reproduce, it cannot pass on traits. If a Mule is bred and somehow does pass on traits, it is not a Mule and therefore a new breed of animal.

To my knowledge that has never happened though. So either way, evolution hits a dead end. A monkey and a monkey, make a monkey. To my knowledge, a monkey and a baboon, will not make a monkey though. Everyspecies must have generated somewhere, so we may be related with Cro Magnum, but, whether they were ever generated, by mutation (which comes from no where miraculously according to Evolution), or by cross-breeding (which wouldn't change things because of crossbreeding with incompatible species, which Homo Sapien just miraculously evolved from Cro Magnum) doesn't change anything.

We don't have to go back very far in time to learn that species and the way they work do not-DO NOT, function like Evolution tries to explain it as.

8)Sun and Light Bulb

Both had to have been created.

In the same way that a light bulb makes light, the sun produces light. It's materials may be created in a specific way, but what created it?

reply to post by ELahrairah


Nice job summing up the age of the Universe.

You are correct, and that is covered by Genesis 1:1, which is a time period comparable to what science tells us today. Genesis 1:1 is unknown billions of years. To say the universe is 10,000 years old or younger is laughable, even the earth too, as it is embedded within the verse as well. Of coarse our Sun would also be included within the Genesis 1:1 proclamation too.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

8)Sun and Light Bulb

Both had to have been created.

In the same way that a light bulb makes light, the sun produces light. It's materials may be created in a specific way, but what created it?

I'm going to skip the evolution part and let someone else tackle that. Now the sun is but one of billions of stars in the milky way in a universe made up of billions of galaxies. Stars are usually born in nebula's which are large collections of cosmic dust and matter.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/405113f7cd79.jpg[/atsimg]
Now some of this matter clumps together through the force of gravity. If enough matter clumps together the intense gravity causes a fusion reaction in the mater where atoms fuse together to produce heavier elements.
The fusion reaction produces intense amounts of light and energy. Our star the sun fuses two hydrogen atoms
to produce one helium atom and in this process gives off light and energy. There is a massive amount of hydrogen fuel powering this reaction. But when our sun uses up it fuel in a billion years it will turn into a red giant much more massive then it is now.
Stars produce the elements on the periodic table through this method of fusion. Lighter elements fuse into heavier elements. Apparently super novas which are the explosions of massive stars produce the element of gold ( Au )
Though our sun is big it is really a small fry compared to much more massive stars.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Following that process it doesn't matter what "common ancestor" one shares, there would have to be either species intermingling, or a species that suddenly appears.

Species don't suddenly appear, they diverge over a period of time and through a succession of generations.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
If you want to say that over a period of time Cro Magnum produced a Homo Sapien-not through crossbreeding, then Homo Sapien suddenly appears, which contradicts evolution, because for something to evolve it must have something new introduced.

That "something new" is usually random mutation, but species can also acquire genes from other species or even other populations of the same species. However, the origin of all genetic variation is random mutation.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Breeding a blackbird and a blackbird will always make a blackbird. Breeding a Horse and a Donkey makes a Mule, however, Mules are sterile and will not reproduce. Therefore a Mule is a new species, but will not reproduce, it cannot pass on traits. If a Mule is bred and somehow does pass on traits, it is not a Mule and therefore a new breed of animal.

You have a misconception of what a species is. Mules are hybrids and not a species precisely because they can't reproduce. If a Mule is ever fertile and does pass on its traits, assuming that it has bred with another mule, then the resulting offspring will still be a mule. And, interestingly enough, it's actually possible for hybridization to result in speciation.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
To my knowledge that has never happened though.

There are many recorded instances of speciation. One of which being the apple maggot fly, which is diverging and arguably a new species already.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
by mutation (which comes from no where miraculously according to Evolution)

We actually know how mutations arise. Replication errors, point mutations, insertions and deletions, etc. That's not even exclusively from the Theory of Evolution, it's fundamental genetics.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
or by cross-breeding (which wouldn't change things because of crossbreeding with incompatible species, which Homo Sapien just miraculously evolved from Cro Magnum) doesn't change anything.

Species can actually exchange genes between each other. The mallard genetically swamping other duck species is a good example.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


reply to post by Blue_Jay33


No, the Sun shouldn't be admitted in that verse. And dammit, I'm going to show you why with your own book in the original text....gain.

So:

Gen 1:1 (KJV, only because it's what Blue Letter Bible has as default and they're where I'm getting the Hebrew concordance from)

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So:

In the beginning (re'shiyth)
God ('elohiym)
created (bara')
^ direct object indicator ('eth) [Archaic Hebrew has a different grammatical structure]
the heaven (shamayim)
and ('eth) [yes, the same word is used twice with different meaning, but it's about context]
the earth ('erets)

Now, the word shamayim שָׁמַיִם is used to denote the expanse known as the 'sky' or possibly the area known as 'heaven' in Abrahamic mythologies. Nowhere does it talk about the universe being in existence, nowhere does it even mention that stars, other planets, or even the Sun exists.

In fact, there is a specific instance of the creation of stars (and I'm guessing other planets, as they couldn't tell a planet from a star back then except that one moved a lot more than the other in the night sky) in Genesis 1:14

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And in Genesis 1:15, they are put around the Earth (a geocentric model of the universe)

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And then in Genesis 1:16, God creates the Sun and Moon

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Finally, in Genesis 1:17, God puts these two objects around the Earth. Now, we all know that the Moon goes around the Earth, but we also all know that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Therefore, the idea that, according to the Genesis story, the Sun was created at the beginning is preposterous. If you're going to subscribe to the Genesis account, you must go by what it says, not but what you think it should say in light of modern scientific evidence. Sure, you don't have to count a day as a single 24 hour period, but you can't say that the story says things that it specifically says the opposite of.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I guess all that medicine that was researched based on findings from the theory of evolution are just hokus pokus then, right? And all the DNA evidence too...as well as the fossil record, right? Some super being spread all that evidence to mislead "his" people, right?

missed the point again MrXYZ. Here let me restate what I've said before:

True and proven science that enhance our lives and helps us understand the miracle of life and the awesome universe is not the issue. We are so grateful for these scientific achievements and advancements of man's knowledge. The issue is psuedo-science, that is – the theory of (org) evolution.

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't require a solid theory of abiogenesis.

Indeed I agree because it's a “hokus pokus” science – like a magic wand. Whenever there's a gap in the theory – its gods of gaps comes to the rescue.

We KNOW the theory is sound as we are actively observing it on a daily basis. It "works" as is evident by by observing reality...no matter the end findings in abiogenesis, it doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution

And yet due to preconceived ideas the data gathered through observation are interpreted or bent towards the theory of (org) evolution.

Here, let me please elaborate to test my hypotheses based on scientific methodology:

per TalkOrigins:

Now, to answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:

1.Make observations.
2.Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3.Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4.Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

1) Speciation vs. Variety:

According to National Academy of Sciences (NAS - 1999)
“A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”

Is it valid / acceptable to say / conclude that these “speciation” found/observed on these finches were just varieties? Varieties within the 'species'. After all the finches were still finches even today, not a new species . Or is it pretty much a done deal – result of evolution - because the scientific community decided it already? No room for variety? What say you?

How about this:


2) On relationship vs. resemblance (similarities)

Per TalkOrigins:

1.1 The evolutionary view of species similarities
Consider first how evolutionists interpret similarities between species living today. Present-day humans and chimpanzees, despite obvious external and behavioral differences, have extremely similar internal organs and physiological functions; indeed their genes are more than 98% identical (Goodman et al., J Molec Evolution 30:260,1990). Just as the resemblance between two siblings suggests a common parentage, resemblance between species suggests common ancestors. Evolutionists believe that humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor: an ape-like creature that lived perhaps five to ten million years ago, rather recently on the geological time scale. (The thought that humans and apes might share a common ancestor seems particularly unacceptable to creationists because of the theological implications of such a relationship and the clear contradiction to the creationists' literal interpretation of biblical Genesis.) Species less similar to humans than are apes--mice, for example--are believed to have branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor. Evolutionary family tree diagrams that express such relationships between species have been constructed by evolutionary biologists by analyzing similarities of present-day organisms. In many cases, fossilized remains of extinct species can be used to support the features of such evolutionary trees; fossil evidence will not, however, be discussed in this article.

Is it valid / acceptable to say / conclude that these supposed relationships found on bone structures or gene structures or organ structures are just that, just similarities or resemblance nothing more nothing less? That is, chimps and humans are unique species – did not “branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor”. Any possibility? Or is it no way, because its already been decided by the scientific community – product of evolution? Set on stone. What say you?


3) On survival of the fittest / natural selection vs. Instinct / circumstances:

Is it also valid to conclude / say that there’s a built-in instinct that allows animals to adapt to their environment? A pre-programed ability to changed/adapt to their environment in order not just to survive but to thrive. I.e, thicker coat for cold weather, thinner coat for warmer weather. That is, animals were created/ fitted/designed for such occasions. Arrival of the fittest instead of 'survival of the fittest'. Is it valid to interpret it this way or is it pretty much a done deal - product of evolution - since it was already decided by the evolution community? Set on stone. What say you?

(finch beak included)

4) Instead of "evolution", is it also valid to say / conclude that expected/unforeseen circumstances whether favorable/unfavorable as the caused of death/survival of a species? Any possibility that it can be interpreted this way? Or is it pretty much set in stone as it's already decided by evolution community? What say you?

If your best attempt at "debunking" (lol) evolution is you trying to link it to abiogenesis...good luck, you'll need it

no need to put my “ best attempt at "debunking" (lol) evolution” as it debunks itself.

Ciao,
edmc2

btw – did u figured out already evolution's “magic wand” or its “gods of gaps”?
If not please let me know if u wanna know.

Short on time … gotta go.

reply to post by ELahrairah


Great post Elahrairah - spot on, no disagreement there.

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm sorry, but you can't appeal to popular opinion or to any sort of 'common sense'. Please demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver.

I assume that you as lawgiver/lawmaker also don't want to accept nor believe using logic, process of deduction and mathematical probabilities to “demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver “correct?

So may I ask, in what way do want me to “demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver “?
Any other laws / rules that you've (created) that I need to consider?

Just curious.

Ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'm sorry, but you can't appeal to popular opinion or to any sort of 'common sense'. Please demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver.

I assume that you as lawgiver/lawmaker also don't want to accept nor believe using logic, process of deduction and mathematical probabilities to “demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver “correct?

Um..false attack there. I'm not claiming to be a lawgiver, nor am I rejecting logic, 'process of deduction' (which is formal logic), and/or mathematics in any form.

I just want you to put forth some actual claim that natural 'laws' require a 'law giver'.

So may I ask, in what way do want me to “demonstrate that the laws of nature require a law giver “?
Any other laws / rules that you've (created) that I need to consider?

In any reasonable and logically valid way. I haven't created any laws here, I just want you to prove your point.

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2
So back to my question - per physics - can the laws of the universe exist on it's own? That is NO lawmaker?

If yes, can you please explain how and ...?

Yes. They just do.

Now, can you demonstrate how the laws of the universe require a law giver?

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

First of all, what does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution? It makes no statements regarding the origins of life.

Also, when you are quoting Dawkins...what's your point? He's saying his theory might not be that far off, but that it's obviously not a certainty. Again, he's talking about the origins of life, and NOT evolution...

May I suggest, read the book first.

MrXYZ is talking about the statement, not the book.

Note the very first page as shown the screen cap below:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5275221b7eeb.jpg[/atsimg]

You know, it's insights are valid, but some of its facts might be slightly off. Mainly because evolutionary biology, even Dawkins own work, has come a long way since the 1970s.

To quote a part:

This book should be read, can be read, by almost everyone. It describes with great skill a new face of the theory of evolution

note: bold/underlines mine

Do you disagree with the quote above?

Yes, it was such a great new face, a new idea...and yet, it's just one part of the theory. One part amongst a mountain of information. It isn't the "Bible of evolution" anymore than Darwin's work is.

btw - did you happen to spot the 'magic wand' or the 'gods of gaps' in evolution theory?

There's no magic wand in evolution, it's all naturalistic science that's supported by evidence.

reply to post by edmc^2


Hold up you make no issue about me pointing out the idea that the universe is at least 13 billion years old and how stars create matter that makes up the universe. Yet you are essentially telling Madness that evolution is pseudo science. Basically what your saying is that naturalist, biologist, zoologist and botanist are all practicing pseudo science. I strongly disagree. I don't know how you could make such an assertion when you were asking me how crabs could evolve into fish. How Much do you know about the animal kingdom? You are saying that
everything I know about biology is pseudo science.

If you have no idea what the difference between Arthopoda and Chordata are I don't see how you could go and proclaim that evolution is pseudo science. Just because you don't know how it works does not make it pseudo science.

Originally posted by edmc^2
True and proven science that enhance our lives and helps us understand the miracle of life and the awesome universe is not the issue. We are so grateful for these scientific achievements and advancements of man's knowledge. The issue is psuedo-science, that is – the theory of (org) evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is regarded as the Unifying Theory of Biology, nothing else comes close to explaining biodiversity as well as the Theory of Evolution does.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Indeed I agree because it's a “hokus pokus” science – like a magic wand. Whenever there's a gap in the theory – its gods of gaps comes to the rescue.

This isn't a case of "god of the gaps". The Theory of Evolution deals with the process of Evolution (which requires populations of existing organisms), not the chemical formation of life.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Is it valid / acceptable to say / conclude that these “speciation” found/observed on these finches were just varieties? Varieties within the 'species'. After all the finches were still finches even today, not a new species . Or is it pretty much a done deal – result of evolution - because the scientific community decided it already? No room for variety? What say you?

First, I'd like to point out that there are many species of finches. "After all the finches were still finches even today, not a new species." is an extremely inaccurate statement.

Darwin's Finches are usually ranked as separate species because of their morphology, unique feeding habits, geographically separated populations, etc. Although they can interbreed, which would make us more likely to place them as subspecies, interbreeding of bird species is actually quite common and probably why we go ahead and name them as separate species.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Is it valid / acceptable to say / conclude that these supposed relationships found on bone structures or gene structures or organ structures are just that, just similarities or resemblance nothing more nothing less? That is, chimps and humans are unique species – did not “branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor”. Any possibility? Or is it no way, because its already been decided by the scientific community – product of evolution? Set on stone. What say you?

Given the fossil record and the genetics, we're pretty confident that these aren't just coincidences. There are many instances of parallel evolution, but what your talking about isn't one of those instances.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Is it also valid to conclude / say that there’s a built-in instinct that allows animals to adapt to their environment? A pre-programed ability to changed/adapt to their environment in order not just to survive but to thrive. I.e, thicker coat for cold weather, thinner coat for warmer weather. That is, animals were created/ fitted/designed for such occasions. Arrival of the fittest instead of 'survival of the fittest'. Is it valid to interpret it this way or is it pretty much a done deal - product of evolution - since it was already decided by the evolution community? Set on stone. What say you?

You're talking about Gene Expression. Gene Expression can cause changes in reaction to different stimuli. It wouldn't be instinct, animals don't consciously change their physical attributes to adapt to an environment.

Originally posted by edmc^2
4) Instead of "evolution", is it also valid to say / conclude that expected/unforeseen circumstances whether favorable/unfavorable as the caused of death/survival of a species? Any possibility that it can be interpreted this way? Or is it pretty much set in stone as it's already decided by evolution community? What say you?

It sounds like you're referring to Natural Selection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given your misunderstandings of Evolutionary Theory, I would say that you are definitely embarrassing yourself when you say "Evolution debunks itself."

reply to post by edmc^2


I think it's incredibly sad that people in the 21st century seriously consider evolution pseudo-science while believing in a giant space daddy for which we have ZERO proof