Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

This is embarrassing, and a borderline troll thread.

You ask questions, you get multiple responses, you shoot down every single one. You aren't here to get answers, or even debate. You are just stirring the pot and repeating yourself over and over.

You have blind faith that everything in life has a design. Some people do not.

The biggest difference is who assumes they have a moral authority over the other?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tchnology boosts evolution among human populations?

Technology, just like any other external influence has an effect on evolution and not just on human populations. The effect may boost it or slow it down. It may send it in a direction that it wouldn't have gone naturally.

San Bushmen vs. Inuits.

Yes, I know Out of Africa

Multiregional vs. Out of Africa

Two competing hypothesis with same information, just different interpretations. So you are leaning toward Out of Africa? What is it about Out of Africa that causes you to be drawn to it when another scientific hypothesis is out there?

That is just my go to response for why humans are as diversified as we are. I haven't researched this topic enough to actually debate the difference between the multiregional and out of africa theory. So I can't comment. Though I will look into it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So in your view, evolution is faith based on little or no evidence from the beginning. Thank you.

so you dont really want to learn anything about evolution, you just want to prove your theories are as good as evolution. and you plan on doing that by...dragging it down to your level? the theory of evolution exists BECAUSE of the evidence, not in spite of it. no faith involved.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Why does it need to be one of the other? Why are YOU being so close-minded?

a reply to: TzarChasm

There's no single theory of evolution. There's many different opinions. Each opinion created and then covered with facts that support it but its true foundation is the human mind not any facts or observations.

Each religion may also have a theory of evolution. Some have better facts than others thus some are more believable. I believe the theory of evolution that is implemented within Hinduism because it has legitimate facts and the Indian government has no control over archeological research. No artifacts are tampered with just to spread belief of a certain theory like many are in the west.

The yogic theory of evolution evolves aroun the Yugas cycle. One rotation of the Earths axis takes 25,920 years. For only 3,600 years each do we evolve in either negative or positive ways. This can be seen in the intelligence of our race. It has gotten slightly lower than say the Rama Empire in the 4th stage 16,480 b.c - 12,720 b.c.

Egypt and Hindu Cambodia are other examples. Though Hindu Cambodia is part of the Rama Empire because the architectural style matches that of buildings in mainland India.

It shows a belief not a theory, so after all there's no right theory since its a theory so no one knows until we have legit proof. Like the next reincarnation of brahma or Krishna or even if Christ comes down from the heavens to earth or something.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

So in your view, evolution is faith based on little or no evidence from the beginning. Thank you.

so you dont really want to learn anything about evolution, you just want to prove your theories are as good as evolution. and you plan on doing that by...dragging it down to your level? the theory of evolution exists BECAUSE of the evidence, not in spite of it. no faith involved.

What I did was ask questions about these particular things. Don't you think then it is a little silly to be so militant, which has been exhibited here, toward those who believe in Intelligent Design?

The next time you notice yourself slipping down a level in order to brutishly attack someone who believes in ID, just look back and this post and remember, you were asked to justify these ideas of yours and instead you did the same thing, become militantly angry when evidence was asked from you to support your ideas.

Certainly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But if you feel free to demand burden of proof, then you should have burden of proof as well. Already we have seen several people concede that they don't know, and yet still believe. That's called blind faith, which makes it a faith based system.

originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: WarminIndy

Why does it need to be one of the other? Why are YOU being so close-minded?

Does ID fit into your spectrum of ideas?

Have you not seen the evolution side calling us names like "creatard"? That's clearly the *mark of high intelligence* but one that the evolution side has created without stopping the gang-bullying.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tchnology boosts evolution among human populations?

Technology, just like any other external influence has an effect on evolution and not just on human populations. The effect may boost it or slow it down. It may send it in a direction that it wouldn't have gone naturally.

San Bushmen vs. Inuits.

Yes, I know Out of Africa

Multiregional vs. Out of Africa

Two competing hypothesis with same information, just different interpretations. So you are leaning toward Out of Africa? What is it about Out of Africa that causes you to be drawn to it when another scientific hypothesis is out there?

That is just my go to response for why humans are as diversified as we are. I haven't researched this topic enough to actually debate the difference between the multiregional and out of africa theory. So I can't comment. Though I will look into it.

And if my go to response is Intelligent Design, why be so dismissive of mine?

Thank you for saying you will look into it.

originally posted by: Psychonautics
This is embarrassing, and a borderline troll thread.

You ask questions, you get multiple responses, you shoot down every single one. You aren't here to get answers, or even debate. You are just stirring the pot and repeating yourself over and over.

You have blind faith that everything in life has a design. Some people do not.

The biggest difference is who assumes they have a moral authority over the other?

Yes, and does the evolution side carry the moral authority or not?

I asked legitimate questions, I didn't call anyone names. As you are probably looking for debate and fell back onto "trollism" to accuse me of, why don't you attempt to answer the questions?

Do the questions make you uncomfortable?

What WarminIndy is trying to do is get people to say that they have faith in science. That way WarminIndy can say that having faith in god is the same as "having faith in science".

I had a discussion with WarminIndy before and he/she was trying to make me say I had to have some kind of faith in my life. For example, this is what WarminIndy wrote in that discussion:

If apples were able to, they could propel themselves in any direction, but the natural order is that they fall because of an external force. Natural, yes. Tangible, no. You must have faith and belief in gravity and the three laws of motion.

I think WarminIndy wasn't asking questions to get answers. WarminIndy was asking questions to get people to say that they have "faith" in science.

Just my opinion.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

So in your view, evolution is faith based on little or no evidence from the beginning. Thank you.

so you dont really want to learn anything about evolution, you just want to prove your theories are as good as evolution. and you plan on doing that by...dragging it down to your level? the theory of evolution exists BECAUSE of the evidence, not in spite of it. no faith involved.

What I did was ask questions about these particular things. Don't you think then it is a little silly to be so militant, which has been exhibited here, toward those who believe in Intelligent Design?

The next time you notice yourself slipping down a level in order to brutishly attack someone who believes in ID, just look back and this post and remember, you were asked to justify these ideas of yours and instead you did the same thing, become militantly angry when evidence was asked from you to support your ideas.

Certainly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But if you feel free to demand burden of proof, then you should have burden of proof as well. Already we have seen several people concede that they don't know, and yet still believe. That's called blind faith, which makes it a faith based system.

"militant"? no one is being militant here, we are answering your questions, albeit with a certain degree of exasperation. i think that can be expected given that from the looks of it, this is only the 112th time this discussion has taken place.

why do i need to give you evidence? you are literally ignoring DOZENS of threads filled to bursting with information on evolution, information which has gone through the gauntlet in order to be verified and understood. if you wont listen to them, you sure as hell arent going to listen to me.

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete. Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.

^^^ THIS is not faith. it is science. it does not operate on assumptions, and it takes great care to avoid them, unlike most versions of the intelligent design theory. the poster below makes an excellent point in mentioning that while you criticize assumptions in science, you are curiously freehanded with them so far as intelligent design is concerned. as in, you cant test or verify half of your claims. i feel this point should be addressed when you get around to responding to either of us.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tchnology boosts evolution among human populations?

Technology, just like any other external influence has an effect on evolution and not just on human populations. The effect may boost it or slow it down. It may send it in a direction that it wouldn't have gone naturally.

San Bushmen vs. Inuits.

Yes, I know Out of Africa

Multiregional vs. Out of Africa

Two competing hypothesis with same information, just different interpretations. So you are leaning toward Out of Africa? What is it about Out of Africa that causes you to be drawn to it when another scientific hypothesis is out there?

That is just my go to response for why humans are as diversified as we are. I haven't researched this topic enough to actually debate the difference between the multiregional and out of africa theory. So I can't comment. Though I will look into it.

And if my go to response is Intelligent Design, why be so dismissive of mine?

Thank you for saying you will look into it.

For one, I'm agnostic, and there is no evidence against a creator of the universe. So I don't rule that out of the realm of possibilities. Though from looking at the natural processes that have shaped our universe and our world, I hesitate to say if these processes have been guided by an intelligent hand. They could just as easily be algorithms designed to work independently of outside interaction. Humans have developed things like recursion that can simulate such processes, so similar processes working on a universal scale could easily exist (in fact I lean more heavily in this direction).

The reason I dismiss must intelligent design arguments is because they work off of assumptions. Since there is no evidence for or against the existence of god, then to say that one exists is an assumption. Didn't you say at the beginning of the thread that you weren't going to accept assumptions from the scientific side? Why is it ok for you to make assumptions then? I mean I could care less about making assumptions, I don't presume to know things that cannot be proven yet, so I don't make silly assumptions like god exists or doesn't exist. I just say that I don't know.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


I am asking these questions because these are based on the theories of evolution. ....

"5: As mutations are designed for adaptation for survival within a biome or moving to a new biome, the first species of life had no predatory reasons to adapt for survival within the biome, then did original mutations occur solely within the original biome? "

This is not based on the theory of evolution. Mutations are random and are not designed for adaptation for survival.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would discuss this further, but I have not mutated to resist the cold virus, so I will be off and on when the condition warrants.

I am asking why the assumptions on the evolution side are not only embraced but promoted as fact.

Here's the way I see it, and this is my opinion, as people claim the universe was created by a sudden force of energy, then that goes with what all the ancient texts say, that God spoke and the universe began. A voice is an energy wave, is it not?

Sound energy density
Geophysics of audio

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, but simply transferred, then the first energy came from outside the universe. I think people assume God speaks like humans and has a human voice. There was a preexisting energy that enacted and caused the energy to be turned into an audio wave and that audio wave then transferred into formulating the universe.

I think that is a reasonable theory that has a basis in geophysics. If we read the account from ancient texts, including the Bible, then one must think that all these people then knew that an energy existed before the universe.

The creation list has light first. Does light not exist as particles? Then we see the same list in order as evolutionists say, from light first to the last when man walks upright, or comes up from the dust. Is that not true? Man is a carbon based creature, so the Bible and all other ancient texts that say that are actually presenting that man's descent came from the earth, as a creature who is physically made of all the elements found in the earth.

This is what it says, but people assume that believers in ID think that man was made from some special type of material. No, it says from the dust of the earth, which is really saying arose from the ground from the very elements. But here is where we diverge, the Bible then goes on to talk about the soul that man was infused with that made him different than all other creatures.

Physically that's where we came from, I agree, but spiritually as a creature with the ability to process and contemplate its beginning and end, that's where the Bible engages man to think about the spiritual birth of mankind.

Anyway, that's how I believe. I have no problem saying that man physically came from the earth. When man arose from the earth and had sexual relations that led to growth in the population and then spread out taking with them the haplotypes, isn't that how evolutionists say what happened?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't see why you are making those connections.

You started with:

people claim the universe was created by a sudden force of energy

and connected it with:

that goes with what all the ancient texts say, that God spoke and the universe began

Then went on to make a huge assumption:

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, but simply transferred, then the first energy came from outside the universe.

First energy? Outside of the Universe? Why couldn't it be inside the universe? How do you know that there is an outside?

I think people assume God speaks like humans and has a human voice.

How would anyone know how god speaks?

If we read the account from ancient texts, including the Bible, then one must think that all these people then knew that an energy existed before the universe.

Show me the texts where energy is mentioned. Because you only made a connection between "sudden force of energy" to "God spoke", which seems erroneous to me. Are you saying that our ancestors knew about energy because they wrote "God spoke"?

The creation list has light first. Does light not exist as particles?

The bible says that light was created before the Sun was created, which doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I may come up with other questions, but these seem pertinent to me at the present. And please, I would like real answers and not assumptions. Don't tell me "we think" or "scientists suppose", because those are assumptions.

So in other words, since we were not there to witness it, we can't give you an answer you will accept, at which point the conclusion will be that Theology = Science.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't see why you are making those connections.

You started with:

people claim the universe was created by a sudden force of energy

and connected it with:

that goes with what all the ancient texts say, that God spoke and the universe began

Then went on to make a huge assumption:

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, but simply transferred, then the first energy came from outside the universe.

First energy? Outside of the Universe? Why couldn't it be inside the universe? How do you know that there is an outside?

I think people assume God speaks like humans and has a human voice.

How would anyone know how god speaks?

If we read the account from ancient texts, including the Bible, then one must think that all these people then knew that an energy existed before the universe.

Show me the texts where energy is mentioned. Because you only made a connection between "sudden force of energy" to "God spoke", which seems erroneous to me. Are you saying that our ancestors knew about energy because they wrote "God spoke"?

The creation list has light first. Does light not exist as particles?

The bible says that light was created before the Sun was created, which doesn't make sense.

I think I made it clear from my post that this was my opinion. That means you don't have to take it as absolute fact. I think you were so quick to jump the gun, you missed that bit.

I did ask that light is particles, correct?

Scientific America on how light is particles

There was nothing before, as evolutionists say, so it remains an assumption that it was inside. I don't know about you, but I just don't see how nothing creates something. Nothing means nothing....no energy, and since energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred, then there was something.

Audio is an energy wave, is it not? From same article

Sound is a great example of a wave that propagates, or travels, much like ripples in a pond do. In both cases kinetic energy flows through matter without permanently displacing the molecules in the matter itself—instead, it puts the matter through phases of compression (where the molecules get pushed together) and rarefaction (where the molecules spread apart). Think of the inside of a speaker vibrating with the music.

Ah, so audio and light both create kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion

So how does my theory have no basis when I gave three things now to support it? You want supporting evidence, right? Well, three things here that support it. I am sorry you feel that it is impossible, but when you can't even prove what was before the Big Bang and say it came from nothing then how is mine not viable?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Because you haven't proven, or made a solid case, for what exists outside of the universe that could have produced this energy. I applaud your research as far as the behavior of energy is concerned, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. Let's see the rest of your solution to this puzzle.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: WarminIndy

Read your first link again it's just what I said, a mutation made an individual resistant by chance, not to be resistant, after all competitors die the individual is the only one that remains, hence once it propagates the species evolve, as the new bacteria in a mayoritary proportion have the code obtained by the progenitor by chance.

About reversals or not, I think you are not understanding well the thing happens randomly and nothing guides an individual to success.

Again, did the mutations occur by information or not? Information can be either good or bad, but as DNA is compared as a super processor with the ability to introduce information but also accept information, then where does the information come from?

The dice can't land on snake eyes if the die isn't cast.

Information processing..that means that DNA has the capability and ability to not only introduce information, but to process information. I would think environmental reasons are information that DNA processes, and an organism within its environment must process information received from outside, such as differences in pH levels.

An outside influence must then introduce information. But let's say this, as evolution proposes that hydrogen atoms became attracted to each other, but an outside even such as lightning evoked a response, then information came from outside, not from inside. So the first mutation was not random. The lightning may have been a random event, but how long had there been lightning before the new whatever it was decided to suddenly mutate?

Random or environmental, which is it?

The outside influence is the environment.

a reply to: ThePheonix16482

It's just a theory, but evolution is still the strongest current answer to how life became what it is today. It's not the answer to everything but it sure goes a long way toward solving that puzzle.