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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

All I said is that AA has descendants I never said who or what they were. Stop reading too far into what I'm saying.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you trying to suggest that AA isn't related to humans? Because that is absurd. Though, it reasons, if you believe that AA exist, how do you reconcile that with the bible saying that the earth is 6000 years old? You know since they lived millions of years ago and all.

Do I need to post my comment reply on that?

The Bible does NOT say the earth is 6,000 years old. That's a misunderstanding. Yes, there are some who believe that, but it is not what the Bible says.

I replied earlier that the Hebrew word is eon, not a literal 24 hour day. Since this is the Jewish year 5775, they certainly would not say the earth is only 225 years older than that.

I am not a Young Earth Creationist and I believe I said that. And the Bible does NOT indicate the age of the earth nor the universe. The Bible concerns itself with mankind since the moment mankind stood up from the earth and walked as a man.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Which you think is when?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Which you think is when?

Which is "I don't know" and neither do you. We can sit and speculate all day but both of us would be wrong. It took eons, unspecified time, just that is was eons.

And our chronological time frame is for measuring time and benefits humans when it comes to planting, harvesting or going to work, having a lunch break at work and what time to meet your friends on Friday nights. It is also beneficial for the Super Bowl, because that is also a time keeping spectacle.

We embraced the 4th dimension, because we live in it, but if you looked at your wrist now, what time would your watch say? And why would you keep a watch? Because time keeping is important to civilization only.

God isn't bound to time as we are, so why assume God should do things in our method of time keeping? Time isn't even constant, Einstein proved that. Since time is slightly different at higher altitudes, time is still relative. If time is relative, then ultimately there is no real way to measure time. We can try, but it is all relative.

And because time is not constant, then giving a broad view of billions of years might just be an inflated span. How then would this affect evolution on earth?

i wonder a lot, what would an alien look like that was created like us from pond scum but from another planet.

Would the atmosphere make them giants or tiny bugs.

I dont think theres any doubt with many people that we evolved from tiny goo, even many Christians and other religions accept we evolved. Now did that first step start because a deity made it or not, well thats a good question.

I think it was pure chance of this protein and that one bumped into each other and the first organisms spontaneously came into being, then with help from the radiation that naturally occurs morphed "us" into what we are now over millions of years

originally posted by: Biigs
i wonder a lot, what would an alien look like that was created like us from pond scum but from another planet.

Would the atmosphere make them giants or tiny bugs.

I dont think theres any doubt with many people that we evolved from tiny goo, even many Christians and other religions accept we evolved. Now did that first step start because a deity made it or not, well thats a good question.

I think it was pure chance of this protein and that one bumped into each other and the first organisms spontaneously came into being, then with help from the radiation that naturally occurs morphed "us" into what we are now over millions of years

From goo to you by way of the zoo isn't accepted by all scientists. That would be the Primordial Ooze that hasn't been proven.

That is called Abiogenesis, and no, not all people accept that. What is it that makes you believe it? Because it is still part of pop culture definition? If that's the case, then you have made my point that the general public believes the pop culture authority of science, even if the science has said it is wrong.

Primordial Soup Debunked

If you believe that, where did you learn it at? Who taught you that and what is their authority to you?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Which you think is when?

Which is "I don't know" and neither do you. We can sit and speculate all day but both of us would be wrong. It took eons, unspecified time, just that is was eons.

Hence my belief as an agnostic.

And our chronological time frame is for measuring time and benefits humans when it comes to planting, harvesting or going to work, having a lunch break at work and what time to meet your friends on Friday nights. It is also beneficial for the Super Bowl, because that is also a time keeping spectacle.

We embraced the 4th dimension, because we live in it, but if you looked at your wrist now, what time would your watch say? And why would you keep a watch? Because time keeping is important to civilization only.

Is this a roundabout way of saying that time is relative? Because I agree. But I can make that same argument for literally ANYTHING that humans describe and keep track of. But scientists give these terms precise values so that we can get a gauge of how these things compare to each other.

Yes, time is relative, but the relativity fluctuations between any two objects on the surface of the planet are so minute that we can safely say it's the same length. Keep in mind, it takes a satellite falling in orbit or us burying a clock FAR underneath the ground to create a fluctuation in the relativity of time to make a difference. I think it's safe to say that the amounts of time that evolution occurred in are correct. Scientists DO give this data value at the end of all data values they provide called error. So it allows for your relativity problem.

God isn't bound to time as we are, so why assume God should do things in our method of time keeping? Time isn't even constant, Einstein proved that. Since time is slightly different at higher altitudes, time is still relative. If time is relative, then ultimately there is no real way to measure time. We can try, but it is all relative.

Everything is relative. What is hot? What is cold? What is dark? What is light? What is god? All relative terms.

And because time is not constant, then giving a broad view of billions of years might just be an inflated span. How then would this affect evolution on earth?

It wouldn't. Evolution still happened over a period of time regardless of how it is perceived. It happened and it happened at whatever rate it occurred. You aren't making a sound argument against evolution here by trying to argue philosophy with me. If you want to disprove evolution, you need to produce facts and evidence against it. Good luck since all scientific evidence points to evolution being true.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well no deity ever showed up and did anything, could have one "planted" us?

Well i leave room for that but till one shows up im going with the popular goo story.

I know this is a bit out there, but i think its more likely some alien race that was obviously there/here first may have put the goo down just to see how it goes. We have had alien reports for decades, how many gods have you heard of and being sighted and reported?

I take my views from what i can see taste and touch, of course science is taught by men and women who have opinions and disagree some times - thats okay, contradictory arguments are good for the debate.

Facts are that our DNA is related to all animals and plants, so how did that happen, apart from getting smart and learning to talk we are not really much different to anything else DNA variation wise.

a reply to: Biigs

So where did the aliens come from? What did they evolve from? Where did their common ancestor come from?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Biigs

So where did the aliens come from? What did they evolve from? Where did their common ancestor come from?

Well this is why i believe the goo story, some thing came from some where in this universe of trillions of stars, now did an alien come here hundreds of millions of years ago and seed us or just like them (if they exist) did they just sprout from goo?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think at this point, it is really just selective breeding that can be proven. We are still practicing selective breeding now.

Random mutations are not proven, only speculated at. Hence, "we can't show the evidence of random mutations, but we will just say they do".

No random mutation here
Nor here
Random doesn't matter here
Maybe not random here

These are just some of the things that have shown what was proposed on this thread as having no evidence for. If one is basing their definition of evolution on random mutations, then they need to keep up with the latest research.

There were defenders of random mutation on this thread and never offered evidence for it, and evolutionary scientists should be able to reconcile the lack of evidence before defending their stance. They kept telling me there was evidence but never proffered any.

It's not your agnosticism that is questioned or even an issue, but why is it that my Christianity is questioned? Why not the same level of respect? Is it easier among your peers that you claim agnosticism because it softens the way they think about you? I know why people are agnostic, I personally know some. I am related to some.

But it seems easier for them to say agnostic because they want a deity, they just don't want the God of the Bible. OK, you have freedom of religious expression in this country and I respect that, in fact as a citizen I have to defend your right to freedom of religious expression, no matter if it is humanist or spiritual. But would it be fair also for my freedom of religious expression to be defended as well?

When it comes to saying one believes in the God of the Bible, that person then becomes associated with nutjobs or anti-intellectual or anti-knowledge. I don't need someone's approval of me, that's why I am not really concerned about it nor do I thrive on approval of my peers. But when the secular side thinks they have the right to say all the things they do without the secular atheists scientists taking accountability for leading people into thinking that way, then the secular atheist side takes on a dictatorial, tryannical, authoritarian position that does not benefit society at all.

I do have to say that if I have to defend the rights of agnostics to be respected, then I expect the same respect shown for other faith systems.

Now, philosophy aside, moving past the real conspiracy among secularism against any expression of faith, what I asked in the OP, then please proffer the evidence also. All you can show is selective breeding. This is the only position about evolution that I have consistently presented.

originally posted by: Biigs

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Biigs

So where did the aliens come from? What did they evolve from? Where did their common ancestor come from?

Well this is why i believe the goo story, some thing came from some where in this universe of trillions of stars, now did an alien come where hundreds of millions of years ago and seed us or just like them (if they exist) did they just sprout from goo?

Alien Panspermeria.

I think you like this one because it contains sperm.....lol.

But you do have freedom of religious expression to believe that. Krazyshot, can you see now how the general public will follow a theory just because a scientist proposes it?

I agree, make them show the evidence. We've gone over how many pages on this thread trying to get me to show evidence, which I provided many links from non-Creationist, non-Intelligent Design websites.

its a chicken and egg case.

where did all start, if a god (who presumably created the universe too) exists where had he been since? simply busy with other planets or somthing?

"sorry God is busy right now, please leave a prayer after the beep"

originally posted by: Biigs
its a chicken and egg case.

where did all start, if a god (who presumably created the universe too) exists where had he been since? simply busy with other planets or somthing?

"sorry God is busy right now, please leave a prayer after the beep"

See thread, that's real science right here.

Nope, just the general consensus of public opinion. This is what your schools are cranking out.

Biigs, I asked you, who taught this to you and what is their authority to you?

a reply to: WarminIndy

i was taught it in school, but i read a lot of things on here, science websites and news outlets. So far it seems pretty convince, i have no authority this is an opinion based of what i can see.

The fact our DNA is the thing that makes up what we are and we are so similar in DNA and everything is related in this way its perfectly reasonable to assumed it all started from the same place.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think at this point, it is really just selective breeding that can be proven. We are still practicing selective breeding now.

Random mutations are not proven, only speculated at. Hence, "we can't show the evidence of random mutations, but we will just say they do".

No random mutation here
Nor here
Random doesn't matter here
Maybe not random here

So I just clicked on one of your links at random and this was literally the first paragraph of that article:

Although mutations, the driver of evolution, occur at random, a study of the bacterium Escherichia coli reveals that nature often finds the same solution to the same problem again and again.

Why do your links always say the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim?

These are just some of the things that have shown what was proposed on this thread as having no evidence for. If one is basing their definition of evolution on random mutations, then they need to keep up with the latest research.

There were defenders of random mutation on this thread and never offered evidence for it, and evolutionary scientists should be able to reconcile the lack of evidence before defending their stance. They kept telling me there was evidence but never proffered any.

It's not your agnosticism that is questioned or even an issue, but why is it that my Christianity is questioned? Why not the same level of respect? Is it easier among your peers that you claim agnosticism because it softens the way they think about you? I know why people are agnostic, I personally know some. I am related to some.

Because Christianity is an assumption. You said in the opening post that no assumptions are allowed. There is no evidence for or against god so saying that one exists is an assumption. THAT is a true statement.

I'm agnostic because I don't make assumptions about things that we don't have evidence for. You can make up whatever rationalizations you want about my beliefs, but like I really don't care. It's FAR more satisfying than tying my life to some god who doesn't care enough about his "creations" that he doesn't fix the countless amounts of injustices in the world while letting his believers rationalize it away with cop outs like "it's all part of his plan." At least with my beliefs, it leaves the blame for humans' folly solely with humans and means that we are can fix them instead of just resigning ourselves to our fate like you Christians do (revelation searchers anyone?)

But it seems easier for them to say agnostic because they want a deity, they just don't want the God of the Bible. OK, you have freedom of religious expression in this country and I respect that, in fact as a citizen I have to defend your right to freedom of religious expression, no matter if it is humanist or spiritual. But would it be fair also for my freedom of religious expression to be defended as well?

I don't want a deity. I don't care if one exists or not. If it exists, it cares as little about me as I care about it. I will defend your right to believe in a fairy tale, so don't pretend like I am attacking you for believing in it.

When it comes to saying one believes in the God of the Bible, that person then becomes associated with nutjobs or anti-intellectual or anti-knowledge. I don't need someone's approval of me, that's why I am not really concerned about it nor do I thrive on approval of my peers. But when the secular side thinks they have the right to say all the things they do without the secular atheists scientists taking accountability for leading people into thinking that way, then the secular atheist side takes on a dictatorial, tryannical, authoritarian position that does not benefit society at all.

Yes all the evidence that says the bible is wrong is being dictatorial, tyrannical, and authoritarian against you Christians. DAMN you evidence and your facts!

I do have to say that if I have to defend the rights of agnostics to be respected, then I expect the same respect shown for other faith systems.

Don't be coy. I can question your belief, but I am not preventing you from believing in it. Cut the persecution complex nonsense.

Now, philosophy aside, moving past the real conspiracy among secularism against any expression of faith, what I asked in the OP, then please proffer the evidence also. All you can show is selective breeding. This is the only position about evolution that I have consistently presented.

THIS is selective breeding

Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits. Typically, strains that are selectively bred are domesticated, and the breeding is normally done by a professional breeder. Bred animals are known as breeds, while bred plants are known as varieties, cultigens, or cultivars. The offspring of two purebreed animals but of different breeds is called a crossbreed, and crossbred plants are called hybrids.

So you don't even know what you are talking about.

There is more evidence to support intelligent design than evidence to support evolution. Everyone knows this. reply to: TinkerHaus

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: WarminIndy

i was taught it in school, but i read a lot of things on here, science websites and news outlets. So far it seems pretty convince, i have no authority this is an opinion based of what i can see.

The fact our DNA is the thing that makes up what we are and we are so similar in DNA and everything is related in this way its perfectly reasonable to assumed it all started from the same place.

You were taught in school.

See thread, exactly what I was talking about. Now hold him to it, make him prove it.

originally posted by: mdl59
There is more evidence to support intelligent design than evidence to support evolution. Everyone knows this. reply to: TinkerHaus

Everyone being the Bible belt in America and pretty much no one else in the world since that statement, in order to be true, would have to say the exact opposite?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please read first paragraph...

What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.

And here

But natural selection doesn't lead to the development of a new species. In most cases, the process simply allows a species to better adapt to its environment by changing the genetic make up from one generation to the next. And the process is actually quite predictable. If a species lacks a certain trait that will allow it to survive, there are two options: Either the species dies out or it develops the missing trait.

There is no evidence that natural selection leads to new species, and that's what the discussion is about. If there is no evidence of natural selection leading to new species, then that means the only other one is selective breeding.

Now, show the evidence of natural selection. You guys said it was random, but you can't prove it. You said natural selection leads to new species, but you can't prove it.

a reply to: tsingtao

what the hell does that even mean?

What the hell does what even mean? Which part of my post are you talking about?