Incredulity complex and Evolution

a reply to: Raggedyman

hah, I love reading these "debates" you involve yourself in.

I think the posters responding to you feel the same way I do when I show a card trick to my dog!!!

a reply to: luke1212

You're confusing timescale and space scale. We've yet to have the ability to measure the expanse so to us it's infinite. However, I assume if the energy was condensed to a singularity to allow for an atomic explosion then when the expansive energy is overcome by the vacuum pressure it will do it all over again. How many times has it already done this, the answer is we have no clue.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
the so-called fine-tuned universe. The basic claim is that god created the universe in such a way as to ensure an environment suitable for life.

Considering how vast our universe is, even this claim stretches the imagination. God created the universe so life can thrive in .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: strongfp



Fish turning into fish, wow, unbelievable

You can teach this to primary school kids, not adults
It's not proof of anything

You don't know how evolution works do you?
Nothing turns into anything. We all share a common ancestor, once upon a time we looked like fish too. We also looked like rats.
Adaptation is one driving force behind evolution, if you isolated a group of guppies long enough and there genetics drifted into another close relative they wouldn't be the same species as they started off as.
It's Darwin's 101 tracing for primary children, the finch. Just with fish.
So yea a fish is a fish, but there are many species of fish.

a reply to: Raggedyman


The sheer magnitude of the irony in your passive aggressive BS was hilarious seeing as you're the one who is actually playing make believe with imaginary friends haha. The bottom line is you're nothing but a troll who refuses to read any of the citations people provide, over and over again and dismisses the things you demand (you know repeatable, testable etc...) with a mere wave of your magical hand. The truth is, you're way out of your depth and haven't got any grasp on the most basic aspects of what the MES actually states yet insist on data far beyond your ability to grasp. And that is why none of it can be understood by you. Your simplistic views get in the way of our ability to understand and absorb information so instead you simply dismiss it out of hand like a child who just heard from older kids on the bus that there's no such things as Santa Claus because your mommy insists that he is in fact real and nothing's will sway you from that path, including video of your mommy wrapping and then putting the presents under that tree. And that is precisely our attitude towards multiple disciplines of science that are obviously far beyond your ability to understand in any cogent way. So go take your little lollipop and I think you know where you can place it for maximum efficiency. When you can pass a basic 101 level biology class feel free to come back and discuss what you ive learned.

a reply to: strongfp

The problem is that the evidence raggedy wants to see would actually falsify the MES. He wants to see a change in biblical "kinds" from one kind to a new one when that's not how evolution works. And while I suspect he knows this and is just trolling ATS, the odds are fairly equal that he doesn't understand the most basic aspects of biology period, let alone evolutionary biology, which seems to be far above his ability to grasp the finer points of.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: strongfp



Fish turning into fish, wow, unbelievable

You can teach this to primary school kids, not adults
It's not proof of anything

You don't know how evolution works do you?
Nothing turns into anything. We all share a common ancestor, once upon a time we looked like fish too. We also looked like rats.
Adaptation is one driving force behind evolution, if you isolated a group of guppies long enough and there genetics drifted into another close relative they wouldn't be the same species as they started off as.
It's Darwin's 101 tracing for primary children, the finch. Just with fish.
So yea a fish is a fish, but there are many species of fish.

Evidence?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is that the evidence raggedy wants to see would actually falsify the MES. He wants to see a change in biblical "kinds" from one kind to a new one when that's not how evolution works. And while I suspect he knows this and is just trolling ATS, the odds are fairly equal that he doesn't understand the most basic aspects of biology period, let alone evolutionary biology, which seems to be far above his ability to grasp the finer points of.

No raggedy is asking for scientific evidence for evolution
You know, science
Not your fictitious assumption based on best guess and faith

Your comments clearly indicate you know none exists, hence your comments

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: Raggedyman

hah, I love reading these "debates" you involve yourself in.

I think the posters responding to you feel the same way I do when I show a card trick to my dog!!!

Funny you should say a card trick, that is an appropriate analogy

So, do you have any evidence or just in it for calling me a dog

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is that the evidence raggedy wants to see would actually falsify the MES. He wants to see a change in biblical "kinds" from one kind to a new one when that's not how evolution works. And while I suspect he knows this and is just trolling ATS, the odds are fairly equal that he doesn't understand the most basic aspects of biology period, let alone evolutionary biology, which seems to be far above his ability to grasp the finer points of.

No raggedy is asking for scientific evidence for evolution
You know, science
Not your fictitious assumption based on best guess and faith

Your comments clearly indicate you know none exists, hence your comments

I literally gave you three links to follow and go through. Just because you're lazy and obviously ignorant to the science of evolution doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's ok to not understand, but don't flat out ignore the evidence provided. Take some time to learn it.
Anyways, you are coming across as a troll, I gave my evidence, bow stop being stupid.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is that the evidence raggedy wants to see would actually falsify the MES. He wants to see a change in biblical "kinds" from one kind to a new one when that's not how evolution works. And while I suspect he knows this and is just trolling ATS, the odds are fairly equal that he doesn't understand the most basic aspects of biology period, let alone evolutionary biology, which seems to be far above his ability to grasp the finer points of.

No raggedy is asking for scientific evidence for evolution
You know, science
Not your fictitious assumption based on best guess and faith

Your comments clearly indicate you know none exists, hence your comments

I literally gave you three links to follow and go through. Just because you're lazy and obviously ignorant to the science of evolution doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's ok to not understand, but don't flat out ignore the evidence provided. Take some time to learn it.
Anyways, you are coming across as a troll, I gave my evidence, bow stop being stupid.

If you understood evolution and science, you would understand why I dismissed your links
Repeatable observable and testable, not faith, please

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is that the evidence raggedy wants to see would actually falsify the MES. He wants to see a change in biblical "kinds" from one kind to a new one when that's not how evolution works. And while I suspect he knows this and is just trolling ATS, the odds are fairly equal that he doesn't understand the most basic aspects of biology period, let alone evolutionary biology, which seems to be far above his ability to grasp the finer points of.

No raggedy is asking for scientific evidence for evolution
You know, science
Not your fictitious assumption based on best guess and faith

Your comments clearly indicate you know none exists, hence your comments

I literally gave you three links to follow and go through. Just because you're lazy and obviously ignorant to the science of evolution doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's ok to not understand, but don't flat out ignore the evidence provided. Take some time to learn it.
Anyways, you are coming across as a troll, I gave my evidence, bow stop being stupid.

If you understood evolution and science, you would understand why I dismissed your links
Repeatable observable and testable, not faith, please

The very first link. Go read it and the sources. Hence why it's called observed speciation. Evolution you describe doesn't exists. It's not how evolution works, it's literally a creationist made up straw man falacy that was just pulled out of thin air .

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Repeatable observable and testable, not faith, please

Here's an experiment on fruit flies that is repeatable, observable, and testable and has been retested many times since the paper was first published:
Artificial Selection on a Fitness-Component in Drosophila melanogaster
I eagerly await your scientific takedown of this experiment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They became fruit flies, wow
Astonishing

a reply to: Raggedyman

That isn't what happened at all. You should actually read it.

originally posted by: strongfp

I literally gave you three links to follow and go through. Just because you're lazy and obviously ignorant to the science of evolution doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's ok to not understand, but don't flat out ignore the evidence provided. Take some time to learn it.
Anyways, you are coming across as a troll, I gave my evidence, bow stop being stupid.

I tried to warn you.

He does this every single time.

Rag: "Where's the Evidence?"
Other: person: "Here. Read this."
Rag: "No. That's not evidence."
Other: "Yes it is, all the information is there."
Rag: "I said evidence."
etc.

He won't look at it. He'll just deny it every time and say you've failed to provide it.

I'm telling, don't even bother. I've watched him do it in multiple threads.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: MarsIsRed

I agree, the idea that evolution is contrary to Creation and the Bible is plain stupid.

Yet those that oppose Christian ethics, morality and belief continually argue against a case that was moot a century ago.

Evolution describes a process of biological change. It does not explain how that biology came to be in the first place.

Creationism describes a process of the initiation of biology. It does not describe any process of biological change.

Not are they mutually exclusive: God could have created completely formed species and they could have evolved from there or God could have directed abiogenic forces and there could have been biological change from there. All these ideas are compliant with the Bible and with science.

There is another possibility - that the universe is a simulation. This has been seriously discussed in several articles. I think this possibility needs to be included in any discussion of who, what, where and when the universe and its contents appeared.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry I don't quite understand where you are coming from. I was talking about our universe being infinite not an infinite amount of universes. I also stated "seemingly" infinite due to our limited ability to actually measure it. I don't understand your stance you seem to be suggesting that god didn't create the universe(s), but that gods existence has to be, because the existence of the universe(s) and it's need for essentially a brain to be interconnected and function appropriately? What created the universe that created god?

I suggested that I see the potential for god to not only exist, but set it into motion. I didn't suggest it was action of random force, I believe our universe is a living organism.

I often wonder if a negative pressure ie a vacuum effect lead to the singularity, is our universe in some type of container?. Was the energy compressed together from an outside force or drawn together. I also question if an all knowing being created us, why the need to evolve? Why wouldn't the world/universe already be in perfect cohesion? In the amount of places we've atleast study by means of telescope, why are we the only ones of our kind? Shouldn't the cosmos be teaming with life in our form/his image.

I asked for scientific evidence, none of that is scientific

Is there an issue with your comprehension skills, you been drinking to much and posting again

a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

Padawan Raggedyman,

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman
I asked for scientific evidence, none of that is scientific

It was given youngling, you either dont read it or dont understand it.

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman

Is there an issue with your comprehension skills, you been drinking to much and posting again

Ok, so you dont understand the science.

Why argue what you dont understand Padawan?

Strange little man.

Master Coomba