Denial of evolution III

[spidergoat]

Most of them are 'dashed lines'- secondly this doesn't change the fact the features you say come in a 'trend' could be independent- and Homosapiens could be totally independent of the rest of them...... You're just following your storyline--- you don't think the story could have a twist? Makes it boring to read

Peace be unto you

Of course the storyline will be modified, but the present model fits the facts far more than any other theory. Creationism doesn't even come close.

Yes science does not really know or understand this process, of change.

Science does understand this process very well. It's incomplete, as are most scientific models. But try to give me a better explanation.

So you really have to wonder why they say evolution is a fact( proven) when the theories are constantly changing to try to explain it.

The fact of evolution is already there. The theories try to explain how it occurred.

Punctuated_equilibrium still does not explain how a single cell ended up as all the life we see and have record of in the past.

No, because that's a separate theory.

This includes animal life and plant life. We already know there is a variety of humans and cats for example. What we don't see is animals becoming man for example.

Yes, indeed we see exactly that.

I don't like to use the word species because science is unclear on what they mean by species.( there are different view points on what a species is)

The term is a human convention.

Also a jump ( or major change is something is better explained from creation rather than evolution. That is why abiogenesis theory is getting closer to what happens in creation.

Creation has far more holes than evolution. In fact, "God did it" doesn't explain much. Even if God made the first life, the dynamics of evolution mean that human beings were not a deliberate creation. The results of such a process are unpredictible.

Yes that would be true. But even still the evidence in the fossil record would be much more than for completed animals.

There is no such thing as an incomplete animal.

Also some of these would still live because, there mutation may not be life threatening. Also science says there are enough fossils found and researched to support their theory on evolution, but none found that support all the transitional ones that should be there.

Hundreds have been found. I cited some. Case closed.

Especially when the transitional ones should be in the millions compared to completed animals. This is a major flaw in the theory of evolution. Darwin even knew that.
Evolution as science is saying is totally impossible.

Darwin's prediction was correct, and many transitional species have been found. Deal with it. The fact is fossilization doesn't happen that often, and only in certain conditions that favor it.

I do understand what science says on evolution. But it can not be demonstrated by science to work or that it actually happened.

Yes it can, you just don't want to listen.

I could just say God did it! But I have not done that, I am discussing the actual science with you. The reason science keeps coming up with new theories is because the older theories, do not answer the questions.

And the theories keep getting better, and creationism keeps getting worse.

The reason science had to come up with abiogenesis is that Darwin's ideas could not work on it's own, there are parts of these theories have huge holes in them. Abiogenesis, has tried to fill some of these flaws, but abiogenesis has it's own flaws.

Incorrect. Abiogenesis is a separate theory. Darwin's theory is nothing less than the most revolutionary theory in modern biology.


[QUOTE-hey yeu]Really what is happening is, that science wants a no creator answer, and is trying to explain away the creator with details and assumptions and and theories. That is why science has not been able to answer the question on the start to life, or demonstrate that evolution could produce all the life we see today.[/QUOTE]
That is incorrect, in fact it is pure projection, since that is what creationists do.

The evidence we have is that life comes from life.

yes.

And that there is intelligent design in the life we see.

NO! There is no evidence of intelligent design in the life we see.

Both of these evidences, science ignores.

Go back to school or something. You're completely ignorant.

 

[jpappl]

Hay,

Really what is happening is, that science wants a no creator answer

yes because there is no evidence of a god.

The evidence we have is that life comes from life. And that there is intelligent design in the life we see.
Both of these evidences, science ignores.

Science doesn't ignore these. Science is trying to understand how life began as well. Science doesn't say that some god being was the intelligence because there is no evidence for magical god sky beings.

There is design in all of us, changes that took place over millions of years to adapt and adjust.

If you reverse your thinking. Then god would have created everything perfect the first time, there would be no need for extinctions or new creations, there would be no flaws. But we see them and we know species have failed.

Can your god have failed ?

 

[786]

786
You would think it would at least mention dinosaurs, oh and that the earth revolves around the sun.

Why? Just because they were a big bad bully? I don't see any importance in dinosaurs like I don't see any importance in say a flying crocodile... You see importance in it because you think Dino's are important because of science.

So, this is where you text should clearly spell out what happened to the dinosaurs. Considering that god apparently created them, what did he do with them and why ?

In other words list all the species in the world, when they came, when they died, and so on... give me a break...

this is a typical diversion. Did the quran get the story of creation right.

Did you witness creation to compare it to something that was right?

As for you references to the Quran.... its better if you open a new thread because this will otherwise take this thread completely to new direction- so lets hijack a thread about evolution with the Quran- new thread and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

How so, all they are saying is that it is a smaller version of T-rex. that's all.

"Sereno reports that Raptorex has all the hallmarks of T. rex, including a large head, tiny arms and lanky feet – just in a smaller size."

They are not saying they are the same animals. They are not saying these evolved to become T-rex, but that this species was an earlier form of a successful killing design.

These 'hallmarks' were supposedly needed for 'large size' animals- but this guy is very very small- that is why they need to fit that in by saying 'scalable'..

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Of course the storyline will be modified, but the present model fits the facts far more than any other theory. Creationism doesn't even come close.

I don't even know what the Theory of Creationism teaches
Only thing I know is God created everything.... Evolution can happen just like it happened.... If Creationism is some other way to describe things then I'm not really a creationist so no reason to bring it up with me...

And secondly my discussion has nothing to do with whether creationism is right or wrong... it is more about why someone can deny evolution..

The problem you are facing is that the only alternative you can think of is 'creationism' while I'm not even talking about it in any specific way.

Peace be unto you

 

[jpappl]

786,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
786
You would think it would at least mention dinosaurs, oh and that the earth revolves around the sun. ”

Why? Just because they were a big bad bully? I don't see any importance in dinosaurs like I don't see any importance in say a flying crocodile... You see importance in it because you think Dino's are important because of science

You don't find it odd that god would have spent 150,000,000 + years creating dinosaurs before he created you.

Why didn't he just create us in his image from the get go. Did he need to practice.

Why would he created dinosaurs at all ?

“ So, this is where you text should clearly spell out what happened to the dinosaurs. Considering that god apparently created them, what did he do with them and why ? ”

In other words list all the species in the world, when they came, when they died, and so on... give me a break...

No, just a single passage would have been nice.

" I created these monsters for hundreds of millions of years and then I destroyed them for being naughty in my sight"

“ this is a typical diversion. Did the quran get the story of creation right. ”

Did you witness creation to compare it to something that was right?

As for you references to the Quran.... its better if you open a new thread because this will otherwise take this thread completely to new direction- so lets hijack a thread about evolution with the Quran- new thread and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Peace be unto you

It is not my intent to hijack the thread, I am merely trying to get to the alternatives for evolution that are being offered.

Because as we look at these alternatives we find nothing but flaws. If these flaws existed in a science theory it would have been thrown out a long time ago.

You are arguing from a point of "science hasn't shown how life started" which is understood, but then make the leap to "god did it and I know the only way" the quran, which is itself is contradicted by what we now know.

I am not saying religion doesn't have it's place and it's value.

I am saying that you shouldn't replace a non dis-proven theory like evolution for the origins of us, with god did it, where there is no evidence.

There is a mountain of evidence to support evolution.

There is mountain of evidence to declare all religious texts as books of fiction.

 

[jpappl]

These 'hallmarks' were supposedly needed for 'large size' animals- but this guy is very very small- that is why they need to fit that in by saying 'scalable'..

Peace be unto you

Where does it say that. Who is claiming that.

This species could have been hunting smaller prey than that of T-Rex.

 

[786]

786,

You don't find it odd that god would have spent 150,000,000 + years creating dinosaurs before he created you.

No.... you're the only one having problem accepting that.

Why didn't he just create us in his image from the get go. Did he need to practice.

Why would he created dinosaurs at all ?

Because he chose to.... why should he have created humans either?

No, just a single passage would have been nice.

" I created these monsters for hundreds of millions of years and then I destroyed them for being naughty in my sight"

Hmm................'naughty'..........I don't think they go to hell or heaven..... And instead of talking about animals he did talk about humans, which we would understand easier.

It is not my intent to hijack the thread, I am merely trying to get to the alternatives for evolution that are being offered.

The verses you cited had to do with the shape of the earth, how it came about.... All of this has NOTHING to do with Evolution.... at least not the Theory of Evolution which tries to explain the diversity of life--- Can you please refer to a source where evolution shows that the Earth is round? I mean these two things are separate subjects... so you are hijacking the thread with something (physics/astronomy?) that has nothing to do with evolution.

I don't need to respond to the rest of your crap if you understand that Evolution has nothing to do with Big Bang or whatever...

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Only thing I know is God created everything....

Please give your evidence for this. Don't explain why evolution is wrong, explain why creationism is right (creationism is the concept that God created everything).

The problem you are facing is that the only alternative you can think of is 'creationism' while I'm not even talking about it in any specific way.

There are many alternatives, none of them with any value.

 

[jpappl]

786,

Only thing I know is God created everything.... Evolution can happen just like it happened

First of all, now you know how it all started. I thought you said you didn't.

Secondly, why would god create things to evolve. Where does it say that in your texts.

Thirdly, if god did create things to evolve, why is it so hard to accept us evolving ?

And secondly my discussion has nothing to do with whether creationism is right or wrong... it is more about why someone can deny evolution..

They can deny it but the evidence is there for it, and there is not evidence to dis-prove it, which is just as important.

The lack of evidence or gaps is not proof against.

The problem you are facing is that the only alternative you can think of is 'creationism' while I'm not even talking about it in any specific way.

Ok, so what are you suggesting happened ?

 

[786]

Where does it say that. Who is claiming that.

This species could have been hunting smaller prey than that of T-Rex.

Read the news... Anyways why are we all off topic?.... My argument had nothing to do with Dinos! My argument was about reinterpretation of the data... please continue along that line... I'm getting tired of all this side-tracking...

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Please give your evidence for this. Don't explain why evolution is wrong, explain why creationism is right (creationism is the concept that God created everything).

Ok... So it seems my initial argument skipped all of you...

My argument was not explaining 'why evolution is wrong' and my argument was not 'why creationism is right'- You are asking for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.... correct? And I am saying that a different way of understanding the world- which would be non-science- can exist to explain everything in their own way.... Why the <deleted> would I try to give scientific evidence for something I know is NOT science-

The question is denial of evolution- denial of evolution does NOT have to be based upon scientific evidence-

There are many alternatives, none of them with any value.

And you are going to determine what is valuable for everyone? What is valuable in science is scientific evidence, what is valuable in Theohomolution is all the scientific evidence + the assumption that God created the humans...

If you guys are thinking that my argument was to scientifically prove Evolution wrong, then you have not understood my argument and are just blabbering and requesting things that I don't need to provide because my argument has nothing to do with that.

Peace be unto you

 

[hay_you]

Hay,



yes because there is no evidence of a god.



Science doesn't ignore these. Science is trying to understand how life began as well. Science doesn't say that some god being was the intelligence because there is no evidence for magical god sky beings.

There is design in all of us, changes that took place over millions of years to adapt and adjust.

If you reverse your thinking. Then god would have created everything perfect the first time, there would be no need for extinctions or new creations, there would be no flaws. But we see them and we know species have failed.

Can your god have failed ?

Actually he did create is perfect the first time. Though this thread is on evolution. So I would like to keep this just on science.

 

[spidergoat]

denial of evolution does NOT have to be based upon scientific evidence-

Or logic or reason apparently, which are the means by which we human beings judge a debate.

You lose. :bawl:

 

[786]

786,

First of all, now you know how it all started. I thought you said you didn't.

Hmmm..... I said I don't know when Humans started to live--- don't go confusing things.

Secondly, why would god create things to evolve. Where does it say that in your texts.

Actually it does say that we have come from 'changing shapes' which could be seen as evolution... but anyways I'm not even trying to argue creationism or against evolution.

Thirdly, if god did create things to evolve, why is it so hard to accept us evolving ?

I'm perfectly fine with accepting we came from apes.... Do you think my initial argument was against evolution?

They can deny it but the evidence is there for it, and there is not evidence to dis-prove it, which is just as important.

Yes.... but no body said anything about proving evolution wrong... I was talking about a non-science disciple that can use an extra assumption, for example God, and then based on that deny Evolution... (NOT REJECT IT- I think I said this 10 times already)- all of you are asking me for scientific evidence when I'm talking about a non-science interpretation of the data that you acquired- If I gave you scientific evidence for its validity- then it would be science! And I already said NON-Science... Read my argument again folks.... don't get into a discussion without knowing what the other guy is actually proposing.

Ok, so what are you suggesting happened ?

I was actually not arguing for 1 case... I was talking in general terms that a separate (non-science) disciple can use an 'extra assumption' and based on that 'deny' evolutionary interpretation of the data. Of course it would be 'unscientific' but who gave 'science' the authority to be the only way to understand the world? Its a personal choice and based on that everything and anything is subject to denial!

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Or logic or reason apparently, which are the means by which we human beings judge a debate.

You lose. :bawl:

What is the logic that an extra assumption is illogical?

Peace be unto you

 

[jpappl]

786,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
786,

You don't find it odd that god would have spent 150,000,000 + years creating dinosaurs before he created you. ”

No.... you're the only one having problem accepting that.

That a magical being created us as we are yes.

“ Why didn't he just create us in his image from the get go. Did he need to practice.

Why would he created dinosaurs at all ? ”

Because he chose to.... why should he have created humans either?

So you haven't thought this through. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dinosaurs ? with no mention of them in your texts and no mention of any species created before his grand creation which, since it included man at the time, days later, it must exclude dinosaurs.

Unless you don't believe in them or you believe we walked alongside of them.

Hmm................'naughty'..........I don't think they go to hell or heaven..... And instead of talking about animals he did talk about humans, which we would understand easier.

Which brings up another point. Why would god create us to be so ignorant of everything in the beginning ? Why would he not create us with a greater understanding of our natural world or more to the point. Create us with complete knowledge of the natural world ?

Do you believe the quran is the word of god ?

If so how do you account for the contradictions in the text ?

Since god could not make an error.

The verses you cited had to do with the shape of the earth, how it came about.... All of this has NOTHING to do with Evolution.... at least not the Theory of Evolution which tries to explain the diversity of life---

Correct. But we are referring back to the texts which describe the earth as flat. This is evidence that they didn't know what the hell they were talking about, and yet we use these texts to make claims of our creation.

Can you please refer to a source where evolution shows that the Earth is round? I mean these two things are separate subjects... so you are hijacking the thread with something (physics/astronomy?) that has nothing to do with evolution.

I am not hijacking the thread because I am using logic and reasoning with you to determine the validity of your god did it claim.

I am showing you that the very texts which support your belief in god are full of errors, they are evidence against your claim of a god because they contradict what we have come to know is valid.

So if the texts are so wrong about so much in it's claims, what of the original claim of creation.

Since the claim of a god created world has been presented, it is fair game.

Now, if you want to say that god created the world billions of years ago and mixed together the ingredients for life and then it took off from there, staying out of the way of the process then I am not going to get into your religion.

Because at that point you would not be following it anyway.

Otherwise, I am going to ask the why's and when's.

 

[spidergoat]

What is the logic that an extra assumption is illogical?

Peace be unto you

Too late, you already admitted that you don't need a reason to believe things. Most people would call that insanity, but hey.

 

[jpappl]

Actually he did create is perfect the first time. Though this thread is on evolution. So I would like to keep this just on science.

He did ?

Why do we get cancer ?

Why are some people born with both sexual organs ?

 

[786]

Too late, you already admitted that you don't need a reason to believe things. Most people would call that insanity, but hey.

Are you <deleted> stupid!!!!!!!! I never said you don't need a 'reason' but 'scientific evidence'--- the 'extra assumption' changes the worldview of everything- believing in that extra assumption gives you the reason to believe something other than science.

Now my question is can you show that an extra assumption is illogical?

Peace be unto you