Forums → WEPR → Evolution
| 779 | 172620 |
Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l
- 779 Replies
It is not relevant but I feel like it should be said that
- immaterial =/= spiritual
as we can see in the existence of energy.
Why did I say that it isn't relevant? Well because there's another thing which is
- spiritual =/= christian
, and I hope this one is clear even to macfan. Whether there is a sort of spiritual world or not, it does in neither case imply the existence of the christian deity. It is merely one of many prerequisites.
-
How about evolution? Is evolution material? No? Doesn't evolution then assume god too? Why then should it be wrong to your eyes, macfan?
There, you can see that God exists and that he made the world.
That didn't demonstrate a **** thing and what the hell did that have to do with evolution?
Oh and btw, who says that everything is material? Actually in an atom matter only makes a ridiculously small amount; what you see around you is mostly void, light and energy (roughly).
It is true that most of what makes up stuff is empty space, not sure I would call energy immaterial.
As for math proving god. This video I don't think was addressing this video specifically, but it might as well have.
Does mathematics prove that god exists?
Oh and there is some language so it gets the NSFW label.
Can evolution prove instincts?
Evolution: nothing+ nothing+ random chance+ time+ even more time= The universe, life, plants, all the stars, dna, complex organisms... How can life and all these things come from nothing.
There was some explosion in space, and these small pieces of dust had life, and eventually evolved into the ones we have today? That doesn't make sense. You know what, why don't you evolutionists go back and examine what you believe, and look around you. They don't quite match. I think evolution can prove itself wrong.
Did you see how amazing some bird nests are? I think they can do it better than me. Evolution can't explain that. Evolution can't explain instincts.
Looking for your missing link fossils? I see you're having trouble. Oh I know!!! THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!!!
Can evolution prove instincts?
Biology of behaviour can explain what an instinct is. As a biological process, it is subject to the same evolutionary forces as every other biologica process.
Looking for your missing link fossils? I see you're having trouble. Oh I know!!! THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!!!
What you creationists think 'missing links' are, are actually nonsense in the evolutionary perspective, so no, of course they don't exist because they would disprove evolution. Each single individuum is a transition form from ancestors to descendants, as such, each and every fossil is a transition form. Oh boy, there you have it.
Evolution: nothing+ nothing+ random chance+ time+ even more time= The universe, life, plants, all the stars, dna, complex organisms... How can life and all these things come from nothing.
You're mixing the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution all into the same thing - they're completely separate theories. You're also not even really making a point, I could just as easily ask you where God came from, and keep pressuring you because I don't find "He always existed" to be a good enough answer.
There was some explosion in space, and these small pieces of dust had life, and eventually evolved into the ones we have today? That doesn't make sense. You know what, why don't you evolutionists go back and examine what you believe, and look around you. They don't quite match. I think evolution can prove itself wrong.
Again, you're being ignorant about different scientific theories, I'm going to assume that it's on purpose at this point or that you're homeschooled by fundamentalist Christians. The more we observe, the more Evolution proves to be correct.
Did you see how amazing some bird nests are? I think they can do it better than me. Evolution can't explain that. Evolution can't explain instincts.
Did you see how amazing [trait/ability that birds have developed over millions of years] is?! THAT MUST BE PROOF OF GOD. Seriously not making sense - your argument is wrong and it has nothing to do with creationism at all.
Looking for your missing link fossils? I see you're having trouble. Oh I know!!! THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!!!
We have a buttload of transitional fossils, I think you'll find, they quite clearly exist - see?
Instincts are too complex to have evolved
This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. One's inability to envision circumstances that lead to complex instincts does not preclude such circumstances.
Not all instincts are complex. Some phobias, for example, are no more than a basic emotional response to a simple stimulus, such as loud sudden noise. And there is nothing to prevent the complex instincts from arising gradually. For example, some bees only communicate information about flower species to others in the hive (Dornhaus and Chittka 1999). Complex instincts could arise via small steps such as this.
Can evolution prove instincts?
Yes, and it does
nothing+ nothing+ random chance+ time+ even more time= The universe, life, plants, all the stars, dna, complex organisms... How can life and all these things come from nothing.
wrong + wrong + misunderstanding of odds + understatement = wrong theory.
The Theory of Evolution never says anything comes from nothing. Stop repeating what we've already gone over please. I know you've been told countless times that Evolution does not detail how the first life came to be, how the planet came to be, how the universe, stars, heavier elements, or whatever else came to be.
For the things you listed which actually correspond to evolution...
Complexity
DNA
Plants
There was some explosion in space,
T'was an expansion, and that's the Big Bang Theory, not Evolution.
and these small pieces of dust had life,
I'm just going to call you a liar, because I know you're purposefully misrepresenting the theories (aka, strawman fallacy) when you've been told many times now how this is wrong.
That doesn't make sense.
The actual theories do. Your strawmans do not. Luckily, being a strawman and not the actual argument, that's perfectly fine. Just shows that you don't really have a case or know what you're talking about. Again.
You know what, why don't you evolutionists go back and examine what you believe, and look around you.
*Goes back* *Sees fossils* *Uses common sense* *double checks* *Looks at it from another angle* *Sees that it still adds up* *Throws in 100 years of close scrutiny* *Corrects a few minor things* *Has a stronger case than before* *Evolution is still valid*
Anything else?
I think evolution can prove itself wrong.
Wonderful. I don't much care what you think, seeing as how your thoughts up to this point have been inaccurate, misleading, unrepresentative, fallacious, dogmatic and repetitious.
Did you see how amazing some bird nests are?
I see some random objects woven together in a rudimentary bundle in order to support the meager weight of a bird and some eggs for a month or so. What about them?
I think they can do it better than me.
Take a basket weaving class You can make your own lifesized nests and take on the appearance of being smarter than a bird!
Evolution can't explain that. Evolution can't explain instincts.
'Cept it does and has.
Looking for your missing link fossils?
*Looks around* Nope.
I see you're having trouble.
I am? *rechecks* Nope.
THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!!!
Here you go.
At this point the only thing I'm questioning the existence of is half of your brain.
I see some random objects woven together in a rudimentary bundle in order to support the meager weight of a bird and some eggs for a month or so. What about them?
i find this 1 prety amazing. or atleast different from the normal nest.
i find this 1 prety amazing. or atleast different from the normal nest.
Bees/wasps make cooler nests in my opinion.
Also, that site has like 1/2 the article cut off on the right.
Bees/wasps make cooler nests in my opinion.
bees are a compleet different kind then birds are. because of it i can't (don't want to) compare them.
if we do we should add all the animals nests and then i find the humans nests the most awsome =P
Also, that site has like 1/2 the article cut off on the right.
wasn't about the article anyway.
So how about we turn the tables in this little 'rove it' game?
Can any creationist tell me how you do explain vestigial structures, like the reduced hindlimbs and pelvis of whales or the eyes covered by skin of blind moles, and atavisms, like the retained ability in birds to grow teeth?
I won't go through the past 76 pages, but has anyone mentioned MRSA yet? It's pretty clear that bacterial strains developing resistances to modern medicine to continue to survive is pretty solid evidence of the concept of evolution. They *evolved* to adapt so they could survive.
Can any creationist tell me how you do explain vestigial structures, like the reduced hindlimbs and pelvis of whales or the eyes covered by skin of blind moles,
Answer: Ignore the evidence. They will try to claim that the things we think are vestigial aren't really so. One creationist site tries to use how science revises itself, revising the definition of vestigial to be more accurate in accordance with current data. This is taken as an example of how the entire idea is a flawed example and an attempt to grasp at straws by the "evolutionists".
But how would creation answer the existence of such features? That's just how God made them.
and atavisms, like the retained ability in birds to grow teeth?
Here is the explanation given by creationwiki
"if one does not assume evolution to begin with, an atavism is just as easily seen as a character present in one animal that God decided to put in another more complex animal."
They will often try to claim how such features don't exist and will often try to cite Haeckel's Embryos as an example of how this idea is all wrong (ignoring that such an idea isn't based on Haeckel's drawings.) They will try to point out how they are still used, but fail or lie about out how they are used. here is a further explanation of what is done with the drawings in this case. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
In short what ever question you have can be summed up in Godidit.
Looking for your missing link fossils? I see you're having trouble. Oh I know!!! THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!!!
Take a puzzle (such as this random one i just found)
Oh noes, it is missing a piece. Wait, but you can still tell it is a picture of a tree against a red hilly background.
Now your argument is that you can not confirm that this is a picture of a tree against a red hilly background unless we get that last puzzle piece.
Any logical person can tell you that you don't need that piece, it is obvious that its a tree against a red hilly background, but you're saying that it isn't unless we find that last piece.
You can then take this puzzle and push it forcefully up your rectum.
Now your argument is that you can not confirm that this is a picture of a tree against a red hilly background unless we get that last puzzle piece.
That's not really how it works though. In this case it's different. Since there are missing links and I mean many missing links fossils in evolution, and we have found many fossils already, don't you think we should have found them by now? Like I said earlier, they obviously don't exist.
If you can, I would encourage you all to watch " Life's Story: the one that hasn't been told". Very good points in there.
Since there are missing links and I mean many missing links fossils in evolution
How are you defining "many?" Because we do have a lot of fossils. So, unless as Avorne (I think it was him) said, the only way that argument makes sense is if you want to call every animal that ever lived a link.
don't you think we should have found them by now?
Undoubtably we have not found all of them, but there's two major, major reasons for why we never will find what you're asking. First, fossils are subject to destruction. Second, fossils are actually very rare and can only form in certain conditions in certain areas. The fact that we have so many is a testament to just how many things have existed.
You must be logged in to post a reply!