{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 9:37:28 PM
475
Evolution is often called a "mechanism" of nature (that's how I was told in school anyways). So let's compare it to a mechanical watch. Just for fun. Take a mechanical watch apart, put all its pieces in a box, and shake that box. No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, as the basic principle of probability is that there is [i]always[/i] a chance. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible. Same with evolution. Is there a chance? Sure. There's also technically a chance I'll grow wings in 10 seconds and fly away. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible.
Just a thought.
English
-
Both.
-
[quote]Both.[/quote]Atheist is speechless.
-
No, theist just does some verbal dancing by never addressing what evolution actually is, moves his point all over the place to avoid being proven wrong, quotes the bible, and displays ignorance as evidence against evolution.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/7/2015 5:07:43 AM[quote]No, theist...[/quote]Christian, theist, deist, and atheist are different terms for different reasons because [semantics].[quote]...just does some verbal dancing by never addressing what evolution actually is...[/quote]Okay then. My Evolution Definition: A misconstrued scientific fallacy.[quote]...moves his point all over the place to avoid being proven wrong...[/quote]Three Words: Quote me, please.[quote]...quotes the Bible...[/quote]...and that's wrong because...[quote]...and displays ignorance as evidence against evolution.[/quote]I've been debating against with paragraphs of information, and you regard as displaying ignorance?
-
You've not once presented information. You've only presented (paraphrasing) "this thing here I don't understand, and this quote kind of backs up me not understanding, so evolution wrong". Every time you present a position, and it's countered you just dismiss it. Try actually researching what you're talking about. You have yet to present a flaw with evolution outside of the fact you don't understand it, and you think genesis is true.
-
[quote]You've not once presented information.[/quote]The OP.[quote]You've only presented (paraphrasing) "this thing here I don't understand, and this quote kind of backs up me not understanding, so evolution wrong."[/quote]Admitted Paraphrase: Evolution has no case without origins.[quote]Every time you present a position, and it's countered, you just dismiss it.[/quote]Untrue. I've never cease an argument with you.[quote]Try actually researching what you're talking about. You have yet to present a flaw with evolution...[/quote]NO ORIGINS.[quote]...outside of the fact you don't understand it, and you think genesis is true.[/quote]You think evolution is harder to understand than theology?
-
Origins isn't evolution.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/7/2015 11:38:22 PMThen you have no choice to accept that it's true by faith?
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/6/2015 1:19:02 AM[quote]Abiogenesis not having an answer does not affect evolution.[/quote]Yet one who believes something that has a vital part of the thinking flawed still develops a trust of faith that the belief is true. It is not only evident in your previously mentioned statement but also can be thought throughout the rest of believing evolution when it's origin is easily questioned.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/6/2015 1:18:32 AMIf we know gravity is real, does what causes it change the fact its real? No. No it doesn't.
-
Agreed.
-
Yet you argue because we don't yet know what caused the first life, how life changes after it started is affected. Contradictive much?
-
No, I have a source.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/7/2015 5:13:10 AMLet me guess the bible? A creationist website with no credibility? Your beliefs? You have no real world, concrete, reasoning. You simply don't understand, don't want to, and want to spread your lack of understanding to people on this forum who are equally uninformed.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 5:50:44 AM[quote]Let me guess the Bible?[/quote]Well Britton, you know that would be bias if I used the Bible. So of course it isn't the Bible. Detective skills please.[quote]You have no real world, concrete reasoning.[/quote]After paragraphs of information were given, replier states this.[quote]You simply don't understand, don't want to...[/quote]Simply, I already understand. So much so that I can point out their flaws.[quote]...and want to spread your lack of understanding...[/quote]How is this lack of understanding if the debate is evidently ongoing?[quote]...to people on this forum who are equally uninformed.[/quote]The people on this forum are equally uninformed? Huh...
-
Every flaw you point out has been refuted thoroughly. So I ask, what flaws?
-
Eleven Words: The fossil record, cosmic dust; and complexity, intelligence, and organic origins.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/7/2015 4:04:15 PM[quote]Eleven Words: The fossil record, [b]what about it? This is the strongest evidence for evolution.[/b] cosmic dust [b]what about it?[/b] and complexity, intelligence, [b]these aren't flaws, you simply over value these things therefore making them "impossible" in your own mind. Natural selection and genetic mutation, are the cause,easy.[/b] and organic origins. [b]not part of evolution.[/b] [/quote]
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 5:53:03 AMOur Cosmic Dust, It's an Issue (passage excerpt): "Scientists tell us that 20,000 tons of cosmic dust fall on planet Earth each year—or about 50 tons a day. This means there is some on everyone’s head and in everyone’s stomach. Most of it is microscopic in size. If the Earth is 4½ billion years old, there should be a lot of cosmic dust on the Earth... ...On the basis of annual measurements of cosmic dust landing on the Earth, evolutionary scientists calculated that a very conservative estimation would be 50-180 feet of loosely packed cosmic dust on the moon's surface... ...Finally the great day came; the space rocket roared into orbit and then out into the heavens. It traveled thousands of miles, finally reaching the moon, where the lander was detached. Millions of Earthlings watched via TV, holding their breath as the Eagle slowly descended to the surface... ...The spacecraft planted itself firmly on solid ground known as Mare Tranquillitatis... ...Not long after the landing, Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the moon" ([i]The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe[/i], Chapter 5). This is what Neil Armstrong shortly stated after his landing, Armstrong states, "The LH footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It’s almost like a powder. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles [National Archives and Records Administrations. http://www.archives.gov/social-media/transcripts/transcript-eagle-has-landed-1969-45017.pdf (accessed on May 7, 2015)]." "Three times Armstrong repeats that there was very little dust. The entire conversation is available on transcript for anyone writing to NASA in Houston, Texas. These statements about the dust have been virtually ignored by the evolutionary community in their publications and TV documentaries. The reason is simple; no one wants to shoot his own foot" ([i]The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe[/i], Chapter 5).
-
Edited by Britton: 5/8/2015 12:22:35 AMEverything ive found basically agrees with this http://www.universetoday.com/94392/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth/ But that still doesn't lend any reasoning on why you think cosmic dust affects the theory of evolution.
-
Sorry, I left out some info. I had to comb through the passages because of the length. It has now been readjusted. Now I would like you to infer from what was stated in the passage again. I'm sorry that I couldn't answer you sooner. I had to go to my dad's to help take down his Christmas lights.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/8/2015 2:12:44 AMEvolutionary scientists wouldn't be predicting things for the moon landing. Those people are called astrophysicists. So your point is because the lunar surface didn't line up with predictions by astrophysicists, that evolutionary evidence based on observation of fossils, DNA and genetics, etc by different scientists in different fields of study is somehow discredited? The whole point of your excerpt is that it attempts to discredit evolution based on an incorrect prediction by scientists in a separate field of study. Evolution isn't a prediction. Its a conclusion based on observation and experimentation.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 5:55:10 AMYou asked how did Cosmic Dust interfere with the belief in evolution. Don't get touchy. Besides, the fossil record has issues with its evidence, and DNA is still DNA. No other system of transcribing biological information at a molecular level has evolved into existence. So thinking that even DNA is evidence of ancestral relations is flawed. This still proves whether a human is a human or an ape is ape. The number of chromosome count is irrelevant when it comes down to deciding which is which since it's so obviously apparent. A human can fake being a monkey, but a monkey can't at all successfully duplicate such a technique. All of what I was showing you previously was to demonstrate often the evolutionary flaw in prediction.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/8/2015 2:35:16 AMBut evolution isn't a prediction, its a conclusion on the observed evidence. And the prediction you quoted, has nothing to do with evolution. The fossil record will never be complete, as fossils do not form for every animal in every environmental condition. It takes somewhat specific circumstances for fossilization. So gaps are anticipated. As for DNA, I don't think you understand how it works.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 6:10:12 AM[quote]...but evolution isn't a prediction...[/quote]Agreed. It's a fallacy since it's speculated areas possess no evidence.[quote]...its a conclusion on the observed evidence.[/quote]NEWSFLASH: You can't observe evolution. A rock is still a rock, and an amoeba is still an amoeba. I like to see those two to make something more out of nothing.[quote]...and the prediction you quoted, has nothing to do with evolution.[/quote]Replier fails to see how this is a fail for and by evolutionists. If you observe Armstrong when he forced the flag into the ground of the moon, he had a little bit of trouble since the scientists at the time stated that the surface was to be soft enough for the flag pole to penetrate. [spoiler]*fail*[/spoiler][quote]The fossil record will never be complete since fossils do not form for every animal in every environmental condition.[/quote]Sure, I'll agree with that excuse. After millions to billions of life existing on our planet, a little less than a thousand can be found for not even one species. How observant sir? How observant?[quote]It takes somewhat specific circumstances for fossilization. So gaps are anticipated.[/quote]How many chances does an organism get to be fossilized after an almost infinite amount of time to be part of some type of sedimentary? Hypothetically speaking.[quote]As for DNA, I don't [b]think[/b] you understand how it works.[/quote]As for that statement, you made no good observation and haven't backed your reasoning with evidence. Thank you for being quite cooperative.
