A
- Status
R
RACJ
Guest
I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird “evolve” the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not “know” that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life’s riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck!
Rob
There are unlimited examples of life’s riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck!
Rob
A
Arkadin
Guest
I suggest you do some up-to-date reading and not from anti-evolution sources since there is nothing accurate in their writings.I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird “evolve” the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not “know” that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life’s riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck!
R
RACJ
Guest
I'll make a note that you have not attempted to answer my "simple" questions. :) Rob
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Okay–so answer his two questions. Please.
C
chris62
Guest
A very long time waiting for his reply.
RACJ wins.
RACJ wins.
A
Arkadin
Guest
First off, I don’t seem to understand how any of this debunks evolution.I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird “evolve” the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not “know” that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life’s riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck!
One of the big reasons hummingbirds flap their wings so fast is due to the weak structure of their feet.
I think the reason, in your mind, evolutionist cannot plausibly answer is simply that your questions or examples make not much sense, at least to me. Are you referring to brain development and the genes that survive influencing that?
A
Arkadin
Guest
Actually, I was reading up on hummingbirds since I’m not too familiar with them.
C
chris62
Guest
Fair enough
A
Arkadin
Guest
In fact, I should be the one challenging you to show how these things disprove evolution. I would say the burden of proof is more on you. Perhaps you can also help me understand how this disproves anything since I seem to be having a hard time understanding you.I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird “evolve” the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not “know” that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life’s riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck!
You understand that things didn’t just happen overnight, but took a significantly long time to get to where they are now. Everything is based on survival.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
When someone advances a theory, the burden falls on them to prove it, not on others to disprove it.
Here’s a question for the evolutionary theory advocates:
How did life evolve from non-living things?
Here’s a question for the evolutionary theory advocates:
How did life evolve from non-living things?
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually there are two questions that the evolutionsts never can answer:
How did somethng come from nothing?
How did life spring from non-life
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Hardly. How do phycisists turn make lumps of solid metal (uranium or plutonium) cause gugantic explosions capable of destroying cities? Can you explain every detail of the chemistry and physics to me? No? Well then, I guess nuclear wepaons do not and never have existed. I win. No, asking a highly technical question about an esoteric subject (many many entire books have been written on the subject of the evolution of flight in birds, and I am sure whole books on the evolution of humming birds, have been written). Why would any run of the mill person who is not trained in biology be able to explain that?
Why doesn’t RACJ explain what is ecpetional about the hummingbird that would make standard ecolutionary theory not apply to it? Does he, I wonder, even understand the idea of evolution by means of natural selection? I’m sceptical, if he thinks he can just any random person a difficult question the significance of which he cannot explain himself and upon not hearing a satisfactory answer which he probably wouldn’t understand even if he did get it, and then consider it a “win.”
Anyway, I’m Texas is moving beyond teaching pseudoscience in the classrooms.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
This is exactly where many people have problems accepting evolution. You say that things don’t happen overnight and take a very long time to develop. YET, there are many things which are highly complex and require all of the elements of the system to be working together in order to function. Such as the wings on a hummingbird- or a human heart. A slow gradual evolution of the system does not make sense, because a non-beating heart or wings that don’t flap fast enough for the hummingbird to fly would be a DETERIMENT to survival. And in your own words- everything is based on survival.
The “it takes a really long time” argument from evolutionist also excuses them ever providing proof for the theory. We can see someone breed dogs and develop certain traits in a new breed. We can see turtles on different island develop into slightly different turtles. This process, often called mircroevolution, is demonstrable and repeatable. The advocates of evolution claim the process is the same for MACROevolution- or evolution from one species into another, but can’t offer proof because it takes too long to occur.
Yet, the common man knows that micro and macro evolution are NOT the same thing. The new short haired breed of poodle that was developed from other dogs- is STILL A DOG. We are told fish evolved into amphibians…but no one has ever seen a fish turn into a frog. Or a frog hatch out of a fish egg.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
That’s quite a stretch though to draw conclusions about the falsity of evolution from scepticism about the origins of life. Biologists themselves are intenseley debating the subject, but no answer they come to can ever be trult verified because live originated on earth maybe 3 billion years ago, and none of the dating techniques can go back that far (I think the farthest back they can date fossils is a little over 2 billion years, could be wrong though). That question has little bearing however, on the evolution of simple organisms to the complex ones that exist today over te course ofthe last 2 and a half billion years.
And evolution doesn’t require the creation of new material, chemically speaking.
A
Arkadin
Guest
We don’t know yet. However, we might be getting closer to the answer as each day goes by.
For something to be intelligently designed, this designer did a really bad job.
The hummingbird, if supposedly proves evolution is bunk, needs to eat more than half its weight (and often) in order to survive or it will easily die of starvation (and quickly). You’d think something designed by some intelligence would have that fixed.
Just because no one knows 100% how the universe began and life on earth began does not mean that something like a god created it. For something to design something, evidence would be left to prove something was created by a designer and nothing seems to support that. Why would some species not survive? What was his purpose in the dinosaurs? Species that could not survive as long as it could? The Neanderthals and other relatives to the homo-sapien? Why were they not deemed special in the creator’s eyes?
This is a neat interview.
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule, which is pretty cool.
For something to be intelligently designed, this designer did a really bad job.
The hummingbird, if supposedly proves evolution is bunk, needs to eat more than half its weight (and often) in order to survive or it will easily die of starvation (and quickly). You’d think something designed by some intelligence would have that fixed.
Just because no one knows 100% how the universe began and life on earth began does not mean that something like a god created it. For something to design something, evidence would be left to prove something was created by a designer and nothing seems to support that. Why would some species not survive? What was his purpose in the dinosaurs? Species that could not survive as long as it could? The Neanderthals and other relatives to the homo-sapien? Why were they not deemed special in the creator’s eyes?
This is a neat interview.
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule, which is pretty cool.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
This is a good question and it is convenient that one of the examples you mention is wings, as I know a little about that. Many intricate organs and appendages originally evolve for purposes entirely different from the purposes they now serve. Wings are a good example of this. It is now generally believed from evidence from fossils of certain ancestors of modern insects that wings were first little stubs that were helpful for dispersing heat away from the body. They were entirely useless whec it came to flight. however, the longer they were, the better they were at their function of dispersing the heat of the animal’s body, so by natural selection they got longer, until eventually, they were useful for flying short distances, perhaps to quickly escape a predator approaching from behind. Once that trait ofbasic flight into being, the “evolutionary purpose” of the appendage was altered. now what was selected for was suitability fr flying longer and longer distance. There’s a good article on this phenomenon, the changing of course in the way a trait evolves due to altered circumstance by Stephen Jay Gould and another biologist. I’ll try to find it somewhere online.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
This stance is completely at odds with Church teaching. The Church clearly DOES teach that there is a God who designed the universe, the earth, and everything that lives on it. The Church allows us to consider that evolution may or may not be a MEANS God used in His creation. Believing that evolution occured without God would not be within in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
E
estesbob
Guest
Pseudoscience as is the beauty and complexity of life is the random result of a massive primordal explosion fueled by hyrdogeon that magically appeared from nowhere and then was sparked by energy that likewise magically appeared from no where? This inert gas then, after a passage of several billions years somehow evolved into Marilyn Monroe?
I think not.
R
RACJ
Guest
Code:
Scientists always present this arrogant attitude toward skeptics. In the 70's, we were told that a new Ice Age was coming. Subsequently, it has been learned that unless you believe that the earth is overheating, and humans are responsible, you are a "denier", much like a kooky Holocaust "denier". We're living "1984"!
Regarding the theory of evolution, it IS up to you naturalists to prove the affirmative. It's amazing that so many evos deride the Creator as a really bad designer! First of all, I say, "Do it better!" Somehow, it all works, and I am sitting here today able to see, hear, feel, taste, smell, run, enjoy sex, think logically, anticipate and ponder, to name just a few pleasures of life that I had nothing to do with creating. All these were just phenomena there at my disposal.
I believe that those believers in Darwin mechanisms are afraid that many in the classrooms would reject evolutionary theories if presented with intellectual challenges. I mean, we do hope that adolescents learn to think for themselves, right? :newidea: Rob- Status