Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
opprobrium
Please do not use this word ever again on this forum. I have never seen it before and it is very large. It scares me so and I don’t like it.

Apart from that, how many creationists are been to jail compared to evolutionists? I would imagine the latter would outnumber the former by at least 1000:1.

And please be advised that it wasn’t until you came along that accusations of lying were thrown on the recent threads relating to evolution.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see. Picking icons apart doesn’t seem a very productive thing to do, but there we are. Strange metaphor to quote on a Christian site; best to forget it.
 
You seem oblivious to the very strange and obvious fact that the scientific community, education systems and the mass media are obsessed with preaching a scientific theory…
You seem oblivious to the very strange and obvious fact that someone with religiously based objections to science tries to denigrate science by comparing it to a religion: “preaching”. You are telling us that you consider science superior to religion, Glark.
that can never be tested,
False. Every time a DNA paternity test is run, that is a test of evolution.

How do you propose testing direct creation of a new species by God?
and is 100% scientifically useless.
Again false. Doctors and farmers use evolution to devise tactics for antibiotic, pesticide and herbicide use that slow down the evolution of resistance in bacteria, insects and weeds.

As I have said before, your sources are lying to you.

rossum
 
Did you mention the word 'obsessed?

Just going back 2 months, you have posted over 400 times. Would you like to take a stab at how many of those posts were NOT involved with evolution?

Five.

Mate, if there is anyone exhibiting obsession then I think we have a winner…

And you could take any one of those 395 posts (plus umpteen prior to those) and all you will find is the same thing every time. You’d only need to read 2 or 3 to understand exactly where you are coming from. And where you are coming from is a position of ignorance. All your posts amount to nothing more than a schoolyard level of rebuttal. There is no substance. There is no debate. There is no indication at all that you have even the most basic understanding of that which you reject.

And that is the greatest puzzle of all in these threads. Those who shout the loudest and post the most seem to know the least.

There is ignorance and there is willful ignorance. The first is easy. You literally don’t have to do anything - simply avoid learning anything. The second is harder. You really have to work at it. And that’s the best that can be said of you. You work really hard it.
 
Ah, I see. Picking icons apart doesn’t seem a very productive thing to do, but there we are. Strange metaphor to quote on a Christian site; best to forget it.
Until you pointed it out I hadn’t realized how interesting it was. I’m going to follow up on this.

In Christian terms icons are sacred symbols in the form of religious works of art. So it is appropriate to use the term in the context of evolutionary theory, where it has become a pseudoreligious dogma speaking to what some believe to lie at the ground of existence. I say pseudo because it is not about the Divine or Transcendent, God in other words, but an intellectual elevation of the mundane, the structure of creation, to that elevated status.

Random chemical change and environmental pressures are the pillars of the belief system that sees creation as having moulded itself into the multiplicity of diverse organisms that have appeared on earth through time. While it is blatantly obvious whenever we use sunscreen, put on a lead apron at the dentist’s office, or avoid using solvents such as benzene, that random change at a chemical level is bad, it is held to be the basis for all this wonder around us. As to natural selection, all sorts of efforts are being employed in the Galapagos Islands to fight off its inherent destructive nature. It takes loving care, knowledge and a great deal of effort to create and keep things from falling apart.

To call them flimsy icons communicates these important points about Darwinism.

Interestingly, the approach that presents the theory as a house of cards, fits with the idea of survival of the fittest. Picking away at the icons is what science does. May the best theory win.

But unfortunately, as a pseudo-religion, evolution is considered sacrosanct by its believers.

Evidential selection we can see is a negative process, which does not provide new knowledge in itself but reveals the defects in what has been proposed as a sufficient explanation. What it does do is spur us on to be creative, to think more deeply and search for the truth.

What we find in nature is greater adaptability as we progress from the simplest forms of being (atoms and molecules) to the most complex (we ourselves). In terms of behaviour it goes from simple determined interactions to the free will of causal agents, engaging in relationships with what is other to themselves. While this involves a massive elaboration and transformation of basic material substances, it reflects a creative process whereby different forms of being and ultimately persons were brought into existence by an act of Divine will for a purpose.
 
Last edited:
False. Every time a DNA paternity test is run, that is a test of evolution.

Again false. Doctors and farmers use evolution to devise tactics for antibiotic, pesticide and herbicide use that slow down the evolution of resistance in bacteria, insects and weeds.
Sigh. I guess I have to spell this out every time … by “evolution” I mean the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes - for which there is no practical scientific use. If you can think of one, I’d love to hear it, as I’ve been looking for an example for years, without success.
 
I shall continue to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Or gallon of vitriol.
… Or a load of manure produced by bulls.

I’m glad we have you manning the watchtower of truth, but what a pity your eyesight is a bit crook:)
 
Last edited:
But unfortunately, as a pseudo-religion, evolution is considered sacrosanct by its believers
Ya got that right, brother! Like any cult, Evolutionism has a dogma that cannot be questioned.
 
Last edited:
Ya got that right, brother! Like any cult, Evolutionism has a dogma that cannot be questioned.
On the contrary, like all good scientific theories, not only can evolution’s foundations be questioned, but evolutions foundations are questioned, continuously and insistently, and by evolutionists themselves. We are like scientists in a space ship; checking that there are no leaks is more important to those inside it than to anybody else.
 
Ya got that right, brother! Like any cult, Evolutionism has a dogma that cannot be questioned.
While I disagree, I want to make sure I fully understand your argument. Are unquestionable dogmas a bad thing?
 
On the contrary, like all good scientific theories, not only can evolution’s foundations be questioned, but evolutions foundations are questioned, continuously and insistently, and by evolutionists themselves. We are like scientists in a space ship; checking that there are no leaks is more important to those inside it than to anybody else.
The top evos are definitely questioning it. The issue it is dogmatic in academics.
 
Please provide an example of a scientist questioning the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes.
 
Did you mention the word 'obsessed? Just going back 2 months, you have posted over 400 times. Would you like to take a stab at how many of those posts were NOT involved with evolution? Five. Mate, if there is anyone exhibiting obsession then I think we have a winner…
Wow, that’s a lotI I appear to be obsessed with defending the truth from the devil’s lie of evolution. 😈☠️🚽. There are healthy obsessions and there are unhealthy obsessions.

How on earth did you count all the way up to 4️⃣0️⃣0️⃣❓ I can only get to 2️⃣0️⃣, or sometimes 2️⃣1️⃣ - and that’s on a good day:exclamation:
And you could take any one of those 395 posts (plus umpteen prior to those) and all you will find is the same thing every time. You’d only need to read 2 or 3 to understand exactly where you are coming from … All your posts amount to nothing more than a schoolyard level of rebuttal. There is no substance. There is no debate.
These are outrageous, shocking, unjust, unwarranted, injurious, defamatory and possibly libellous insults! 🤕🙉😱👎
I was thinking of inviting you to my birthday party, but now I’m not so sure. 📮🎂🎁🎉✋
And where you are coming from is a position of ignorance … There is no indication at all that you have even the most basic understanding of that which you reject.
Deary, deary, deary me. In my last post to you I pointed out - for about the :four:th time - your failure to provide any evidence to back up your repeated accusations of my “ignorance” … yet here you are - in your very next post - doing that very same thing once again!!

Incidentally, my excellent hypothesis that submarines evolved from whales proves that I know just how evolution works. 🐠🌴🐛🐜🌿🐌🐀🦃🌲🐃🦄🐪🐬🐳
And that is the greatest puzzle of all in these threads. Those who shout the loudest and post the most seem to know the least.
I can’t believe that, on top of the other injustices you have dealt me, you are now accusing me of Inverse Proportionality‼️ Please be advised that your chances of receiving the aforementioned birthday invitation have subsequently been reduced to almost zero.

I feel you are being grossly unfair. I have attempted to study evolution, but my pathetically petite appetite for junk science means I can’t stomach much of it.
I fear this intellectual handicap means I will never become an evolutionary
scientist 🔬😰
 
Last edited:
Please provide an example of a scientist questioning the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes.
Well, do you know; I’ve just sent twenty minutes or so compiling a list of scientists currently actively investigating the relationships between the archaea, prokaryote and eukaryota, but I’ve decided not to list them, or their work.

Why not? Well, its the old story. I know exactly what use would be made of such a list. The usual Creationist cry of “Evolutionists reject evolution! Hooray for Creationism!”.

Not that I would ever accuse you personally of such gross misrepresentation, dishonesty or flagrant disregard for the truth, of course.
 
Last edited:
the relationships between the archaea, prokaryote and eukaryota
That there exists a relationship between the two does not prove evolution, but describes their material similarities, one group more complex than the other. The observation of similarities does not confirm the theory any more than they would support a . . .
hypothesis that submarines evolved from whales
 
You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. 😉

First of all, there have never been any 🦄.

The order is:
  • 🌿🌴🌲
  • 🐌🐛🐜
  • 🐠🦃
  • 🐠🐀🐬🐳
  • 🐠🐀🐃🐪
Each of these branches is said to come from:
  • (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It is claimed that given enough time, the spontaneous generation of germs from dirt, leading to the appearance of all life is possible. It seems that in spite of all the scientific and educational advances of recent times, those old superstitions stretching to antiquity are hard to eradicate. I understand that Aristotle, for all his philosophical wisdom believed that snails and clams spontaneously grew from mud. These days it is ingrained that what is needed for such processes to work are lightning strikes. 🤯
 
Last edited:
Sigh. I guess I have to spell this out every time … by “evolution” I mean the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes - for which there is no practical scientific use. If you can think of one, I’d love to hear it, as I’ve been looking for an example for years, without success.
Sigh. You do not get to define your own version of evolution. There is a standard scientific definition of evolution: descent with modification filtered through natural selection.

That covers both the small-scale tests I was talking about and the large-scale common descent of all mammals, all Eukaryotes and all life on earth.

If I watch a blade of grass for 5 minutes I might come to the conclusion that grass does not grow. That would be a wrong conclusion due to observation for too short a time.

As to life evolving from “microbes” then I suggest that you look up the definition of Eukaryote, and the range of different species that covers. In parallel with that, look up the genetic comparisons between mitochondria and various Prokaryotes. The name Lynn Margulis may be of assistance in your studies. You can also look up the different forms of life discovered well before the Ediacaran. If you can find a pre-Ediacaran rabbit then you will have disproved evolution. The earlier you find your rabbit the better.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top