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.
If you show me a paper from Nature that promotes intelligent design, I will eat my hat.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Why would I watch YouTube conspiracy videos?
Click to expand...
This is also maybe I should call it rule #2. Attack challenges to the current paradigm as conspiracy videos. That will scare the folks away for sure. What are you afraid of?
 
You can’t even point out conspiracy theories anymore with offending someone. It’s almost like the conspiracy theorists know they’re wrong and are just too afraid to admit it.
 
buffalo said:
What have you just posted that is proof of macro evolution above the family level?
Click to expand...
So, you admit that there is evidence for macro-evolution at or below the Family level. Progress!

So, you agree that there is evidence for macro-evolution at, say, the Genus level.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Please explain…
Click to expand...
You really do not know why Penrose was quoted. But hey that is OK.
Click to expand...
You posted a quote from him that was related to entropy and how it related to the big bang. And the figures he used he went on to say were fallacious. Not that it had anything to do with evolution.

Why did you quote Penrose out of context on a matter totally unrelated to evolution - or even biology (he’s a mathematical physicist for heaven’s same) on a page that purported to explain what (ahem) idvolution was?

Did you hope no-one would check or did you really not understand what that quote was in reference to?

Please let us know. Because this is your web site explaining your views to the world. And on page one the information isn’t just wrong, it is completely irrelevant.
 
PhiriTalk said:
You can’t even point out conspiracy theories anymore with offending someone. It’s almost like the conspiracy theorists know they’re wrong and are just too afraid to admit it.
Click to expand...
Do you trust? Phys.org? Sciencedaily? NIH? NatGeo? Plos? Plosbiology?

How about the Royal Society?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
PhiriTalk:
You can’t even point out conspiracy theories anymore with offending someone. It’s almost like the conspiracy theorists know they’re wrong and are just too afraid to admit it.
Click to expand...
Do you trust? Phys.org? Sciencedaily? NIH? NatGeo? Plos? Plosbiology?
Click to expand...
We don’t trust you. Page One of your own web site contains information that we must assume you knew was irrelevant and misleading.
 
Why wouldn’t I?

Do you, or do you not, have any peer reviewed papers which promote the intelligent design conspiracy theory?
 
PhiriTalk said:
You can’t even point out conspiracy theories anymore with offending someone. It’s almost like the conspiracy theorists know they’re wrong and are just too afraid to admit it.
Click to expand...
Yet you did not answer? What is the conspiracy you are accusing me of?
 
You’ve promoted a number of conspiracy theories on here. You’ve expressed anti-vax views, climate denial views, and most ardently, evolution denial views. You appear to be quite detached from reality my friend.
 
PhiriTalk said:
You’ve promoted a number of conspiracy theories on here. You’ve expressed anti-vax views, climate denial views, and most ardently, evolution denial views. You appear to be quite detached from reality my friend.
Click to expand...
Ahhh I see. So even if one link to science backing my claim is irrelevant because you profiled me. This is funny. You seem to not actually study science yourself. You just swallow what they feed you uncritically.
 
Who’s “they”? The aliens? The masons? The Illuminati?

You haven’t given a single link though, except for your own blog, which is full of links to conspiracy YouTube videos.

What about science do you view me as not understanding?

I accept evolution, you don’t.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Reason informs us that the life form(s) that were present at the foundation of this garden planet, could not have come to be as a result of purely chemical processes
Click to expand...
… and for me reason does no such thing. Each to his own.
Click to expand...
There is a truth, to which we all relate in our own fashion.

It would include the set of relationships that govern what are atoms and how they behave. At the material foundations of life is the carbon atom, with its tetrahedral structure that allows it to be used as the essential building block of very, very complex molecules. It is a matter of faith, what one believes about how it is that it exists at all.

The fact is that matter does and did come together in the formation of living organisms. One may believe that this happened solely as the result of the atom’s intrinsic properties, meaning that no external organizing principle is necessary for this to happen.

However, the molecules involved in the simplest cells are exceding complex. To imagine their spontaneous formation and serendipitous coming together into the whole that is the form of the earliest creatures, excedes the limits of my credulity.

We find a hierarchy of complexity in nature, from the simplest forms of being, like the atom, to we ourselves, who exhibit all the physical, psychological and spiritual features that make up a human life, existing as it does individually and collectively, in relation to the rest of creation and our Creator. The kind of thing that each organism represents has a beginning, ontologically and temporally, and is comprised of the kinds of things that precede it. Not only does my reason tell me that the organization of cellular components could not have arranged itself, but also that the whole entity that is a living thing, requires an act of would creation, in the same way that did time and space. The soul of the thing is what does both.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Aloysium:
To deny that life evolved on earth, is not to deny genetics, which actually leads one to confront the deficiencies of the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
Whats the point of genetics, and our genetic similarities with other organisms, if evolution is not true?

Genetics brings us a wealth of information that shows us how evolution is actually possible.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it any more possible than would be a flat earth, even though when we walk from place to place, it seems undoubtably true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top