Evolution is true? (macro evolution)

[JonaDiaper]

Link to original post: [drupal=815]Evolution is true?[/drupal]



There are 2 main branches of evolution. micro evolution, which evloves minor variations within a species, we see evidence of this when bacteria become resistence to anti biotics, this is also called adaptation or natural selection. micro evolution is scientific becuase it is observable and measureable.

then there is macro evolution, which is the concept that succesive small changes can over time, gradually change one species to another and it evolves not only minor variations but also the addition of competley new feautres and new body types.

macro evolution, the belief that the variations that we can see taking place in micro evolution within a species, are supposedly continious and limitless so that one species wil continue to change and eventualy become a new species, is the heart of the evolutionary theory.

it has never been observed therefore it is not scientific.

micro evolution is limited by the genetic code. no features that are not already present in a creatures DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. so while there is a varation within species, it is always within these limtits.

for example there are many types of dogs, mexican hairless,
boxers, terriers and pitbulls, but they are all still dogs.



adaptaion and natural selection are biological facts, ameba to man evolution is not. natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of oranisms. it cannot create new information.

for example since there are no known reptiles with genes for feathers, no amount of selective breeding will produce a feathered reptile.

mutations is genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create now ones. thus thee are always natural limits to biological change.


natural selection is just that, selection. it cannot create anything new. it can only select from the information contained in the organisms genetic blueprint.

why do evolutionists ignore this fact?

where is the evidence for macro evolution?
it has never been seen in nature and never will be.

so you believe in evolution?


there are 2 conditions to macro evolution and both of them are neccesary for the theory evolution to be true.

one is living matter came from non-living matter.
this is shown to be impossible. the scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something. scientist have never been able to create life from non life.
the oppostie is the case. life arises only from life.
it is un-scientific and inaccurate for evolutionsits to claim that spontaneous generation occured.

bio genisis is the rule. life comes only from life.

Second condition for macro evolution to be considered true.

that one specie gradually changes over time into another species.

scientists line up various creatures point out similarities and say they are obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.

have you seen the charts in school textbooks?
they go from fish to reptiles to mammals.

lets say i line up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size,
from sub compact to luxary cars and pointed out similarities.

would you say they obviously had a common ancestor?
or with your common sence think they had a common maker?

at best the fossils used to create the charts demonstrates

such as the variety within horses, but is there proof of one species changing into another? no

in fact there is proof of the opposite, that they didnt. for it if were true, all species would have spent more time in transition then in completion thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms.

charles darwin acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws

"as by this theory innumerable tranistional forms must have existed."

why havent we found them?

geological research does not yield the infinatley many fine gradations between past and present species requiered by the theory.

there should be millions upon millions of fossils in the intermidiate stages of their transitions. but there are none.

he said the problem was the imperfection of the fossil record, that we havent seen enough of it.
that has been remedied with modern geology

150 years after darwin what do we find in the fossil record? fully formed wolly mamoths, whole fish, whole reptiles and so on.

everything in the fossil record appears to be fully formed and true to its own kind.

there are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins or beaks

umong the billions of fossils found we dont find one example of the transitional forms darwin said must exist ifhis theory of evolution were true.

the fossils record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.

 

[Mith_]

Jona I see you got removed the the Debaters group.
Sucks.

 

[Judge Judy]

Ok, all your logic aside, how do you think the universe really works? How do you think the earth formed? How do you think we came to be? Think about these questions carefully first before making any judgement calls.

 

[JonaDiaper]

Ok, all your logic aside, how do you think the universe really works? How do you think the earth formed? How do you think we came to be? Think about these questions carefully first before making any judgement calls.

God is my answers to all those questions, and now i believe i have some arguments to help me with this. i have been doing some reading lately after i got removed from the Debaters group. which really does suck

 

[Crimson King]

You have a lot of research to do. First off, you need to really study and understand biology. I have a very cursory knowledge of biology, and I understand a bit more about evolution than you do, which isn't a good thing when you plan to attack it. Observe.

There are 2 main branches of evolution. micro evolution, which evloves minor variations within a species, we see evidence of this when bacteria become resistence to anti biotics, this is also called adaptation or natural selection. micro evolution is scientific becuase it is observable and measureable.

So far so good.

then there is macro evolution, which is the concept that succesive small changes can over time, gradually change one species to another and it evolves not only minor variations but also the addition of competley new feautres and new body types.

More or less, yeah, that's correct.

macro evolution, the belief that the variations that we can see taking place in micro evolution within a species, are supposedly continious and limitless so that one species wil continue to change and eventualy become a new species, is the heart of the evolutionary theory.

it has never been observed therefore it is not scientific.

Wrong. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html That is called, OBSERVABLE RESEARCH. The fact that chimps share our DNA to nearly 100% shows we have some common ancestors.

micro evolution is limited by the genetic code. no features that are not already present in a creatures DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. so while there is a varation within species, it is always within these limtits.

What? Viruses evolve defenses to new drugs constantly, but is that even encoded in their DNA? I doubt diseases like AIDS has ever future vaccine coded in it's DNA, instead it adapts to what is presented.

for example there are many types of dogs, mexican hairless,
boxers, terriers and pitbulls, but they are all still dogs.

What about wolves? Coyotes? They are of the canis genus (forgive me if I mixed up science terms here), but they are all different species, much like we are of the homo genus, but chimps are not homo sapians.

adaptaion and natural selection are biological facts, ameba to man evolution is not. natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of oranisms. it cannot create new information.

This is just an opinion. Adaptation and Natural selection ARE parts of evolution. There was an experiment where these birds flocked to a tree in front of a factory for many generations. Eventually, the birds began to have spot patterns to match the tree from the pollution. They began the process of evolution by out-surviving other birds who couldn't adapt.

for example since there are no known reptiles with genes for feathers, no amount of selective breeding will produce a feathered reptile.

No but there are genes for reptiles with hair that match birds.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081110-lizard-hair.html
And some dinosaurs had feathers (who are the ancestors of modern reptiles):
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biolog...--reported-in--3Ci-3EScience-3C-i-3E-11361-1/

mutations is genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create now ones. thus thee are always natural limits to biological change.

http://www.ds-health.com/faq.htm - Hmm, Down syndrome people have an extra chromosome, which can be translated to more building blocks, and they can interbred with people without the condition which means it mixing their extra chromosome with normal number of chromosomes. Also, the inherited ratio is only 3 - 5%, with the rest of the cases being sporadic and accidental through meiosis.

natural selection is just that, selection. it cannot create anything new. it can only select from the information contained in the organisms genetic blueprint.

You do not understand natural selection at all. What happens to creatures who are slower, heavier, etc? They die and the smaller, faster creatures thrive. In the seas, the Megalodon shark dominated. As it's food resources went down, the shark could no longer exist due to it's massive size, the smaller descendant of the shark, the Great White, was able to thrive where the Meg used to. This is just one example of how Natural Selection breeds new species.

why do evolutionists ignore this fact?

Because your "fact" is wrong.

where is the evidence for macro evolution?
it has never been seen in nature and never will be.

Down Syndrome has the possibility to be considered one, but there are many, many, many more examples and the ones I cited are just a few.

one is living matter came from non-living matter.
this is shown to be impossible. the scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something. scientist have never been able to create life from non life.
the oppostie is the case. life arises only from life.
it is un-scientific and inaccurate for evolutionsits to claim that spontaneous generation occured.

Learn the laws of science before trying to use them. The first law of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, so how can you have "non-living matter."

Secondly, you are on a whole new topic of creating life. No one has claimed spontaneous generation, a belief which was that since one thing was seen around another it came from that (a pile of rags would breed mice, etc). This is not even considered anything but a joke.

 

[JuanTendo]

I do belive in evolution... in macro evolution if you wanna call it that.

"it has never been observed therefore it is not scientific"... yeah you are right but that only happens because it takes to much time for a significant change to happen, and no one can just sit there and wait for a major change to happen into a living form. we are talking here about millions of years, drastic weather changes, new dangers or dangers that disappeared, major changes in the landscape.

Take for example the fact that billions of years ago earth only had one continent "pangeia"...tectonic plates did what they did, and with that lets take for example dogs. in one of the new continents dogs had everything they needed easily, no predators and great weather for them. In the other hand we have the other dogs (same ones as the other ones) that are in one of the other new continents. this one is a much cooler weather, lots of predators...lets say they needed to climb trees, swim and fight with other animals for food, even hibernate.. they could have evolved into a new animal with much larger with also larger claws, horns to defend them selfs and climb trees, could have a lot more of fur cause of the weather, they would need better senses, and even be capable of staying under water for a short period of time since is the only way they could survive in such a hard habitat. ETC ETC ETC... (i could be here 4 ever)... doing this they wouldn' be consider dogs anymore but a new species.

how does this happen?....i have no idea... as you said... there is no prove of macro evolution.
i guess some times we should belive in thing even when we dont see it ( i can't belive as an atheist i just writed that ) LOL

if everything i just said didn't make any sence or i was tottaly out of what you wanted us to write.. let me know XD btw, some day rats will evolve into pikachus....XD

Sorry for the bad english.

 

[JuanTendo]

exactly

You have a lot of research to do. First off, you need to really study and understand biology. I have a very cursory knowledge of biology, and I understand a bit more about evolution than you do, which isn't a good thing when you plan to attack it. Observe.



So far so good.



More or less, yeah, that's correct.



Wrong. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html That is called, OBSERVABLE RESEARCH. The fact that chimps share our DNA to nearly 100% shows we have some common ancestors.



What? Viruses evolve defenses to new drugs constantly, but is that even encoded in their DNA? I doubt diseases like AIDS has ever future vaccine coded in it's DNA, instead it adapts to what is presented.




What about wolves? Coyotes? They are of the canis genus (forgive me if I mixed up science terms here), but they are all different species, much like we are of the homo genus, but chimps are not homo sapians.




This is just an opinion. Adaptation and Natural selection ARE parts of evolution. There was an experiment where these birds flocked to a tree in front of a factory for many generations. Eventually, the birds began to have spot patterns to match the tree from the pollution. They began the process of evolution by out-surviving other birds who couldn't adapt.



No but there are genes for reptiles with hair that match birds.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081110-lizard-hair.html
And some dinosaurs had feathers (who are the ancestors of modern reptiles):
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biolog...--reported-in--3Ci-3EScience-3C-i-3E-11361-1/



http://www.ds-health.com/faq.htm - Hmm, Down syndrome people have an extra chromosome, which can be translated to more building blocks, and they can interbred with people without the condition which means it mixing their extra chromosome with normal number of chromosomes. Also, the inherited ratio is only 3 - 5%, with the rest of the cases being sporadic and accidental through meiosis.



You do not understand natural selection at all. What happens to creatures who are slower, heavier, etc? They die and the smaller, faster creatures thrive. In the seas, the Megalodon shark dominated. As it's food resources went down, the shark could no longer exist due to it's massive size, the smaller descendant of the shark, the Great White, was able to thrive where the Meg used to. This is just one example of how Natural Selection breeds new species.



Because your "fact" is wrong.


Down Syndrome has the possibility to be considered one, but there are many, many, many more examples and the ones I cited are just a few.




Learn the laws of science before trying to use them. The first law of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, so how can you have "non-living matter."

Secondly, you are on a whole new topic of creating life. No one has claimed spontaneous generation, a belief which was that since one thing was seen around another it came from that (a pile of rags would breed mice, etc). This is not even considered anything but a joke.

i was no way near of having the patience to write so much... but thats exactly what i meant..

"Down Syndrome has the possibility to be considered one, but there are many, many, many more examples and the ones I cited are just a few."

you are not quite right there but i'm to lazy to write why... just remember he says that MAJOR changes haven't been seen "live"...we have proves they actually happened.. but you know as good as i that we didn't saw any of them "live"...

i might be wrong but i think hes taking this more to the level "i dont belive what i dont see"
just that.

 

[A-Tron]

jus accept that the divine creator didnt create us any different from any other species jus our intelligence greatly surpassed that of any other and we got lucky in this roll of the die, we all are equal, every insect, human, dog, cat, tree, blade of grass, were all created with equality, to live and thrive and enjoy what life has to bring. evolution is jus one of the many things life has to offer because without adaptation and evolution, a sustained life would not be possible.

 

[Ace(WorshipMe)]

Link to original post: [drupal=815]Evolution is true?[/drupal]



There are 2 main branches of evolution. micro evolution, which evloves minor variations within a species, we see evidence of this when bacteria become resistence to anti biotics, this is also called adaptation or natural selection. micro evolution is scientific becuase it is observable and measureable.

then there is macro evolution, which is the concept that succesive small changes can over time, gradually change one species to another and it evolves not only minor variations but also the addition of competley new feautres and new body types.

macro evolution, the belief that the variations that we can see taking place in micro evolution within a species, are supposedly continious and limitless so that one species wil continue to change and eventualy become a new species, is the heart of the evolutionary theory.

That was a pretty good introduction.

it has never been observed therefore it is not scientific.

You must be one of those hardcore science guys, yeah? Well let us do a bit of Science Methodology 101. You create a question and form a hypothesis. Then you construct an experiment to test your hypothesis. If the experiment meets you predictions, and this experiment plus various others continues to check out, then your hypothesis may gain the prestigious title of a Scientific Theory. What's important here is that all the observations are well explained by the theory. You don't have to observe "it" for it to be scientific, rather the observations have to support the "it." That's what a theory is all about, explaining the observations.

micro evolution is limited by the genetic code. no features that are not already present in a creatures DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. so while there is a varation within species, it is always within these limtits.

for example there are many types of dogs, mexican hairless,
boxers, terriers and pitbulls, but they are all still dogs.



adaptaion and natural selection are biological facts, ameba to man evolution is not. natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of oranisms. it cannot create new information.

This is false. A very simple and common example that is contrary to this is Down Syndrome. Go ahead, pull the moving goal post, I'm watching.

Well my friend complained about my post so, even though this is entirely unnecessary, I'll just mention that our ancestors the Great Apes had 24 chromosomes and we have 23 chromosomes. Losing a chromosome doesn't produce a human, so the prediction was that two of the chromosomes fused together. That would be chromosome #2. That's the kind of thing I mean when I say a theory has to explain the observations and match the predictions.

for example since there are no known reptiles with genes for feathers, no amount of selective breeding will produce a feathered reptile.

mutations is genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create now ones. thus thee are always natural limits to biological change.


natural selection is just that, selection. it cannot create anything new. it can only select from the information contained in the organisms genetic blueprint.

why do evolutionists ignore this fact?

where is the evidence for macro evolution?
it has never been seen in nature and never will be.

Wow, not only has no evidence been observed, but none ever will be! Wow! How do you know that? You're quite amazing. I would have loved to reply to a lot of the things you said about the limits of natural selection but...there really isn't any need for it. I am not very impressed. You made statements but didn't support them with reasons. Why can't natural selection create anything new? I'm aware of the common reason people say these things but I'm not going to combat it if you don't say it.

so you believe in evolution?


there are 2 conditions to macro evolution and both of them are neccesary for the theory evolution to be true.

one is living matter came from non-living matter.

Evolution doesn't include the origin of life. That would be abiogenesis.

this is shown to be impossible. the scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something. scientist have never been able to create life from non life.

First of all, even if we did create life from non-life, I don't see how that would be evidence of abiogenesis. Your argument here seems really off-target. That isn't showing something to be impossible. There are no proofs in science, only evidence and some laws. Abiogenesis involves chemical evolution in an ocean rich with organic compounds over millions of years. You might want to read into it.

But anyways the short response is, how does it show something is impossible because we can't do it? That just doesn't seem to have any logic to it at all...

the oppostie is the case. life arises only from life.
it is un-scientific and inaccurate for evolutionsits to claim that spontaneous generation occured.

bio genisis is the rule. life comes only from life.

more coming on the second condition.........

Not an argument so I don't really need to respond.

Well I guess I will mention, spontaneous generation is dead. You're probably thinking of abiogenesis, which is not included in evolution. There is nothing unscientific and inaccurate about abiogenesis, as far as I'm aware it is currently a hypothesis and has a lot of good things going for it.


Anyways the major point here is that theories are supposed to explain observations and be supported with evidence. The Big Bang theory explains the microwave background radiation, the red shift, etc etc. Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gasses explains why gas produces pressure in a container, why higher temperature increases the pressure, etc. You would also be eliminating countless theories that we know to be true almost for certain such as Special Relativity and Evolution. Theory is a word that has a lot of different meanings, and when used in a scientific context you can't just oversimplify the meaning of it.

 

[Cinder]

You have a lot of research to do. First off, you need to really study and understand biology. I have a very cursory knowledge of biology, and I understand a bit more about evolution than you do, which isn't a good thing when you plan to attack it. Observe.



So far so good.



More or less, yeah, that's correct.



Wrong. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html That is called, OBSERVABLE RESEARCH. The fact that chimps share our DNA to nearly 100% shows we have some common ancestors.



What? Viruses evolve defenses to new drugs constantly, but is that even encoded in their DNA? I doubt diseases like AIDS has ever future vaccine coded in it's DNA, instead it adapts to what is presented.




What about wolves? Coyotes? They are of the canis genus (forgive me if I mixed up science terms here), but they are all different species, much like we are of the homo genus, but chimps are not homo sapians.




This is just an opinion. Adaptation and Natural selection ARE parts of evolution. There was an experiment where these birds flocked to a tree in front of a factory for many generations. Eventually, the birds began to have spot patterns to match the tree from the pollution. They began the process of evolution by out-surviving other birds who couldn't adapt.



No but there are genes for reptiles with hair that match birds.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081110-lizard-hair.html
And some dinosaurs had feathers (who are the ancestors of modern reptiles):
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biolog...--reported-in--3Ci-3EScience-3C-i-3E-11361-1/



http://www.ds-health.com/faq.htm - Hmm, Down syndrome people have an extra chromosome, which can be translated to more building blocks, and they can interbred with people without the condition which means it mixing their extra chromosome with normal number of chromosomes. Also, the inherited ratio is only 3 - 5%, with the rest of the cases being sporadic and accidental through meiosis.



You do not understand natural selection at all. What happens to creatures who are slower, heavier, etc? They die and the smaller, faster creatures thrive. In the seas, the Megalodon shark dominated. As it's food resources went down, the shark could no longer exist due to it's massive size, the smaller descendant of the shark, the Great White, was able to thrive where the Meg used to. This is just one example of how Natural Selection breeds new species.



Because your "fact" is wrong.


Down Syndrome has the possibility to be considered one, but there are many, many, many more examples and the ones I cited are just a few.




Learn the laws of science before trying to use them. The first law of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, so how can you have "non-living matter."

Secondly, you are on a whole new topic of creating life. No one has claimed spontaneous generation, a belief which was that since one thing was seen around another it came from that (a pile of rags would breed mice, etc). This is not even considered anything but a joke.

I wish I could have said this sooner...in Jona's thread (yeah, I was reading it)...

CK, I couldn't agree more...

God is my answers to all those questions, and now i believe i have some arguments to help me with this.

Y'know...it's this attitude I can't stand...you have no more proof that God did anything than Hindus do that Vishnu did it...just throwing that out there...

i have been doing some reading lately after i got removed from the Debaters group. which really does suck

Other than the Bible? Read some scientific journals...and while you're at it, read the Vedas, Torah, Koran, and any other religious text...see all sides to the debate...

 

[JonaDiaper]

im at school right now and im on my phone, but when i get home i believe i have answers for you guys.

and just so i leave you with something, i want to respond about why i have proof about God.

lets say you have pieces of a watch in a shoe box. now lets say you shake it for 10 minutes. will you have a functioning watch when you stop? nope. now shake it for 50 billion years, will you have a functioning watch? nope.

now imagine that with the universe. do you think something so complex and orederly just happened? logic says that it is impossible.

if you asked someone to prove that a building had a builder what would they say? well it wouldnt just build itself right?

correct, if you placed all the parts neccesart for a building in a pile, would a building just appear? no.

every building has a builder.

now imagine this,

billionas of years ago something happened and a liquid was made, then something else happened and aluminum molecules formed. something else happened and it formed into a cylinder. then liquid went into the cylinder and then it got topped off by more aluminum. then 50 years ago something else happened and some red got slapped on it and a label, expiration date, and nutritional facts. and i want you to believe this. that would be an insult to your intellect if i wanted you to believe this. but you believe something so infinately complex like the universe just happened. everything working together the way it does just happened? not logical. only a creator could have done it.

ill write more when i get home, my phone needs a break.

 

[Dolente]

First and foremost, let me say that I am very glad that this was not the first post that I ever read on Smashboards. I don't think I would even have bothered going further. That being said, you have some very urgent refreshing needed in the scientific method, biology, abiogenisis, physics, and general reasoning.

I would like to say second that, if God is your reasoning behind all of this, then, if human beings were His ultimate creation, why does He continue evolution? We have observed spontaneous mutation in everything from virii and bacteria to chips and, yes, Homo sapiens. The mere presence of such things as autism, heterochromia, and savantism throws water in the face of God having created a perfect species. If He is omnipotent and omniscient, He should have been able to do it right on the first try, spontaneous mutation should not exist, and people like myself should not have been created to argue about it like this.

So, let's get to work:

Link to original post: [drupal=815]Evolution is true?[/drupal]
it has never been observed therefore it is not scientific.

You know what else hasn't been observed? Seas of blood, black suns, and a 40-day flood. You cannot possibly 'observe' Euler's equation, yet the technology of data transmission allows you to post on this forum. Theory is essential to any form of science, yet you claim that anything that is not observable is nonsciencific. Sorry, not so.

micro evolution is limited by the genetic code. no features that are not already present in a creatures DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. so while there is a varation within species, it is always within these limtits.

I don't think that you understand the impact of DNA and DNA combinations upon the makeup of an organism. In fact, I suspect that you might not even know what deoxyribonucleaic acid is. Try it this way: I have twenty-six letters in the American alphabet, right? Are you telling me that every single combination of letters will always produce the same thing? If so, how am I communicating?

for example there are many types of dogs, mexican hairless,
boxers, terriers and pitbulls, but they are all still dogs.

Ah yes, except for wolves, which are the COMMON ANCESTOR of ALL Canis familiaris.

adaptaion and natural selection are biological facts, ameba to man evolution is not. natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of oranisms. it cannot create new information.

New information is unnecessary: New traits emerge from different combinations of existing chromosomes.

for example since there are no known reptiles with genes for feathers, no amount of selective breeding will produce a feathered reptile.

You have a lot to learn about gene pairing, my friend. I guess you could say the same thing about a toothed fish, huh?

mutations is genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create now ones. thus thee are always natural limits to biological change.

Really? Wow! So there is no possible way that a human being could be born with ... say ... a tail?

natural selection is just that, selection. it cannot create anything new. it can only select from the information contained in the organisms genetic blueprint.

Ah.. So THAT is why myself and any chimpanzee are 98% the same genetically.

one is living matter came from non-living matter.
this is shown to be impossible. the scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something. scientist have never been able to create life from non life.
the oppostie is the case. life arises only from life.
it is un-scientific and inaccurate for evolutionsits to claim that spontaneous generation occured.

Ignoring your blatantly incorrect scientific reasoning, take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models
I'm sure it will clear up a LOT of your questions.

<Edit>
I saw you posted this while I was typing my previous post:

im at school right now and im on my phone, but when i get home i believe i have answers for you guys.

and just so i leave you with something, i want to respond about why i have proof about God.

lets say you have pieces of a watch in a shoe box. now lets say you shake it for 10 minutes. will you have a functioning watch when you stop? nope. now shake it for 50 billion years, will you have a functioning watch? nope.

now imagine that with the universe. do you think something so complex and orederly just happened? logic says that it is impossible.

if you asked someone to prove that a building had a builder what would they say? well it wouldnt just build itself right?

correct, if you placed all the parts neccesart for a building in a pile, would a building just appear? no.

every building has a builder.

now imagine this,

billionas of years ago something happened and a liquid was made, then something else happened and aluminum molecules formed. something else happened and it formed into a cylinder. then liquid went into the cylinder and then it got topped off by more aluminum. then 50 years ago something else happened and some red got slapped on it and a label, expiration date, and nutritional facts. and i want you to believe this. that would be an insult to your intellect if i wanted you to believe this. but you believe something so infinately complex like the universe just happened. everything working together the way it does just happened? not logical. only a creator could have done it.

ill write more when i get home, my phone needs a break.

The metaphor that you are trying to use to prove the existence of God is a scientific principle called Entropy. It is used quite often in chemistry and physics, and it actually serves more to derail your theory than help you, because the answer is YES! Given a truly random chance that the parts will contact when you shake the box, there is a chance, however small, that a watch will be assembled. This is analagous to the "infinite monkeys theory" for those who know that.

The Coca-Cola analogy is just stupid. You need to consider the timeframe of evolution, namely millions upon millions of years. Here, try counting to a million! I think that will help you understand.
</Edit>

 

[kr3wman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

 

[Mic_128]

lets say you have pieces of a watch in a shoe box. now lets say you shake it for 10 minutes. will you have a functioning watch when you stop? nope. now shake it for 50 billion years, will you have a functioning watch? nope.

Is life mechanical? No.

Put a bunch of chemicals in a beaker and swirl it around for a bit. Will there be a reaction? Yes!

(Bad analogy) and i want you to believe this. that would be an insult to your intellect if i wanted you to believe this. but you believe something so infinately complex like the universe just happened. everything working together the way it does just happened? not logical. only a creator could have done it.

You think someone could create something as infinitively complex, unpredictable and constantly changing as the universe? Not logical. You think that it's possible to create something as complex as a human being from nothing more than the rib from another person? Illogical.

There is a LOT more evidence to Evolution then there is that God just got bored and made life from nothing.

 

[MattNF]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

lets say you have pieces of a watch in a shoe box. now lets say you shake it for 10 minutes. will you have a functioning watch when you stop? nope. now shake it for 50 billion years, will you have a functioning watch? nope.

Horrible analogy. Parts of a watch and chemical processes are completely different. And anyway, given 50 billion years the chance that they do assemble themselves into a watch starts to grow higher and higher.

 

[Overswarm]

Is life mechanical? No.

Put a bunch of chemicals in a beaker and swirl it around for a bit. Will there be a reaction? Yes!

His analogy was meant to show that complex pieces would not randomly come together to form something that works.

I see what you are getting at, but a better defense would be:

But if you took millions of shoe boxes full of watch pieces and they were put together randomly and then the ones that functioned the best stayed and you repeated this process, would you get a watch?

To whoever said "well, YES! You COULD get a watch!", you're being foolish. No, you could not get a watch. Slap your hand on the table. Did it go through the table? Well the property of matter allows your hand to go through the table, it's just an incredibly small chance. So small, in fact, that the possibility is virtually non-existant. This is the same with the watch. The possibility of it happening is not enough to say that it could happen. Likelihood needs to be addressed, and in this case it is painfully obvious that no, you could not get a watch.

You think someone could create something as infinitively complex, unpredictable and constantly changing as the universe? Not logical. You think that it's possible to create something as complex as a human being from nothing more than the rib from another person? Illogical.

There is a LOT more evidence to Evolution then there is that God just got bored and made life from nothing.

Actually, the universe itself is the best evidence for God as of yet. The universe itself is not bound by the laws it itself creates. That's why the universe can be, and is, infinite yet expanding. God, by definition, is not bound by these laws and we have observable evidence that something like that can exist. Making a human being from a single rib is not impossible when the rules change; forcing God to live by our rules and standards is foolish. We know that he either exists or he doesn't; should he exist and assuming the knowledge we have of him to be true, he would not have to abide by the rules of the universe. Trivial things such as "you can't make a human from a rib" or "where did all the water come from for a flood" are irrelevant when speaking in the context of a being that doesn't fit within the rules of our universe. That's why you can't say "Can God lift a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it", because the answer is yes, but he could lift it if he wanted to. He doesn't fit within the rules of our universe, just as our universe itself does not.

You know what else hasn't been observed? Seas of blood, black suns, and a 40-day flood

Actually, two of those have enough historical evidence to back it up that things such as this happened. The sea of blood is from revelations and hasn't happened yet, and as stated earlier the rules don't apply in this context. The "black sun" I am unfamiliar with from the bible, but it has been shown in many religions and the most popular answer to this is simply "an eclipse", which creates a black sun. The 40-day flood actually has the most evidence for it as multiple, seperate regions all tell the same story of a flood that wiped out most of the planet and horizontal water erosion (signifying a flood) has been found worldwide, even in deserts, at altitudes that suggest incredibly high flooding.

It isn't scientific, but it doesn't have to be. Historical records are just as important. You couldn't prove scientifically that George Washington was our first president either. Just thought I'd throw that out there ^_^

 

[MattNF]

That's why the universe can be, and is, infinite yet expanding. God, by definition, is not bound by these laws and we have observable evidence that something like that can exist.

The Universe is not infinite. Where are you getting this information from?

What evidence? There is no evidence that a supernatural being can exist.

40-day flood actually has the most evidence for it as multiple, seperate regions all tell the same story of a flood that wiped out most of the planet and horizontal water erosion (signifying a flood) has been found worldwide, even in deserts, at altitudes that suggest incredibly high flooding.

The flood has historical evidence, yes, but the flood did not cover the entire world. Read up on the Black Sea Deluge theory, in which the biblical account of the flood was most likely taken from that.

"In 1998, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BC. Glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes, while sea levels remained lower worldwide. The fresh water lakes were emptying their waters into the Aegean Sea. As the glaciers retreated, rivers emptying into the Black Sea reduced their volume and found new outlets in the North Sea, [1] and the water levels lowered through evaporation. Then, about 5600 BC, as sea levels rose, Ryan and Pitman suggest, the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 155,000 km2 (60,000 sq mi) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. Ryan and Pitman wrote:

"Ten cubic miles [42 km3] of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. …The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days."

 

[JonaDiaper]

im pretty sure that God could make the universe. i mean he is God. and if you honestly believe that you could shake a box with watch parts and have a functioning watch after no matter how much time then thats just ridiculous.

if you wont accept logic and call human mental diseases evolution theb what can i say. i have a cd that i would like to share with all of you, its what i base most my information from. i think it will challenge you. i dont have all the information but, that cd probably does. i plan on uploading it and sharing the link by sunday, ill continue to argue but this cd does a much better job then i ever could.

 

[Dolente]

But if you took millions of shoe boxes full of watch pieces and they were put together randomly and then the ones that functioned the best stayed and you repeated this process, would you get a watch?

To whoever said "well, YES! You COULD get a watch!", you're being foolish. No, you could not get a watch. Slap your hand on the table. Did it go through the table? Well the property of matter allows your hand to go through the table, it's just an incredibly small chance. So small, in fact, that the possibility is virtually non-existant. This is the same with the watch. The possibility of it happening is not enough to say that it could happen. Likelihood needs to be addressed, and in this case it is painfully obvious that no, you could not get a watch.

Okay, enough with this watch analogy. I was just trying to make a point using entropy, but it didn't get across correctly. Using carbon, which is not only a terrifically reactive and combinable element, but the basis for all Earthly life, in a bunch of "shakes," meaning recombinant connections, would produce quite a few biological equivalents of "watches." Can you follow that? Sorry, kind of convoluted. Asking me if my hand can go through a table is, physically speaking, much more foolish than asking if entropy can reassemble a watch. My hand and a table are different densities, meaning that even if the atoms in my hand had an alpha exactly opposite those in the table, they are still connected together in different amounts of space, so the hand will never pass through the table. This is called physically impossible as opposed to the entropic watch assembly, which is merely physically unlikely.

Actually, the universe itself is the best evidence for God as of yet. The universe itself is not bound by the laws it itself creates. That's why the universe can be, and is, infinite yet expanding. God, by definition, is not bound by these laws and we have observable evidence that something like that can exist. Making a human being from a single rib is not impossible when the rules change; forcing God to live by our rules and standards is foolish. We know that he either exists or he doesn't; should he exist and assuming the knowledge we have of him to be true, he would not have to abide by the rules of the universe. Trivial things such as "you can't make a human from a rib" or "where did all the water come from for a flood" are irrelevant when speaking in the context of a being that doesn't fit within the rules of our universe. That's why you can't say "Can God lift a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it", because the answer is yes, but he could lift it if he wanted to. He doesn't fit within the rules of our universe, just as our universe itself does not.

If God didn't see fit to play by the rules then, why are all the rules holding solid now? Is God "done," with the Creation, so he is no longer bending the rules? If so, why do observable mutations still exist? They cannot be "leftovers" from the original rules, because God is omniscient and would have known a way to prevent them. And, please note that the universe is not infinite, but has a diameter of 880 ×10^24 metres, or 93 billion light-years. It is expanding becuase it is not infinite. Self-contradictory statements unto themselves to not prove the existence of a Creator to whom the rules do not apply, and as far as I can see, all of the phenomena in this thread (evolution, origin of life, a finite universe) can be explained within the "rules."

It isn't scientific, but it doesn't have to be. Historical records are just as important. You couldn't prove scientifically that George Washington was our first president either. Just thought I'd throw that out there ^_^

I'm sorry, but this sounds ridiculous. George Washington is not a physical or thermodynamic phenomenon. History is great for learning about the past, yes, but historical evidence of massive floods that wiped out all of existence must be based upon extreme conjecture. Also, modern historians are very careful to qualify everything they say, because nothing can ever be known for certain from historical record. The laws of physics, however, as tested today, seem to be quite unyielding.

im pretty sure that God could make the universe. i mean he is God. and if you honestly believe that you could shake a box with watch parts and have a functioning watch after no matter how much time then thats just ridiculous.

if you wont accept logic and call human mental diseases evolution theb what can i say. i have a cd that i would like to share with all of you, its what i base most my information from. i think it will challenge you. i dont have all the information but, that cd probably does. i plan on uploading it and sharing the link by sunday, ill continue to argue but this cd does a much better job then i ever could.

There is absolutely no evidence, or even a true claim, within this post whatsoever.

 

[MattNF]

im pretty sure that God could make the universe. i mean he is God.

Before you make that statement, you have to prove that God exists (I'm assuming you're referring to the Christian god). And before you do that, you have to prove all other religious dieties wrong.

I have a question... why is it that you believe in God, but not Santa Claus?

and if you honestly believe that you could shake a box with watch parts and have a functioning watch after no matter how much time then thats just ridiculous.

Like I said, your straw man analogy was horrible. BioChemical processes and watch parts are completely different.

if you wont accept logic...

Seems to me like you won't accept logic.

 

[Overswarm]

If God didn't see fit to play by the rules then, why are all the rules holding solid now? Is God "done," with the Creation, so he is no longer bending the rules? If so, why do observable mutations still exist? They cannot be "leftovers" from the original rules, because God is omniscient and would have known a way to prevent them. And, please note that the universe is not infinite, but has a diameter of 880 ×10^24 metres, or 93 billion light-years. It is expanding becuase it is not infinite. Self-contradictory statements unto themselves to not prove the existence of a Creator to whom the rules do not apply, and as far as I can see, all of the phenomena in this thread (evolution, origin of life, a finite universe) can be explained within the "rules."

Think of it this way...

You're making a map in starcraft. The marines in the game are forced to play by the rules. You are not.

That's all I mean for you to get out of it.

I'm sorry, but this sounds ridiculous. George Washington is not a physical or thermodynamic phenomenon. History is great for learning about the past, yes, but historical evidence of massive floods that wiped out all of existence must be based upon extreme conjecture. Also, modern historians are very careful to qualify everything they say, because nothing can ever be known for certain from historical record. The laws of physics, however, as tested today, seem to be quite unyielding.

The laws of physics have several blank spots that they still need to fill, but they're doing an excellent job with it, yes.... hopefully the machine stops breaking and we'll get something out of that.

As for the history thing... the point is scienfitic evidence isn't what you should be looking for 100% of the time. We can assume someone named Jesus walked around and did sermons because there are multiple references to someone of that description. It isn't scientific and it is possible they are all false documents or are talking about different people or something, but it's all we've got and we can assume he existed. We don't have to look at science to solve everything.

Before you make that statement, you have to prove that God exists (I'm assuming you're referring to the Christian god). And before you do that, you have to prove all other religious dieties wrong.

I have a question... why is it that you believe in God, but not Santa Claus?

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you don't know everything. Do you know how a toaster works? Can you build one? Why are you using one if you only know the basics?

Illogical questions, right? You just do because it does what it wants you to do.

You can't ask someone why they chose their God and use that as reasoning that they are wrong. It's arbitrary. If I give you a math question with multiple choice answers and you pick randomly, you still might be right.

I see where you are going with this, but you're pointing in the wrong direction.

 

[kr3wman]

Studying History is Social Sciences, is it not?

 

[Overswarm]

Studying History is Social Sciences, is it not?

.... *snicker*

 

[Dolente]

Think of it this way...

You're making a map in starcraft. The marines in the game are forced to play by the rules. You are not.

That's all I mean for you to get out of it.

This says absolutely nothing ... In fact, I think it contacdicts you. If God were, in this analogy, the omnipotent player, the enemies would not even exist. In fact, the board would be unable to accomodate enemies. If the battle were over before it began, why did God mess up a few times (i.e., the Fall of Man, the Great Flood, Sodom and Gromorrah) before he got it right? Isn't he omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) so he knew exactly what would come of his actions? Why would he create such a wide universe and distribute a creature in "His image" to one small, exploitable planet? I see the notion of a God such as you describe to be fundamentally incompatable with history. To further utilize your analogy, if He didn't have to play by the rules, why did he let the enemies even gain a slight advantage, nevertheless win three times?

The laws of physics have several blank spots that they still need to fill, but they're doing an excellent job with it, yes.... hopefully the machine stops breaking and we'll get something out of that.

Does this actually help your argument at all?

As for the history thing... the point is scienfitic evidence isn't what you should be looking for 100% of the time. We can assume someone named Jesus walked around and did sermons because there are multiple references to someone of that description. It isn't scientific and it is possible they are all false documents or are talking about different people or something, but it's all we've got and we can assume he existed. We don't have to look at science to solve everything.

We do need to look at science if we want any real proof, which is what we have observed for evolution.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you don't know everything. Do you know how a toaster works? Can you build one? Why are you using one if you only know the basics?

Illogical questions, right? You just do because it does what it wants you to do.

You can't ask someone why they chose their God and use that as reasoning that they are wrong. It's arbitrary. If I give you a math question with multiple choice answers and you pick randomly, you still might be right.

I see where you are going with this, but you're pointing in the wrong direction.

What is the point that you are trying to make here? Are you saying that you use God for what you want Him to do, or that He uses you for what He wants you to do? Either way, I can't help but see the fallacy.

 

[Alphicans]

I have very little knowledge in this area, but it would seem now the conversation has shifted over to God. Why even talk about it? Why even question God's existence or quetion scientific theory. Neither explain everything. I could easily ask someone who wants to disprove scientific theory with, "What came before God." I could ask you the same question.... What are the chances of some supreme deity that has seemingly unlimited power, that could create the universe randomly forming? When I put it that way, God sounds ridiculous, no? So does the universe. This topic is very hazy, and I think debating about it has no solution.

 

[Dolente]

I have very little knowledge in this area, but it would seem now the conversation has shifted over to God. Why even talk about it? Why even question God's existence or quetion scientific theory. Neither explain everything. I could easily ask someone who wants to disprove scientific theory with, "What came before God." I could ask you the same question.... What are the chances of some supreme deity that has seemingly unlimited power, that could create the universe randomly forming? When I put it that way, God sounds ridiculous, no? So does the universe. This topic is very hazy, and I think debating about it has no solution.

Of course it doesn't! That's why it's fun!
God became invovled when the original poster used it to explain why evolution was bogus, rather than actually provide a counterargument for us, the evolution supporters. Rather than simply sit on our unopposed conclusion, we jumped back down into the fighting pit.

 

[MattNF]

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you don't know everything. Do you know how a toaster works? Can you build one? Why are you using one if you only know the basics?

Illogical questions, right? You just do because it does what it wants you to do.

You can't ask someone why they chose their God and use that as reasoning that they are wrong. It's arbitrary. If I give you a math question with multiple choice answers and you pick randomly, you still might be right.

I see where you are going with this, but you're pointing in the wrong direction.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first part, actually. D:

You can't ask someone why they chose their God and use that as reasoning that they are wrong. It's arbitrary. If I give you a math question with multiple choice answers and you pick randomly, you still might be right.

There's a difference. With math, I can solve the equation and get a definite, concrete answer (unless it has multiple solutions, but you know what I mean). I can't make a definite choice on what God to believe in, because they are infinitely many gods that could exist and there is no way to be 100% sure of any choice. The only logical choice is to not believe in any of them. Pascal's Wager (which it seems like you're implying) is inevitably flawed.

 

[Overswarm]

This says absolutely nothing ... In fact, I think it contacdicts you. If God were, in this analogy, the omnipotent player, the enemies would not even exist. In fact, the board would be unable to accomodate enemies. If the battle were over before it began, why did God mess up a few times (i.e., the Fall of Man, the Great Flood, Sodom and Gromorrah) before he got it right? Isn't he omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) so he knew exactly what would come of his actions? Why would he create such a wide universe and distribute a creature in "His image" to one small, exploitable planet? I see the notion of a God such as you describe to be fundamentally incompatable with history. To further utilize your analogy, if He didn't have to play by the rules, why did he let the enemies even gain a slight advantage, nevertheless win three times?

You're taking more out of that analogy than I put into it. Believe it or not, God is not synonymous with someone making a map in starcraft. My intent was to explain the idea of someone not being bound by the rules given by the area in which he is working with.

Does this actually help your argument at all?

It wasn't meant to. o_O

We do need to look at science if we want any real proof, which is what we have observed for evolution.

Evolution and God are not linked. They are seperate and arbitrary.

What is the point that you are trying to make here? Are you saying that you use God for what you want Him to do, or that He uses you for what He wants you to do? Either way, I can't help but see the fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. I was explaining that it isn't illogical to choose a God among many any more than it is to use a toaster without knowing how it operates. If someone was raised in a Christian household, they may become Christian because of it and that could be the reasoning behind why they chose that religion. Whether that God exists or not is irrelevant to the question you were asking. Saying someone has to know 100% about the religion they are choosing before they choose it as well as disprove every other religion is as silly as telling someone to do that with the college they have chosen.



Alphican, you are correct. The ultimate decision is to further our own knowledge and learn something new. Neither side is right or wrong, and anyone that decides that a side IS right or wrong... well, those people are the only losers here. Everyone else is just looking for new information.

There's a difference. With math, I can solve the equation and get a definite, concrete answer (unless it has multiple solutions, but you know what I mean). I can't make a definite choice on what God to believe in, because they are infinitely many gods that could exist and there is no way to be 100% sure of any choice. The only logical choice is to not believe in any of them. Pascal's Wager (which it seems like you're implying) is inevitably flawed.

Logic is the bane of humanity, and of progress.

Logically, you should kill yourself right now. It is infinitely more likely you will experience more pain than pleasure in life, and it is infinitely more likely that you will die rather than live forever. It would be logical to kill yourself now in a painless fashion after spending all your money doing "fun" things to get the best ratio of happy times to bad times.

Yet.... that'd be stupid. Don't talk about not choosing one God among many and then make logic your God. Humans are primarily emotional creatures, and that's probably a good thing.

 

[MattNF]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hZka_-elP4

Here's an interesting video I found that creates a very convincing arugment that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Just felt like throwing this out there.

 

[Overswarm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hZka_-elP4

Here's an interesting video I found that creates a very convincing arugment that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Just felt like throwing this out there.

prolly best for another thread, wouldn't you think? -_^

 

[jellis186]

Im going to jump in real quick.

I think one of the major problem with creationists science is its fear that the evolutionary theory, in some way shape or form, disproves God.

It doesn't. All it disproves is the religious doctrines held strongly by many religious groups.

Evolution does not say God does not exist nor does it say God could never exist. It states that the probability (read not possibility), given the evidence, that we all sprang into existence from a divine creator is far, far smaller than that of us evolving through natural processes.

Hell if you want to, you can say that some divine being has designed a system under which we would evolve into the present state we are today and no evolutionary scientists will argue with you.

Here are some videos that everyone and I mean everyone who has posted here has to watch at least one of.

Thuderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D

Aronra
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC

AndromedasWake
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8772329EDAE7DC3

 

[Dolente]

I actually laughed when I read this one: Thank you Overswarm, for my first laugh today.

You're taking more out of that analogy than I put into it. Believe it or not, God is not synonymous with someone making a map in starcraft. My intent was to explain the idea of someone not being bound by the rules given by the area in which he is working with.

But my argument still holds. Please refute it. I don't see how the analogy is getting less out of what I made of it, because God must be both omniscient and omnipotent, and hopefully omnibenevolent, for Christianity to have any reason whatsoever to believe in it or follow it.

It wasn't meant to. o_O

Then why did you say it?

Evolution and God are not linked. They are seperate and arbitrary.

It has to be linked to God, if He created it. Or is there another Creator with equal powers?

It's not a fallacy. I was explaining that it isn't illogical to choose a God among many any more than it is to use a toaster without knowing how it operates. If someone was raised in a Christian household, they may become Christian because of it and that could be the reasoning behind why they chose that religion. Whether that God exists or not is irrelevant to the question you were asking. Saying someone has to know 100% about the religion they are choosing before they choose it as well as disprove every other religion is as silly as telling someone to do that with the college they have chosen.

...What? I think God's existence is relevant to EVERYTHING, if he does exist.

Logic is the bane of humanity, and of progress.

Logically, you should kill yourself right now. It is infinitely more likely you will experience more pain than pleasure in life, and it is infinitely more likely that you will die rather than live forever. It would be logical to kill yourself now in a painless fashion after spending all your money doing "fun" things to get the best ratio of happy times to bad times.

Yet.... that'd be stupid. Don't talk about not choosing one God among many and then make logic your God. Humans are primarily emotional creatures, and that's probably a good thing.

Logic is all that matters, in either a Godless world that I hope to live in, or one presided over by an all-powerful and all-knowing but somehow flawed God. Some people actually have free will, and would liketo take the time to make enough money to enjoy a lot of things before killing themselves. Or at least, that's what I observed quite often in personality development labs ...

I want to see at least one solid counterargument from anyone who is anti-evolution.

 

[MattNF]

Logic is the bane of humanity, and of progress.

How so? Logic and critical thinking is what drives science forward, and science is what drives innovation, technology, and progress forward.

It is infinitely more likely you will experience more pain than pleasure in life, and it is infinitely more likely that you will die rather than live forever.

How is it infinitely more likely to experience more pain than pleasure? You can't really create a probability out of this situation. What if I find pleasure in just the very fact that I'm alive and healthy? (Which I do)

It would be logical to kill yourself now in a painless fashion after spending all your money doing "fun" things to get the best ratio of happy times to bad times.

Not really. Again, things people define to be pleasure and pain change with each person. It seems to me like you're assuming that I've experienced pain all my life, so I need to spend all my money doing "happy" things to counteract that, then to kill myself to make sure the ratio is even.
A flawed argument for many obvious reasons.

 

[JonaDiaper]

im not anti evolution, just anti macro evolution. it has been proven impossible. humans have always had their mental and physical diseases and saying that down syndrome is proof of macro evoultion is just ridiculous.

there is absoluetly no proof of macro evolution. and yet it is still used as the answer for the reason we exist. we came from nothing, and evolved into homo sapiens. thats a ridiculous claim. there was a man who owned more then 6 million fossils i believe, and he wrote a book on evolution, and he was asked why he didnt have any transitional fossils showing evolution aactually happened, and he said becuase there arent any. no proof for macro evolution.

 

[MattNF]

im not anti evolution, just anti macro evolution. it has been proven impossible. humans have always had their mental and physical diseases and saying that down syndrome is proof of macro evoultion is just ridiculous.

there is absoluetly no proof of macro evolution. and yet it is still used as the answer for the reason we exist. we came from nothing, and evolved into homo sapiens. thats a ridiculous claim. there was a man who owned more then 6 million fossils i believe, and he wrote a book on evolution, and he was asked why he didnt have any transitional fossils showing evolution aactually happened, and he said becuase there arent any. no proof for macro evolution.

No it isn't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You lose.

EDIT: Of course you're probably going to deny all facts and evidence, like a typical creationist. But do some research anyway! ;D

 

[Dolente]

im not anti evolution, just anti macro evolution. it has been proven impossible. humans have always had their mental and physical diseases and saying that down syndrome is proof of macro evoultion is just ridiculous.

How, how, how, HOW, HOW has it been proven impossible?!?! You have not provided even an iota of evidence to the contrary! I have done extensive research in abnormal psychology, and chromosome 22 trisomy syndrome is, by all accounts, a fairly new diagnosis within the scope of human history! If there is no proof whatsoever of macroevolution, then why are dogs 99% genetically the same as wolves and human beings 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees and something like 96% to gorillas? Why have skeletons and fossilized remains of Homo habilis, Australopithicus, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) been found? Sites of such discoveries include Oldowan, Terra Amata, and Mouster. I own well over six million bytes of computer data - does that mean that I know that no one will ever be able to kill 30 enemies in Cruel Brawl because it does not exist in all of my terabytes?

there is absoluetly no proof of macro evolution. and yet it is still used as the answer for the reason we exist. we came from nothing, and evolved into homo sapiens. thats a ridiculous claim. there was a man who owned more then 6 million fossils i believe, and he wrote a book on evolution, and he was asked why he didnt have any transitional fossils showing evolution aactually happened, and he said becuase there arent any. no proof for macro evolution.

See above.

 

[jellis186]

When people say transitional fossils they generally expect to see this

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9030/crocaduck1ce.jpg

 

[Crimson King]

I was going to wait until I got home, but Jona, you are being so laughably ignorant that I am posting on my iPhone.

First, you claim Evolutionists believe that we came from nothing, which is false. We came from cells over millions of years. You however believe we can from dust and wind after about a day when a magical, invisible man decided to create us.

Secondly, let's pretend god made us. He is the most flawed creator in history of creation. First, he allows gay people to exist, which is counter productive. Any manufacturer would say if something isn't producing it is shutdown. Then, using your ******** examples, cans and watches are less flawed then we are. The eye comes in numerous shapes, sizes, and defficiencies. If god created the eye, he failed because many people suffer from degenerative conditions with their eyes.

Fact is if god created us, he either failed or abandoned us or we are examples of evolution.

 

[Overswarm]

I was going to wait until I got home, but Jona, you are being so laughably ignorant that I am posting on my iPhone.

He isn't the best at this game, but you haven't given him much to work with here.

First, you claim Evolutionists believe that we came from nothing, which is false. We came from cells over millions of years. You however believe we can from dust and wind after about a day when a magical, invisible man decided to create us.

Ignoring the straw man arguments inherent.... yes, you do believe we came from nothing. The question remains, where did those cells come from? In the beginning, there was ____. That's all you've got. Your best answer is "I don't know", so you can't slam him very hard for that.

Secondly, let's pretend god made us. He is the most flawed creator in history of creation. First, he allows gay people to exist, which is counter productive. Any manufacturer would say if something isn't producing it is shutdown. Then, using your ******** examples, cans and watches are less flawed then we are. The eye comes in numerous shapes, sizes, and defficiencies. If god created the eye, he failed because many people suffer from degenerative conditions with their eyes.

Flawed from your standpoint, perhaps. If we were meant only to see and some of us had degenerative conditions with our eyes, then sure... but your attributing your own personal beliefs as to what we are "made for" to God, which you cannot do. That's like a casual smasher calling a tournament a failure because there weren't any Final Smashes, you can't do that and expect to be taken seriously.

Fact is if god created us, he either failed or abandoned us or we are examples of evolution.

look up fact in a dictionary

 

[Dolente]

I was going to wait until I got home, but Jona, you are being so laughably ignorant that I am posting on my iPhone.

First, you claim Evolutionists believe that we came from nothing, which is false. We came from cells over millions of years. You however believe we can from dust and wind after about a day when a magical, invisible man decided to create us.

Secondly, let's pretend god made us. He is the most flawed creator in history of creation. First, he allows gay people to exist, which is counter productive. Any manufacturer would say if something isn't producing it is shutdown. Then, using your ******** examples, cans and watches are less flawed then we are. The eye comes in numerous shapes, sizes, and defficiencies. If god created the eye, he failed because many people suffer from degenerative conditions with their eyes.

Fact is if god created us, he either failed or abandoned us or we are examples of evolution.

Crimson King, you are absolutely right in every respect. However, I think that we should try to counter Jona on his own terms, in hopes that he might be "enlightened" by out point of view.
On another note, homosexuality, atheism, other religions, etc. not only fly in the face of an omnipotent creator, but are good enough arguments for free will/nihilism and evolutoin to stand on their own. Of course, the standard creationist argument is "God wanted it that way, and that's how He made it." I guess you have to keep Satan company somehow.
What I (still) want is one, just one, logical and well-concieved argument AGAINST evolution.