Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Why not?]

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

One key thing you guys are doing wrong is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact. If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today. Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever. If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

My blowing isn't it?

now you can stop this unnecessary little organism talk and think about how it got there.

Now if anyone can possibly rebuttal this argument I would love to hear it, because after all this forum is for coming to an understanding. :angel2:

 

[McBell]

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

One key thing you guys are doing wrong is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact. If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today. Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever. If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

My blowing isn't it?

now you can stop this unnecessary little organism talk and think about how it got there.

Now if anyone can possibly rebuttal this argument I would love to hear it, because after all this forum is for coming to an understanding. :angel2:

What "argument"?
If you mean your "nothing comes from nothing except god" argument, it has already been shown to be a big heaping pile of bull...
um...
it has already been debunked numerous times on this forum alone.

 

[proffesb]

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever. If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

Just because you or I cannot comprehend something doesn't make it impossible, That kind of thinking limits ourselves. If you don't believe something that's fine but denying a possibility out of ignorance or fear is just wrong.

As I like to say "I think I am correct about everything, but I know I am not."

My blowing isn't it?

I usually don't make fun of typos but I am going to jokingly agree with this one. Hope you have a sense of humor.

 

[Oneatatime]

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

One key thing you guys are doing wrong is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact. If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today. Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever. If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

My blowing isn't it?

now you can stop this unnecessary little organism talk and think about how it got there.

Now if anyone can possibly rebuttal this argument I would love to hear it, because after all this forum is for coming to an understanding. :angel2:

Your question is about ambiogenesis not evolution. There has been considerable work done on Ambiogenesis and Calilasseia at RS kindly gives a list of published peer-reviewed papers on the topic. My chemisty isn't very good so much of the work that scientists are doing is beyond me but when put in layman terms they are interesting. Fundamentally there is no difference between what we classify as living and non-living because their constituent parts i.e. atoms are the same. It is an exciting subject because once determine experimentally the condition under which life will arise we will be able to make predictions on where we should and should not find life and technology permitting go out and see if this is the case.

 

[David M]

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

Because that is what the evidence points to. ToE is massively supported by evidence.

One key thing you guys are doing wrong is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact. If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today. Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

You are mistaken, because ToE in no way relies on the Big Bang Theory being true.

There are no credible facts to support anuthing other than ToE.

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever. If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

Chemistry. You do realise that non-living matter and living matter are made up of exactly the same things don't you, and that every second non-living matter is turned into living matter by chemical processes?

Would you like to explain exactly why its impossible for life to arise by obeying the laws of physics and chemistry?

My blowing isn't it?

Not so much for those who have learned a little about reality.

Now if anyone can possibly rebuttal this argument I would love to hear it, because after all this forum is for coming to an understanding. :angel2:

What argument? All you have done is made an assertion without evidence.

Just to add, there was no explosion of dense matter according to the big bang theory.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

Pardon me - but there's really is no such thing as a "Darwinist".

I might as well ask you - are you a "Newtonist" ?
Do you believe in Newton's theory of gravity ?

Are you a "Pasteurist" ?
Do you believe in Pasteur's theory of Germs ?

Science is not about belief in one person, or their views. Evolution is not "Darwinism" any more than gravity is Newtonism.

The term Darwinist is a deliberately misleading term used by creationists to falsely imply that evolution is some sort of faith or belief in Darwin and his beliefs.

That is just not correct - it's just like than calling scientists "Newtonists" or "Pasteurists".

One key thing you guys are doing wrong

Who are "you guys" ?
It's like you think there are two teams - two football teams arguing with each other. It's nothing like that.

is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact.

Pardon ?
The Big Bang's left over evidence can be observed. We can see the dim glow of the Big Bang with delicate instruments. The details are not all known of course - but so what ?

If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today.

No.
You are totally mistaken.

You have confused several different things :

The Big Bang
The Big Bang happened once about 14 billion years ago - it was the beginning of all time and space. The BB has NOTHING to do with evolution. Life came afterwards.

Abiogenesis
The beginning of life on earth - happened once (or conceivably a few times) about 3 billion years ago.

Evolution
How life changed and diversified. Evolution occurs to this day and is an observed fact of nature. AND - there is a theory to explain it.

Seriously - your mistaken view of evolution is the usual creationism mish-mash of nonsense. If you want to have a discussion about evolution I would suggest you find out what it's actually about.

Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

In dozens of countries over decades and centuries, thousands of scientists have performed tests, experiments and observations that could support or disprove evolution.

The score so far :

Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against

Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against

If there was even ONE test which disproved evolution, then creationists would trumpet it at every post in every forum on every web site.

But they don't.
Because they cannot.
Because there is NOT ONE SINGLE example that disproves evolution.

And there are MILLIONS of pieces of evidence for.

Most creationists do not actually know that of course, because their idea of evolution comes from people who either don't know, or lie.

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,
- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.
The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever.

Really?
Please show you actual working - your figures.

You are making an argument based on probability, on math, right?
So please show us the figures and the working that you used to reach that conclusion.

In fact -
you made no calculation - some creationist simply told you that and you repeated it.

If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.
My blowing isn't it?

Yes, you're blowing. You're blown.
You have no idea what evolution is abaout.

This is like saying :

"Ok then believers -
Explain how Jesus parted the Red Sea using only a loaf of bread ?"

You'd be like - WTF?

That's what your posts are like - WTF?

It confirms what we see here day after day - the creationists have no idea what evolution is about at all.

It's true -
anyone who disagrees with evolution does not understand it.


Iasion

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

One key thing you guys are doing wrong is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact. If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today. Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever. If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from. And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

My blowing isn't it?

now you can stop this unnecessary little organism talk and think about how it got there.

Now if anyone can possibly rebuttal this argument I would love to hear it, because after all this forum is for coming to an understanding. :angel2:

Mr. O'Reilly? That you?

 

[painted wolf]

I think someone is confusing Abiogenesis with Spontaneous Generation. (and then confusing both for Evolution)

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Gday,



Pardon me - but there's really is no such thing as a "Darwinist".

I might as well ask you - are you a "Newtonist" ?
Do you believe in Newton's theory of gravity ?

Are you a "Pasteurist" ?
Do you believe in Pasteur's theory of Germs ?

Science is not about belief in one person, or their views. Evolution is not "Darwinism" any more than gravity is Newtonism.

The term Darwinist is a deliberately misleading term used by creationists to falsely imply that evolution is some sort of faith or belief in Darwin and his beliefs.

That is just not correct - it's just like than calling scientists "Newtonists" or "Pasteurists".




Who are "you guys" ?
It's like you think there are two teams - two football teams arguing with each other. It's nothing like that.



Pardon ?
The Big Bang's left over evidence can be observed. We can see the dim glow of the Big Bang with delicate instruments. The details are not all known of course - but so what ?




No.
You are totally mistaken.

You have confused several different things :

The Big Bang
The Big Bang happened once about 14 billion years ago - it was the beginning of all time and space. The BB has NOTHING to do with evolution. Life came afterwards.

Abiogenesis
The beginning of life on earth - happened once (or conceivably a few times) about 3 billion years ago.

Evolution
How life changed and diversified. Evolution occurs to this day and is an observed fact of nature. AND - there is a theory to explain it.

Seriously - your mistaken view of evolution is the usual creationism mish-mash of nonsense. If you want to have a discussion about evolution I would suggest you find out what it's actually about.




In dozens of countries over decades and centuries, thousands of scientists have performed tests, experiments and observations that could support or disprove evolution.

The score so far :

Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against

Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against

If there was even ONE test which disproved evolution, then creationists would trumpet it at every post in every forum on every web site.

But they don't.
Because they cannot.
Because there is NOT ONE SINGLE example that disproves evolution.

And there are MILLIONS of pieces of evidence for.

Most creationists do not actually know that of course, because their idea of evolution comes from people who either don't know, or lie.



Really?
Please show you actual working - your figures.

You are making an argument based on probability, on math, right?
So please show us the figures and the working that you used to reach that conclusion.

In fact -
you made no calculation - some creationist simply told you that and you repeated it.




Yes, you're blowing. You're blown.
You have no idea what evolution is abaout.

This is like saying :

"Ok then believers -
Explain how Jesus parted the Red Sea using only a loaf of bread ?"

You'd be like - WTF?

That's what your posts are like - WTF?

It confirms what we see here day after day - the creationists have no idea what evolution is about at all.

It's true -
anyone who disagrees with evolution does not understand it.


Iasion

Perhaps it is not so much about disproving evolution as it is about having robust reasons to be skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm as the process that resulted in life on earth.

Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."
Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say."
Dr. Raul Leguizamon, Pathologist, and a Professor of Medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico

"Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims."
Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."
Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

"Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

"We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They've never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things."
Dr. Michael Egnor professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

"I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science."
Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry

"To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic."
Dr. Russell Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at University of Georgia

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
　
Let’s not forget Henry Schaefer, a well credentialed scientist, regardless of whether or not he is a Nobel Prize winner.
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/　
　
　

It appears that the majority of evolutionists on RF are simply in denial. There are many skeptics and they are not all uneducated, nor ignorant.

It is not just about disproving TOE. Disproving TOE does not prove biblical creation. It is about being skeptical and having good reason to be so.

 

[McBell]

I see newhope is still pushing her lies.

 

[painted wolf]

And not addressing the OP....

wa:do

 

[RitalinO.D.]

The problem is, she is basing an argument on Darwinism as the only evolutionary theory that exists, which non ignorant people know isn't true.


Typical ploy.

 

[camanintx]

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

Why don't you first explain what differentiates a living organism from a non-living one. Are bacteria alive? How about viruses? Where exactly do you draw the line?

 

[Oneatatime]

This is what the signers needed to agree to when they signed up to 'A scientific dessent from Darwinism'.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the diversity of life which is why there are other things such as genetic drift included in evolution theory. The evidence for any scientific theory should be carefully examined. I see no reason why someone who accepts evolution would not agree to this statement.

Lets have a look at these quotes

Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

“Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work.”


“Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

Darwinism vs modern evolutionary theory

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
“Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

Darwinism vs modern evolutionary theory

Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.”

Evolution is fundamental to an understanding of biology. I suspect what he was being critical of was things like Dawkins Selfish Gene which resulted in many people focusing on natural selection at the level of the gene and disregarding natural selection operating at other levels.

Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology.”

The Origin of Species wasn't a trivial idea but its correct that evolution theory is now fundamental to an understanding of biology.

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry

“Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.”

Darwinism vs modern evolution theory

Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University

“Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.”

Darwinism vs moder evolution theory

All adopted from A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
” We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

See above - Nothing wrong with this statement.


Its important when reading such quotes to remember that Darwinism referes to evolution as Darwin himself proposed which has since been modified, added too and improved and in its modern form is refered to by various names including neo-Darwinism or modern evolution theory. It is useful for students to learn the history of evolution and how Darwinism compares to modern evolution theory which is vastly more complex. The purpose of this creationist exercise is to trick people into thinking that there is a deep division amongst scientists on the issue of evolution by misleading the reader who doesn't understand what is meant by the use of the word Darwinism as opposed to evolution in its modern form.

Just for a bit of fun lets not forget Project Steve. A list of scientists called Steve who can offer a qualified opinion on the issue of evolution. Here is the statement that they gave their agreement to when they signed. Not that numbers really matter but this list outnumbers that of the creationist list and includes far more biologists,

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

 

[proffesb]

Mr. O'Reilly? That you?

Hey man, the tide goes in tide goes out never a miscommunication. Argue with that.

Seriously I love watching O'reily, he is like the bad guy in wrestling.

 

[Jose Fly]

I see newhope is still pushing her lies.

Well, isn't that how this "debate" goes?

1) Creationist pastes copied arguments that were refuted decades ago;

2) "Evolutionists" line up and take turns trying to explain basic science to them and explaining why their copied arguments are wrong;

3) Creationist ignores all attempts to educate him and continues to post more copied arguments;

4) "Evolutionists" continue to try and educate him;

5) Creationist leaves;

6) New creationist enters forum and starts at #1.


Now you know why I don't bother much with these "debates" any more.

 

[Big_TJ]

Heya Big_TJ,

You're posts are very patient and mild
Good work.

Well thanks! Usually I am not very patient, but you really have to build a lot of patience to reading some views from certain individuals:yes:

 

[Big_TJ]

"Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?
Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that. One key thing . . . . blah blah blah, blah blah blah :angel2:"

Welcome to RF!
Remember the rules: "not what YOU think evolution says; stick to the definition given in the opening post. I agree that you may have issues if you try to use discuss evolution based on what your church teaches that it says, so stay with the definition above. What about evolution, USING THE DEFINITION ABOVE, do you disagree with and why?

 

[Big_TJ]

Perhaps it is not so much about disproving evolution as it is about having robust reasons to be skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm as the process that resulted in life on earth .... blah blah blah, blah blah blah

:faint:

Newhope, you are not playing fair. This thread is not about bashing Evolution; it is about you stating what aspect of evolution do YOU disagree with; remember use the definition given above. This does not require any source citation, unless you are sending us to a reliable source that substantiate why you disagree with THAT aspect of evolution.

Also, are you going to respond to my previous post (post # 16)? I am really interesting in your views.

 

[Big_TJ]

Do you guys notice a trend? Whenever you ask creationist SPECIFIC questions, they cannot answer. For example:

Question 1: How do you think God created everything?
Answer: Evolution is false because blah blah blah

Question 2: What do you think the Theory of Evolution says:
Answer: You can't define species so Kind is not a problem.

Question 3: What problem do you have with definition, using the correct definition of Evolution?
Answer: Many persons who are well-trained do have skeptism about evolution.

WTF????

Why can't creationist answer simple, straight-forward questions?????:help:

(actually, i think i get an idea for another thread)