Heyo
Veteran Member
@Hockeycowboy: my optimism doesn't stretch so far as to believe you would recognize evidence. But it might help others.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's most vexing problem
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Why do you want to belittle me?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Because I have given up on educating you.
No. Seriously, it's not with bad intention. I accept that you have a fixed world view and that your well being depends on defending creationism. See it as friendly banter. I think we can agree that we have no debate going on between us any more. It is all for the audience. You brushing off my presentation of evidence with an "Optimistic" frubal and my snide remark are of the same class.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
It is difficult to debate willful ignorance.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Again, this is the (intellectually honest) language of science.
If this is your objection, then your objection isn't to a single theory of biology. Then your objection is to ALL OF SCIENCE.
That which is supported by all evidence and contradicted by none, and which makes testable predictions that can be verified and when verified, check out.
Evolution is such a theory.
Because
- it makes testable predictions that check out
- it is supported by all evidence
- is contradicted by no evidence
That's about as solid as it can get in science.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Arguments from incredulity, don't make a dent in scientific theories.
Oh, please! What is found in the Cambrian Explosion refutes it!
It should, because it’s another gap, they keep adding up.
Just saying “evolution did it,” without describing how, is a weak argument...no substance.
How so? Can you elaborate on this.
The Cambrian fauna “appear suddenly” in fossil record, many with very well preserved remains...even the soft-bodied parts.
Evolution predicts there are always obvious ancestral precursors to every species, but they are not found in the substrata, the Ediacaran! They haven’t discovered them...and usually the explanation is, ‘the fossil record isn’t complete, due to unfavorable conditions many animals just aren’t preserved.” That’s right, most times they aren’t.
But in the Cambrian record in both the Burgess Shale and the Chengjiang Lägerstaten, there is no such problem. The record is replete with even soft bodied organisms! And the obvious precursors are missing.
There’s earlier life, but nothing that looks like the trilobites, or anomylocaris, or any of the other species representing the body plans of the Cambrian.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That's an incorrect understanding of the Cambrian explosion. Please see these two links for further information.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
CC301: Cambrian Explosion and Evolutionary Branching
Already read them . They present straw man arguments. Obvious precursors for the Cambrian-appearing life forms don’t exist
Last edited:
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
Ok then from your Christian prospective what was going on in the Cambrian?
A creative event obviously. At all the radiation occurrences.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science told me as an equal life human and female that observation is the first practiced human science law.
Human present to observe.
Science cannot lie about its owned status.
Science egotistic says science only owns answers. If it does not give an answer then it is not science.
Meaning only answers are truth.
Meaning only what I personally think or say is correct.
That status is human egotism.
Yet the maths formulas lead to machines by formula to experiment to learn. Not any formula. Learning.
Yet the claim learning will cause the formula. New.
How can it be new or newly learnt if the symbol formulas maths is the so called answer to everything?
Claim of a theory. Evolution the theory. Some then say it is the only science truth yet ignore what they said.
A theory.
Now try to claim it was fact.
Fact a formula written by symbols on a paper to read and infer the symbols by the human writer.
Not any body that is natural.
I.e.
Says I must false cross + add onto a monkey to pretend how it became a human. No monkey would then exist.
You would have sacrificed it's form trying to force it to be human.
So his brother tired of his human egotism said when you look at an animal it is just "the" animal.
It owns no comparison to any other body especially a human.
As you are observing only what body you are looking at.
Science in the past as human stated said human law stated what you see observe is the first law in science. Theory is not first law. Natural was.
The status for science God was everything was god as everything already existed as a status science. What was not human. Powers. Forces.
Why it was said. No human owned any argument about pre existing natural forms. A human thought upon as a human taught law. For life safety.
If science says a human body chemical is found in an animal body does not make the animal owner of a human chemical.
Why the human law said theism looking back turned the maths womb science fake female terms into a power that altered life into becoming stone.
We know we do not live as stone. So the teaching was to be read knowing scientists tried to convert life as they had converted the stone.
As theists applied comparisons theirselves.
Human present to observe.
Science cannot lie about its owned status.
Science egotistic says science only owns answers. If it does not give an answer then it is not science.
Meaning only answers are truth.
Meaning only what I personally think or say is correct.
That status is human egotism.
Yet the maths formulas lead to machines by formula to experiment to learn. Not any formula. Learning.
Yet the claim learning will cause the formula. New.
How can it be new or newly learnt if the symbol formulas maths is the so called answer to everything?
Claim of a theory. Evolution the theory. Some then say it is the only science truth yet ignore what they said.
A theory.
Now try to claim it was fact.
Fact a formula written by symbols on a paper to read and infer the symbols by the human writer.
Not any body that is natural.
I.e.
Says I must false cross + add onto a monkey to pretend how it became a human. No monkey would then exist.
You would have sacrificed it's form trying to force it to be human.
So his brother tired of his human egotism said when you look at an animal it is just "the" animal.
It owns no comparison to any other body especially a human.
As you are observing only what body you are looking at.
Science in the past as human stated said human law stated what you see observe is the first law in science. Theory is not first law. Natural was.
The status for science God was everything was god as everything already existed as a status science. What was not human. Powers. Forces.
Why it was said. No human owned any argument about pre existing natural forms. A human thought upon as a human taught law. For life safety.
If science says a human body chemical is found in an animal body does not make the animal owner of a human chemical.
Why the human law said theism looking back turned the maths womb science fake female terms into a power that altered life into becoming stone.
We know we do not live as stone. So the teaching was to be read knowing scientists tried to convert life as they had converted the stone.
As theists applied comparisons theirselves.
Justanatheist
Well-Known Member
And is that speculation or is there something in the bible that backs this up?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Two human adults bodies living have sex owning eventual death.
A human baby is human evolution growth from a small form to an evolved form a human grows.
Human evolution. Topic humans about humans first. Secondary chosen topics theory only.
Parents die. Cause radiation condition.
Human knowledge wisdom says radiation equals destruction not evolution.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. Argument from incredulity, is a fallacy.
You not being able to fathom how something works, is not an argument against it.
I don't understand how nukes work, but that doesn't make them not work.
True.
Nobody does that though.