The Creation of Woman

[FearGod]

WTF?? How does that support your claim? You simply have no idea what you are arguing about. We need to go over the basics of what science is so that you do not keep making these errors.

Let's start with the scientific method. Here is a simplified illustration of the steps involved:

Let's go over the steps in that illustration. Then you should be able to see your errors. Are you ready?

Does evolution work in such logical way?
The nature brought the human brain to existence without the need of any experiments, without analyzing
any data and without careful checking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does evolution work in such logical way?
The nature brought the human brain to existence without the need of any experiments, without analyzing
any data and without careful checking.

Yes, it does.

And you just demonstrated that you have no understanding of how one works in the sciences. Are you ready to learn? Let's go over that diagram point by point.

 

[FearGod]

No one is denying that. However, evolution is a constant, past, present, future, and ongoing process. Where there is life, there is evolution, and life will continue to evolve until life is no more.

At this moments we're humans, I don't know what will be the case after one millions years.
if our kind changed then still we'll be created in the new evolved form, creation is past, present and future.

 

[FearGod]

Yes, it does.

And you just demonstrated that you have no understanding of how one works in the sciences. Are you ready to learn? Let's go over that diagram point by point.

Tell me then how our brains were developed by experiments, analyzing data and careful checking?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At this moments we're humans, I don't know what will be the case after one millions years.

What exactly is human? Were not our homo erectus and neanderthal forerunners also human? Afterall, they did many of the same things we did, such as making fire and tools, adorning themselves with jewelry, and ritually burying their dead.

 

[FearGod]

What exactly is human? Were not our homo erectus and neanderthal forerunners also human? Afterall, they did many of the same things we did, such as making fire and tools, adorning themselves with jewelry, and ritually burying their dead.

And they were created in the womb, still as we do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me then how our brains were developed by experiments, analyzing data and careful checking?

Wow!

No, evolution is a process. Your question is also poorly formed. You have no clue about the science that you oppose and you appear to think that you can refute it with a poorly asked question. Please try to ask honest questions. If you have an unsupported assumption in your question I will point it out to you. Here your assumption just looks weird. Your question as asked merely shows a lack of education and is pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And they were created in the womb, still as we do?

Grew in the womb, let's not use misleading and undefined terms, that is not an honest or proper way to debate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And they were created in the womb, still as we do?

Yes, they reproduced sexually, possibly interbred, and millions of years later we, homo sapiens, eventually came into being.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Grew in the womb, let's not use misleading and undefined terms, that is not an honest or proper way to debate.

Does it really matter what words are used as long as we understand what's being asked? Splitting hairs in a debate is what is improper.

 

[FearGod]

Wow!

No, evolution is a process. Your question is also poorly formed. You have no clue about the science that you oppose and you appear to think that you can refute it with a poorly asked question. Please try to ask honest questions. If you have an unsupported assumption in your question I will point it out to you. Here your assumption just looks weird. Your question as asked merely shows a lack of education and is pointless.

LOL, it shows your weak position, you believe that the human brain developed without experiments,
without research, without analyzing and without careful checking and still talking about science,
you're really dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does it really matter what words are used as long as we understand what's being asked? Splitting hairs in a debate is what is improper.

In this case yes. The improper use of the word "creation" has already been used in a equivocation fallacy.

ETA: The poster appears to be fogging his own mind by using poor terminology. If he is forced to use proper terminology he will hopefully be force to think clearly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, it shows your weak position, you believe that the human brain developed without experiments,
without research, without analyzing and without careful checking and still talking about science,
you're really dishonest.

Wow! No, why do you think that experiments needed to be done? You clearly have no clue as to what you are arguing against nor do you understand the scientific method. Instead of constantly shooting yourself in the foot and making obviously false claims about me why don't you try to learn?

Once again, evolution is a process. There is no goal in evolution. You were not a goal, you are merely a result. The intelligence that we have was not a goal, it was merely a result.

And nature does not experiment, nor does it need to. Let me try to help you. Once you understand to concepts you should be able to understand how evolution occurs.

The first concept is variation. There are multiple sources of variation. It does not only come from only random mutations. If you understand statistics at all and how life varies you will see that there will be a range of traits that will appear. No "luck" needed. With any sufficiently large enough population there will be a range in strength, intelligence, resistance to disease, etc..

The second concept is natural selection. The life that is most successful in bringing their offspring to the age of reproduction and having them successfully reproduce are going to be the ones that we see. Variations that help in a particular environment will be passed on. Variations that do not help will die off. Remember, "stronger" is not always better. Strength takes more energy than a lack of strength, at times excessive strength is a negative trait and will not be passed on to the next generation, it will die out. Positive traits are environment specific. Natural selection will "choose" the life that is best suited to a particular environment.

Between the two life will evolve. Now if you want to you can think of every single new organism as an "experiment". It is not since there is no intent, but the results are very similar to if one tried to breed specific traits. But just because something looks like it might have been designed does not make that the case. A snowflake looks "designed". We know how and why they grow as they do, no designer needed. The same applies to life.

 

[FearGod]

Wow! No, why do you think that experiments needed to be done? You clearly have no clue as to what you are arguing against nor do you understand the scientific method. Instead of constantly shooting yourself in the foot and making obviously false claims about me why don't you try to learn?

Once again, evolution is a process. There is no goal in evolution. You were not a goal, you are merely a result. The intelligence that we have was not a goal, it was merely a result.

And nature does not experiment, nor does it need to. Let me try to help you. Once you understand to concepts you should be able to understand how evolution occurs.

The first concept is variation. There are multiple sources of variation. It does not only come from only random mutations. If you understand statistics at all and how life varies you will see that there will be a range of traits that will appear. No "luck" needed. With any sufficiently large enough population there will be a range in strength, intelligence, resistance to disease, etc..

The second concept is natural selection. The life that is most successful in bringing their offspring to the age of reproduction and having them successfully reproduce are going to be the ones that we see. Variations that help in a particular environment will be passed on. Variations that do not help will die off. Remember, "stronger" is not always better. Strength takes more energy than a lack of strength, at times excessive strength is a negative trait and will not be passed on to the next generation, it will die out. Positive traits are environment specific. Natural selection will "choose" the life that is best suited to a particular environment.

Between the two life will evolve. Now if you want to you can think of every single new organism as an "experiment". It is not since there is no intent, but the results are very similar to if one tried to breed specific traits. But just because something looks like it might have been designed does not make that the case. A snowflake looks "designed". We know how and why they grow as they do, no designer needed. The same applies to life.

Do you think that the digital encoded informations in the DNA and the copy paste features have been
the product of the unconscious matters on earth and then you speak about scientific procedures?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think that the digital encoded informations in the DNA and the copy paste features have been
the product of the unconscious matters on earth and then you speak about scientific procedures?

There is no reason to think that they did not arise naturally. And remember, personal ignorance about a topic is not a valid tool for refutation.

Let's get back to the scientific method. Right now you have conflated the scientific method as done by people with what happens in nature. This is not proper. It is rather ridiculous.

Here is the image again:

Please note the first step. One asks a question. Do you see that?

 

[FearGod]

In this case yes. The improper use of the word "creation" has already been used in a equivocation fallacy.

ETA: The poster appears to be fogging his own mind by using poor terminology. If he is forced to use proper terminology he will hopefully be force to think clearly.

And what's the proper terminology to replace the word created?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what's the proper terminology to replace the word created?

It depends upon what you are discussing. The problem with the word "created" is that it implies intent. There was no intent in your growth in the womb. "Growth" is a better word since it does not have a false intent. It applies whether there was intent or not. It is not a loaded term.

 

[FearGod]

There is no reason to think that they did not arise naturally. And remember, personal ignorance about a topic is not a valid tool for refutation.

Let's get back to the scientific method. Right now you have conflated the scientific method as done by people with what happens in nature. This is not proper. It is rather ridiculous.

Here is the image again:

Please note the first step. One asks a question. Do you see that?

Yes I see it, it's logical steps, and hence I'll ask you a question and follow the scientific method,
How nature encoded the DNA by the digital information and made copy and paste possible,
now let's follow the scientific method, teach me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I see it, it's logical steps, and hence I'll ask you a question and follow the scientific method,
How nature encoded the DNA by the digital information and made copy and paste possible,
now let's follow the scientific method, teach me.

Not yet. You need to learn how to crawl before you learn how to run. No jumping ahead in the lesson plan.

The subject is evolution, not abiogenesis. By moving the goalposts you concede the earlier debate. Are you ready to concede that life is the product of evolution?

 

[FearGod]

It depends upon what you are discussing. The problem with the word "created" is that it implies intent. There was no intent in your growth in the womb. "Growth" is a better word since it does not have a false intent. It applies whether there was intent or not. It is not a loaded term.

Can it be like this?
How to create a baby? the intention is to create a baby, the method for the baby to be created
is a man to sleep with a woman, then if it worked, the product will be created within 9 months,
is't OK?