Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You...you're aware of Natural Selection right? The thing that weeds out the developments that don't work?
Ns sorts, the sorting is typically forced, there is no freedom posited in the theory.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You...you're aware of Natural Selection right? The thing that weeds out the developments that don't work?
Ns sorts, the sorting is typically forced, there is no freedom posited in the theory.
I see it from different angle , where is the problem to make more angles ?
let's suppose that evolutists said "I discover that humans evoluted by missing organs "
humans without heart , then comes human with heart , step by step ...etc
is not this evolution ?
For me it's necessary .
so lifeform could be only with intact body ? so evolution with missing organs could not be existed , step by step ?
I mean like the rain building the stream of a new river , drop by drop .
why not ? our very old ancestors could had missing organs ??
for exemple human without eyes , next human with eyes?
I mean : it's evolution mean , the body evoluting (updating) ?
so why our ancestors did not have missing organs ?
Dead? There isn't even a skeleton left at this point. He's just mercilessly beating the very concept of horse(as in, the idea of horses, all of them) now.Hells bells, that horse been dead for a while now.
We can't do calculations to predict when and where mutations WILL occur in reproducing organisms. The calculation you are referring to is a calculation working out the probability that those specific ERVs would occur in two separate DNA sequences in those exact locations. They are completely different.But the other evolutionist just refrenced calculations with endo virus whatever, saying it was extremely unlikely. And now suddenly ypu can't do calculations?
There is nothing irrational about dismissing a hypothesis which has absolutely no evidence to support it. Unless you can present evidence that intelligent decisions occur in nature, dismissing the claim is the only rational thing to do.Evolutionists have a systematic irrational objection to any theory about decisions occuring in nature. Discussion will always turn toward this bizatre willful ignorance of evolutionists.
I mean : it's evolution mean , the body evoluting (updating) ?
so why our ancestors did not have missing organs ?
Nope, not even close.Hi all
I have some question :
Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :
human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc
is not this the main concept of the evolution ?
So evolution is pass from creature to another new creature ?Not in that sense. It is not like building a puzzle piecemeal or anything.
so the creature suddenelly appears with intact function and complete body just like that !!!Because they were functional beings.
You need to read a primary school text on biology, just to know what the terms mean mate. Read a biology book and inform yourself.So evolution is pass from creature to another new creature ?
so there is no evidence about the evolution of the creature of it self ?
so the creature suddenelly appears with intact function and complete body just like that !!!
We can't do calculations to predict when and where mutations WILL occur in reproducing organisms. The calculation you are referring to is a calculation working out the probability that those specific ERVs would occur in two separate DNA sequences in those exact locations. They are completely different.
Also, you have still not shown or explained the mathematics that you say makes evolution unbelievable. Please do so or I will be forced to assume that no such formula exists and that you were merely making it up.
There is nothing irrational about dismissing a hypothesis which has absolutely no evidence to support it. Unless you can present evidence that intelligent decisions occur in nature, dismissing the claim is the only rational thing to do.
You need to read a primary school text on biology, just to know what the terms mean mate. Read a biology book and inform yourself.
I imagine it .and does not workOur ancestors going way back were a single cell.
you said "We know enough" !!!!Well, no. It isn't. We know enough of how lifeforms evolved to tell confidently that it did not happen that way.
because of fans of evolution , always take such exemple , that body of creature changed in timeline .It is? Why? How?
Evolution is (usually) gradual, but not by incomplete, inviable lifeforms. Quite on the contrary, each and every transitional form was and must have been succesfull in its own terms.
why you reject the evolution of creation by it self , it's not that what already happaned ?It seems to me that you are expecting too much of that comparison, so much so that it broke up.
*facepalm*That's nonsense, because then DNA evidence in court cases would be invalid. Otherwise the suspect would just say, well true that the DNA on the murder victim is the same as mine, but it could just as well have been a mutation. These things are calculated.
Garbage. Please show how germ theory has been "mathematically solved".Actually you have to provide mathematics that it does work out. Any theory needs to be mathematically solved.
Yet more garbage that makes no sense. Present your evidence or back down from the claim.The mathematics is simply that every position is either CATG, added with some maths about increasing and decreasing positions. And then you get some power to 10 nonsense number, which you then have to calculate which share of them would actually produce anything let alone an organism.
No it is not. Is it "prejudiced" to not believe in alchemy, or leprechauns, or spotaneous generation? No, of course not. We don't believe these things because there is no reason to believe them - and it's exactly the same with intelligent design. There is no good, rational, scientific basis for believing that life is designed or that evolution is guided in any way.That is just prejudice,
This also makes no sense. Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.many people hate freedom, and these people then go on to do science explaining everything in terms of it being forced. I can see that it is prejudice because they do not even get the hypothesis of how choosing works right.
Yet more total nonsense. Not only do you clearly not understand science, you clearly have no real understanding of what your opinions or beliefs even are. If you did, your argument wouldn't make such little sense.Specifically they have a problem with agency, that this categorically falls outside of science. Which means they have a problem with leaving what is good and evil outside of science, which makes them the anti-thesis of a scientist, social darwinists, because only by making agency a matter of opinion can good and evil be a matter of opinion. You cannot begin to look at evidence for how things are chosen when you get the hypothesis about how choosing works wrong.
Again, this sentence is incomprehensible. What does "mathematics would turn out better" even mean? What evidence is there that "things are chosen"?Reasonably there is plenty of evidence that things are chosen, simply because the mathematics would turn out better is already good evidence.
He didn't say "we know enough to stop investigating", he said "we know enough to know that evolution did not occur in the way you are suggesting it might have". It's like saying:you said "We know enough" !!!!
I disagree , IF there is enough in science , so there is no developpement .
But you can't just ignore the evidence and invent a new way for the process to work in defiance of everything we already know about how the process works. What you're saying is akin to "Why can't we build a working bridge out of crackers?"it's just thoeries who tell about lifeforms , there is no waranty evidence .
Yes. That is correct. Now why do you think that means that evolution happened the way you think it did. We've already explained how your suggestions are inaccurate.because of fans of evolution , always take such exemple , that body of creature changed in timeline .
Definitely: you used to have to actively ask a girl (or boy) out, risking rejection and all the loss of self-esteem that entails. Then people came up with speed-dating, and websites and it has advanced sooo muchAdvances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!
That sounds like creationism not evolution.so the creature suddenelly appears with intact function and complete body just like that !!!