toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

7djengo7

New member
The origin of species IS evolution. Getting from an original single celled life form to a tree a bird or a fungus is a pretty incredible feat no? Many many species appeared along the way, the far and away highest number of species that have ever existed.

So it's like complaining that a book about the evolution of modern car design didn't cover how the very first internal combustion engine was created.


Yes to both.

If I ask you your origin, would you immediately go back to Adam and Eve or would you explain your parents and their ancestry and so on?

What (if anything) do you mean by "ask you your origin"? I do not know what (if anything) it is supposed to be for someone to be "asked his/her origin", kind of like how I do not know what (if anything) it is supposed to be for someone to be "asked his/her shoe", as in "If I ask you your shoe..." Do you mean, "If I ask you a question about your origin"? If so, could you please ask the question you have in mind, here (if you really even do have a question in mind)?

Of Bessie, a calf born in 2019--would you say that she had, 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago, already originated, or would you say that she had not been originated until some time in 2018 or 2019? When, say you, did Bessie originate?

And, do cows evolve? If so, then when, say you, does Bessie start to evolve, and when does Bessie stop evolving? And, please describe what it is for Bessie the cow to evolve. Also, what does Bessie the cow evolve into? That's what evolution is, no?--something evolving into something? After all, we are well aware of the slogan, "Dinosaurs evolved into birds". So, again: when does Bessie the cow evolve, what is it for Bessie the cow to evolve, and into what does Bessie the cow evolve?

Many many species appeared along the way, the far and away highest number of species that have ever existed.

What?? Highest number in relation to what? What is the next highest "number of species that have ever existed"? What is the lowest "number of species that have ever existed"? What is the second lowest, and the third lowest?

And what (if anything) would you say it is for a species to "appear"?

And, would you say that life "appears" when a species "appears", or that life does not "appear" whenever a species "appears"? And, if BOTH life AND species "appear", but not at the same time(s), then when was the first time that a species "appeared", and when was the first time that life "appeared"--which "appearance" preceded the other, and by how much time did the one precede the other?
 
Last edited:

kiwimacahau

Well-known member
By "a belief", do you mean something that is believed? 'Cause, that'll be pretty funny, when you, then, turn around and say that you believe facts. Do you not believe facts? Only a fool would refuse to believe facts.

I don't "believe" facts, they are facts independent of whether I accept them or not. I will say I accept facts including the fact of evolution.
 

7djengo7

New member
I don't "believe" facts,

Why the quotes around the word, 'believe'? I didn't ask you, Do you "believe" facts? Rather, I asked you, Do you believe facts?

Do you believe facts? If not, then why do you refuse to believe facts? What do you imagine you have against believing facts?

they are facts independent of whether I accept them or not.

What (if anything) do you imagine you mean by "I accept them", if not "I believe them". Please tell us what difference you imagine there is between believing the fact, F, and accepting the fact, F.

What relevance do you imagine there is in your saying, "they are facts independent of whether I accept them or not"--how is your saying that even the least bit relevant to the question I asked you: Do you believe facts?

I will say I accept facts including the fact of evolution.

No fact is called (either by you, or by anybody else) "the fact of evolution", and so, whatever (if any) facts you do happen to accept, not a one of 'em is called "the fact of evolution".

Guess what: I don't believe what you call "the fact of evolution". Have fun with that one!:)
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That is once again a very disingenuous argument. The evidence all around us also supports creationism, but you don't even begin to look at that side of the issue. You've made up your mind only your version of "science" can be correct. Well, your version of "science" will never, and can never, explore the supernatural. It won't even admit the supernatural exists in that it denies any evidence of supernatural events. Yet even the steady state scientists are being forced to admit that steady state, long eons of time, are often the worst explanation of things and that what to them has appeared to take eons to form has been formed in front of their eyes in less than 40 years. In fact they have been forced to admit what they thought had to take millions of years to happen has happened in several instances in just a matter of months.

The evidence against evolution is massive, yet you refuse to even look at it. And you call that "scientific".

Edit: Your arguments remind me of what I saw someone argue 15 years or so on the internet. I pointed out evidence for creation and against the assertions he was making against the Bible. His answer? Oh, that isn't evidence at all. Since creation didn't happen, and the Bible isn't true that isn't evidence. It's truly a classic example of circular reasoning, and you do a lot of it yourself.

It's not "my version" of science. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural on any level. You're too invested in your own belief system to realize that an acceptance of the scientific method regarding the natural world doesn't rule out there being a creator behind life itself. That's why people can have religious belief while accepting the scientific evidence of an old earth and evolution. It might be irreconcilable to you but that's what restrictive dogma can do, limit possibilities. For other people, there's no disconnect.
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Radiometric dating is based on MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS. What don't you understand?

ASSUMPTIONS do not produce scientific results.

There's way more to it than that as with other methods that correlate with the universe being old. You've had links provided and you're yet to debunk any given method, let alone radiometric dating even after having being invited to bring it to the table. If you're just gonna bluster without anything concrete to discuss then why even bother? Have you actually got anything?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I understand the theory fine; that’s how I know it’s not based on reality.

Maybe this time you will address a couple of my questions.

So, once again I ask you:



Either evolution is true, or species of animals were originally created as they are today.

I asked you to provide evidence that New species have arisen out of other species, and you have not.

I gave you evidence that fossils of species of animals have been found which still are observable in nature today; which is evidence of God creating them originally in the forms we now see them today.

This same evidence disproves the theory of evolution.
Darwin suggested that animals are constantly in a state of change; if there are fossils of animals that are still living modernly, that is evidence against evolution.

How do you explain the fact there are fossilized animals which people who entertain the theory of evolution believe are tens and hundreds of millions of years old; are still living modernly?

I mean, if evolution is constantly changing species into new ones, how are there fossils of animals remainining anatomically unchanged today?

=M=

==========================


People who believe in fossil dating have fossils of this fish which they believe are over 400 million years old!!!

If this fish has remained anatomically unchanged for that long; how can you believe man came out of a chimp like being in 3.5 million years?!?

Also, if this fish has not changed in 400 million years, when wasn’t it a ceolocanth?

In your opinion, does Evolution happen Fast, or Slow?
Judging by this creature, I’d say it does not happen at all...

There are many more examples that show Evolution does not occur.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/14-fun-facts-about-dragonflies-96882693/

From Wikipedia:

“Meganeura is a genus of extinct insects from the Carboniferous period (approximately 300 million years ago), which resembled and are related to the present-day dragonflies.”

Meganeura_monyi_au_Museum_de_Toulouse.jpg


This fossil is obviously a dragonfly, and it contains all the same functional anatomy that modern dragonflies contain today!!!

This fossil disproves the theory of evolution.

If dragonflies looked exactly the same 300 million years ago; when weren’t they dragonflies?
I mean, if they remained anatomically unchanged for 300 million years, evolution does not happen. This is the only logical explanation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

There are also:

Jellyfish

https://www.livescience.com/1971-oldest-jellyfish-fossils.html

Starfish

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42776719

Bats

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

So, explain to me Arthur: why do you believe in Evolution?

I mean, it seems like these animals have remained the same species the entire time they’ve existed on earth...
The fossil evidence supports creation, not evolution.

Youtube videos don't "disprove" anything and I'll refer you to Alate One's rebuttal to you in your adjoining thread.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Also, djengo!

Not to keep posting videos on your excellent thread, but, well...
Here:

=M=

============================

How to know when you have won an argument:


It's not an "excellent thread". It's predicated on a basic, schoolboy misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is actually about...

:doh:

Most people, when corrected on such an error know well enough to let it drop.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Going to quote the rest? Here let me help "...they are facts independent of whether I accept them or not. I will say I accept facts including the fact of evolution.
I only quoted the part I thought was worth commenting on.

Do you think you're special because you concede that facts remain true regardless of your opinion? Why was that important to say?
 

Right Divider

Body part
There's way more to it than that as with other methods that correlate with the universe being old.
So does this mean that you are FINALLY conceding that radiometric dating in not one of those methods? i.e., is not a valid method for determining the age of anything.

You've had links provided and you're yet to debunk any given method, let alone radiometric dating even after having being invited to bring it to the table.
Stonewalling is a very weak way to "deal" with the problem. Please quit hiding.

If you're just gonna bluster without anything concrete to discuss then why even bother? Have you actually got anything?
:rotfl:

This from the guy that hides from the facts of radiometric dating and runs away when facts are presented.
 

chair

Well-known member
I got your goat merely by asking you to tell me what (if anything) it is for a housecat named Fritz to evolve. It embarrasses you, because, as you and I both know, you can't answer the question; you're incompetent to explain what (if anything) it is for a particular housecat (or Tom the tortoise, or Eliza the elephant, etc.) to evolve, and so, again, you act all snotty at me. I'm just the messenger, so why rail against me? You cherish absurdity and nonsense; I merely help you to see that what you cherish is absurdity and nonsense, and you gnash your teeth in anger at me for doing so, because you cherish your absurdity and nonsense.


  • Does Fritz the housecat evolve? Yes or No?
    [*]If so, when does Fritz the housecat evolve?
    [*]What, exactly, is Fritz the housecat's evolving? Describe Fritz's evolving.
    [*]Into what (if anything) does Fritz the housecat evolve?



You are livid--not so much because you cannot answer questions such as these as because they are asked of you in the first place, and you, put on the spot by them, demonstrate your inability to answer them by failing to answer them. How ridiculous for someone, like you, who loves to parrot the phrase, "the theory of evolution", to not even be able to answer such a fundamental question as to what it is for one, plain, old housecat, or Shamu the killer whale, to EVOLVE. Do you think that it is somehow not a basic, fundamental, essential requisite, for something called "the theory of evolution" to be able to say what it is for your pet dog to evolve?

It's interesting how much of an obsession you have for saying the word, "semantic". The game I'm playing, if you feel like calling it a game, is merely one of asking you to try to say what (if anything) you imagine you mean by the slogans you--because of deleterious mental conditioning--are in the habit, as a Darwin cheerleader, of parroting meaninglessly. Does not 'semantic' mean having to do with the meanings of words and phrases? Why you don't like me talking semantically to you is because you mean absolutely nothing by your fairy-tale Darwinism jargon, and, by talking semantically to you--by asking you about your fairy-tale Darwinism jargon, you are forced to expose--by your inability to answer my questions--your own incompetence to explain your jargon, and the vacuousness of it. I understand why you're angry; you're not justifiably angry, but I understand why you are angry.

Why saying that an opponent is semantical is so commonly considered to be pejorative, and is done with an intent to be pejorative toward that opponent, is an absolute mystery to me. One of the prominent features of your (and Arthur Brain's, and others') immense foolishness, as Darwin cheerleaders, is your manifest disregard for the question of whether or not you even mean anything by the things you say. One of your problems, as Darwin cheerleaders, is that not only are you not semantical about the slogans you chant, but you are downright anti-semantical....which is exactly why you keep on chanting the meaningless slogans you chant. You, Arthur Brain, and every other Darwin cheerleader, mean no more by words like "evolve", and "evolution", than a football stadium cheerleader would mean, were she waving pom-poms and shouting, "Give me an E, give me a V, give me an O, give me an L, give me a U, give me a T, give me an I, give me an O, give me an N, give me an exclamation point!!!" The difference is that she--the football cheerleader--wouldn't be so arrogantly stupid as to go about pretending like she really does mean something by it, as you, Arthur Brain, and every other Darwin cheerleader, pretend to do.
Oh, you definitely upset me with your dishonest games. I hope you are proud of yourself.

Fact 1: I have answered your silly questions. Quite clearly. Stop lying, if you are capable of it.

Fact 2: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So does this mean that you are FINALLY conceding that radiometric dating in not one of those methods? i.e., is not a valid method for determining the age of anything.


Stonewalling is a very weak way to "deal" with the problem. Please quit hiding.


:rotfl:

This from the guy that hides from the facts of radiometric dating and runs away when facts are presented.

What "facts"? You claim that it's been debunked and where I ask you to provide the compelling evidence for that, all I've seen from you is exclamations and assertions. Provide the evidence that does away with it, otherwise you're just bloviating. You do have it don't you?

:AMR:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Oh, you definitely upset me with your dishonest games. I hope you are proud of yourself.

Fact 1: I have answered your silly questions. Quite clearly. Stop lying, if you are capable of it.

Fact 2: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.

I'm not sure that it's a case of lying as such but more a desperate attempt to save face...
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The, at minimum, THREE assumptions that are the basis of radiometric dating.

All THREE of which are unverifiable.

You've dodged that about a hundred times.

Your assertions aren't evidence of anything. If I was "dodging anything" then I wouldn't have put up links that explain it in detail. You claimed it was debunked. So far, squat in rebuttal.
 
Top