Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution makes no sense
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 63 (13768)
07-18-2002 4:20 PM


It's because evolutionists are so blinded by their own beliefs that they can't see the truth if it hit them in the ass.
I'll post my intense hatred for evolution/evolutionists real soon.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-18-2002 4:23 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 3 by edge, posted 07-18-2002 4:58 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 4 by John, posted 07-18-2002 5:26 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 07-18-2002 7:57 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 8 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 5:32 AM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 07-19-2002 8:09 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 14 by nator, posted 07-19-2002 8:40 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 31 by John, posted 07-27-2002 10:07 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 63 (13810)
07-19-2002 8:09 AM


Ok, fine, I won't keep the debates in here personal.. I know very well how to act in a debate and I know that a person shouldn't take it too personal.. I've been at other message boards debating for about 6 months now and I've had the most experience in Creation/Evolution discussions and I think I know the most about the Creation/Evolution discussion than a lot of other people think..And I'm going to last here for way more than a week...

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 07-19-2002 8:26 AM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 12 by John, posted 07-19-2002 6:25 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 15 by nator, posted 07-19-2002 8:43 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 16 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-19-2002 10:15 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 07-20-2002 1:30 AM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 07-22-2002 4:12 AM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 63 (13940)
07-22-2002 5:23 PM


First of all, no, I don't go to any of the "yahoo chatrooms" and discuss Christianity with Atheists or Christians.. It's because I have a Webtv and when I get on other computers (such as the library one that I'm on right now) I don't have enough time to go on them because it'll just be a waste of time to try and discuss it with them if I can't express my opinions in the lenght of time that I'd like to express them in... And I have better things to do than to BS in a chatrrom.. Furthermore, I don't have a lack of experience in anything that has to do with Creation or Evolution.... Or a lack of respect, either. It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect. That's why I didn't show you any respect because I haven't discussed anything with you. Geez.. If all of you show me respect, then I'll show you respect. If you don't, then I won't either. Ok, so you want to know my reasons why i disagree with Evolution? Here they are. Oh, and I don't mind typing a lot of information with one post, so expect me to post alot in one post pretty often in the future. I have no problem whatsoever with posting extremely long posts.
There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occured either in the past or the present. Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species and plants, but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
Natural selection, the driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. It along with mutations is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with each other) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been coded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within the basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutatiions impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.
Natural selction can also be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Socially, it argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus, barbarism is demanded by natural selction with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.
Practically, it has the following and many other inconsistencies: 1. The natural selction process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. 2. It requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived with basic intricate functions such as respiration or reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. 3. Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependant on order cannot be created by disorder.
Continuing with logical inconsistencies about natural selection... 1. Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. 2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor. 3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. 4. While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed such as a baby to its parent and a seed to it tree, the pattern of growth is circular, not simply crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. 5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival. 6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.
Although evolutionists state that life evolved from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come from life.
The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They neither clear nor conclusive though evolutionists present them as if they were. They present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and of the flimsiest of "finds." Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist only of a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionists declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and them placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look iodentical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of honminids.
Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. They are demonstrated to be extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all, the discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.
The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human, but not something in between.
The rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionsts assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossiles require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time, but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having ovvured. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account, but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years.
I'll continue with answering your questions to this later...
[This message has been edited by Conspirator, 07-22-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 07-22-2002 7:13 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 22 by gene90, posted 07-22-2002 8:08 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 23 by gene90, posted 07-22-2002 8:11 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 25 by Peter, posted 07-23-2002 5:14 AM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2002 12:03 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 52 by TrueCreation, posted 08-08-2002 11:55 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 63 (14010)
07-23-2002 3:36 PM


ewwwww.... icky
Yeah, tell me about it, but it isn't bad. It's not that slow and I hope to get a regular computer in the future, anyway...
I hope you don't equate rebutting you arguments with not listening to you.
Uh, what? If you mean that I don't listen to other people opinions in a debate, then you're wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
So we start off guilty? Is this cold war preemptive strike logic? Geez...
Whatever. The reason that I didn't show you guys any respect is because I don't know how you people will react in a debate. Because I fail to see how I should've shown you any respect because of that and besides, once we do actually get debates going such as this it's obvious that we're going to respect each other one way or another. Whatever, let's just forget about as I do not want this to carry over even more and distract us from having this debate..
Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters.
Could you show me this evidence?
You mentioned 'mutation' then quickly forgot about it. Genes do not replicate with 100% accuracy. There are errors, hence not all the genes match exactly the DNA of the parent organism(s).
Gotcha'.
Perhaps you can precisely define 'basic kind.' No one has yet to do so, that I can tell.
I don't know if I can precisely define "basic kind," but I can tell you what I think it means. I think it means that a cat can never become anything other than a cat and that its "basic kind" can only be associated with cats. Like, a cat can never become anything like a dog that has cat's whisker's.. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Are wolves dogs?
Yes. What's your point?
If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....
How would it get altered in the first place? And how would it get altered at all? Oh, and sorry for asking all the questions..
This is simply wrong. Not all mutations are harmful-- most are perhaps, but not all. One mutations for example, allows a bacteria to digest nylon-- not a bad trick when food is scarce.
Yeah.. But why wouldn't the mutations that supposedly evolved us from a common ancestor be harmful instead of helpful?
Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.
Interesting...
A wristwatch is a terrible analogy. For one, a wristwatch isn't self-replicating. Even the most simple organism is many times more complicated. Ever notice that a wristwatch isn't ALIVE?
If you say so... And of course a wristwatch isn't alive.. Perhaps I should use another analogy...
This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.
I know...
This is a very simplistic application of natural selection to human society. Look up a field of anthropology called 'cultural ecology' Human society is far more complicated than people killing each other and strangely enough, it all has adaptive value. Think about it. No one would live very long if we were driven solely by the desire to destroy the weak. Ever notice that everyone thinks that everyone else is inferior? So WHY would this trait be selected for? Or, more accurately, why would this be the only trait selected for? Why not some other traits as well, that tone down this violence? Your argument is inconsistent.
Well, people still want to destroy the weak in this world... I mean, look at all the deaths in the wars and the power to suceed in anything... People want to crush the weak even today..
Natural selection has no forethought at all. Eyes function at every level of evolution. At first as a vague light sensor, then as a little bit better sensor and so on. What you posit isn't evolution.
I see.. Um, could you explain to me how the eye is a product of evolution?
Are viruses alive? No bodies. No brains. No respiration. No digestion.
Are viruses dead? Do they not eat people's bodies? So, they must be alive or else they wouldn't be able to do that..
All a system needs is power and it will develop order of a sort. Take convection currents in a pot of water on the stove.
But natural selection requires an organism to begin as crude and making it have disorder, then making it into an orderly system..
How do you figure? Seem like they would be much better designed for the environment if they were created to live in it.
How do I figure? Being created for the environment sounds the best to me.. Organisms adapt to environments. They don't evolve into it. I've never seen or heard about an organism that evolved into an environment...
Why? The designer ran out of designs for molars?
Because simillar patterns in organisms resulted in an organism being created. Natural selction couldn't've evolved them to the environment because that would've taken much more time than natural selection had time to do that in...
Statements are not arguments. Care to elaborate?
Ok. Natural selection is a disorderly system that supposedly evolved organisms into us which in turn are more orderly systems. How could natural selection have produced such variety in the world if organisms had to come from a disorderly system? It had to precisely evolve every organism in the world, yet I don't how that could've happened...
Ok.
?
You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.
I'm not sure how to refute this...
Sure it can. Humans are social creatures. Outside of society we don't survive well. But as you mentioned earlier, there is a tendency towards selfishness and barbarism. Emotions like love bond us together. Its a balancing act.
I'm not sure about this either..
That order an independence is a vicious arms race. It isn't some kind of utopia. Things kill other things-- a lot.
Ok...
Humans are animals.
I know. Didn't we supposedly evolve from them too?
Based on what?
Based on the next to impossible chances of evolution ever having occured..
All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.
I don't know what you're saying here...
These are descriptions of how things now work. They are not binding laws.
Yes they are... How are they not?
I spent five years in college studying anthropology/archeology. The process doesn't work like this. There is an enormous amount of measurement, comparison, math, geoscience, etc, etc....
Wow, you're obviously very experienced in these discussions.. And just think.. I've been studying Creation/Evolution for close to 8 months already.. But I don't think that I'm inexperienced. I just need to get more information...
And evolutionists corrected the problem as well.
How?
And you've analyzed the macro and microscopic wear patterns and the fracture patterns to determine that these are just rocks, not tools?
No.. Perhaps I should do it..
Again, there are distictive patterns which can be analyzed if care is taken to do so.
Ok.
So there are extinct hominids. Big deal. There are extinct horses, and extinct birds, and extinct whales.
Ancestor does not mean 'part human'
There aren't extinct hominids... And what exactly does Ancestor really mean?
No one is going to argu this point. But so what?
Then there's no use in typing what I said, was there?
Wrong. Just wrong. All apes share a lot of charicteristics with humans. Monkeys share a bit fewer characteristics. Lemurs and lorises fewer still. All the way back to this little mouse-like thing with opposable thumbs.
Interesting.. I'll try to get back to you on this..
A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.
Yeah, some monkeys have big skulls, little skulls, big hands, little hands, etc..
Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.
Which would be what, exactly?
What final three? And stop with the part ape bit.
The final three suppoed hominids of humans that were later revealed to be just humans and no part ape/money and human... And no, I won't stop with the "ape part bit."
There is not a single complete and consistent flood model that can explain the rock strata, much less explain it better than mainstream geology.
But there have been floods in the past that have been big...
Where did you hear this? Animals generally require rapid burial to fossilize, and then a tremendous amount of time.
I heard it from a site..
A lot of fossils show just this sort of damage. Bacteria don't eat bone.
What damage? And I didn't say that bacteria would eat the bone...
But this pattern isn't found in the fossil record.
Besides which, smaller animals would be suspended by the currents for a longer period and would be deposited at the top.
Interesting.. And what pattern?
But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.
Not if they're dead...
Not even close.
How?
ummm..... the fossils simply are in the rock sediment. How can you argue with this?
Answer: I can't aruge with this.
Like for example?
I don't have any example right now..
Where? Cite something. Roots do not count.
I don't have a site as of now....
Conspirator's lengthy post ranged across the topics of transitional fossils, natural selection, genetics, social consequences of accepting evolution, the origin of life, human origins and geology. There are separate forums for each of these topics, and when different topics are raised together then the appropriate forum is Miscellaneous Topics. Unless there is an objection, within a day or so I will move this thread to that forum.
I don't care if you move it. I wasn't sure where to put this topic anyway, so you can move it in the Miscellaneous Forum if you want..
First of all I want to state that with your opening post I think we all are going to find it difficult to grant you much respect. I will try.
Whatever you say. I'll have to earn respect, then.
I'm concerned about your background in evolution, because there are no theories that posit that animals descended from plants. You cannot blame a theory for a missing transitional that the theory never actually claims should exist!
The missing transitional Creationist argument is old and should be laid to rest. I will give examples of transitionals and include the link to the source I got it from.
I'll try to provide evidence for my assumption about plants to animals soon if I can find a site that'll tell me about it... And that Creationist argument may be old, but it isn't as old as Evolutionists saying that some transitional forms are the missing links to evolution when they have already been proven that they aren't! That's what happened in one of my debates with an evolutionist..
By the way, who said birds are directly descended from reptiles?
I did. Just kidding.. I don't know who said that as of right now..
Every living thing is a transitional form.
Fine..

You are wrong on three counts: Mutations are not always small, they are not always random, and they are not always harmful.
Mutations could, however, be random, small and harmful, could they?
Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.
Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?
Actually by eating meat we would be doing what our species is "designed" to do.
The general idea is that you're only a murderer if you kill your own species. And the percent that the human genome is similar to the bovine genome is something like 85%... Food for thought.
Failure to make a clear point.
I made it clear..
Social bonds facilitate survival amongst social/pack animals.
...
Ok.
Strange, considering that some "thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent" finds are nearly complete skeletons. Perhaps they are unrevealing to you because you have not done an adequate journal search. Just a thought.
Nearly complete does not mean complete... And I have done adequate journal searches...
Tell me, do you know the difference between a monkey and an ape? Your statement above has me concerned.
Yes, I do.
Bring me a live Neanderthal.
How would one go about doing that? And I don't think anyone can do that today...
You are suggesting in one breath that order cannot come from
disorder, and then relying on it in the next.
How so?
I'm getting kind of tired posting this right now, so I'll address the rest of Peter's questions later.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 07-23-2002 7:04 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 07-24-2002 12:53 AM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 34 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 8:06 AM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 63 (14910)
08-06-2002 2:57 PM


No, I haven't "left," I just had enough time to come here. And I didn't copy and paste anything from my first lengthy post because that would be a little something called "plagerism" which is illegal. So no, I haven't left. I'll never leave. Deal with it. Get over it.
And by the way, I'm not done discussing this just yet, so expect me to post more in the future and your insults aren't going to insult me. So go ahead and insult me, but don't expect me to get offended by them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 08-06-2002 3:34 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 48 by gene90, posted 08-06-2002 6:47 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 49 by John, posted 08-06-2002 7:16 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 63 (14914)
08-06-2002 3:42 PM


I haven't started? Then what was the point of my lenghty posts? That at least had something to so with what we're talking about.

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Admin, posted 08-06-2002 4:41 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 63 (16030)
08-24-2002 11:54 AM


I'm back. I'll get around to the other posts soon. I don't have enough time to post now, so I'll post on Monday.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024