|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4464 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question Evolution! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Panda writes: 4.Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? It isn't. 9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? They aren't. 10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years? They don't. 11.How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? It didn't. 12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’? It isn't. 15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? It isn't.... Well - that's 6 answered. These are your answers? Where is the moderation for this?! He should be suspended. As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat how to refute any of those question. Creationism 1 Panda 0 Quality?...not even close Embarrassed?...You should be Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Panda writes: *opens google**types Chuck77* HAHAHAHAH! Butterflytyrant writes: That was your reply? Where was the moderation for this? You should be suspended. As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat about how to refute Pandas simple and clear answers. Chuck77 0 Panda 1 Embarrassed? Who cares? If you have a problem with Panda's answers, try dealing with them. You championed the thread remember? I am trying to think of a way I could more clearly answer the questions but Panda seems to have covered it. Now I know how CMI feels with the comment section underneath their article. If either one of you could make an attempt to answer the 15 questions that would be cool. Or keep avoiding them and making comments totally unrelated to the OP. Either way is good. Tho, the way you are both handling the 15 questions speaks volumes. This is the Coffee house after all. No explanations or refutations necessary. If you can't do it you can't do it. It's Cool. That's why those 15 questions are making a lot of headway. Because when presented, you avoid them and call them silly while changing the subject, like both of you(and others) have done. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Sorry but putting your evolutionistic spin on those questions does nothing to answer them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
bluegenes writes: 1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? By chemical evolution involving natural selection for function. Can you provide the evidence that natural selection is responsible for this? Let's go one by one starting with question #1. Show the evidence that supports Natural Selection as the mechanism for this.
2.How did the DNA code originate? As above. (1) May as well do #2 also since you respond with the same unsupported answer. Also explain chemical evolution too. How where when did it start? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
I didn't ignore it I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Yes it was respectful and thanks and I appreciate the thoughtout answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Huh? Words games?
Sorry I think your tired Doc. I was responding to bluegenes answer to question one where he sites NS. Maybe you wanna go back and read his answer. Your short winded replies don't answer the question. Evidence Doc...evidence. This is exaclty why Percy didn't put this in the Science section because there is none. Next. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.
For instance "chemical evolution by natural selction" YES, SOME EVIDENCE WOULD SUFFICE THAT NATURAL SELCTION IS RESPONSIBLE. Can you provide it? <---- smiley.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
crashfrog writes: Let me echo Dr. A's point, and ask: what have you done to deserve that much work from the rest of us? I mean, you didn't even come up with the questions, Chuck - you just copied and pasted what somebody else wrote. You're asking us to do quite a bit of research, writing, and very patient explaining of very complicated scientific concepts for you, and for what? I mean, it's not like you're going to be convinced, right? We could do exactly what you say - answer each question in excruciating detail with supporting evidence, and you're just going to claim that our evidence is manufactured, because you believe that evolution is a lie and that all evolutionists are therefore liars. So why should we even bother? It's been months since anybody thought that you were someone who took discussion seriously. You're a troll and you're trolling us with copypasta. That's, like, the lowest possible form of trolling. What on Earth have you ever done to deserve what you're asking for? None of us give a shit whether you believe in evolution or not. It's real and it doesn't need your permission to happen and we don't need your permission to study it. Sorry crashfrog. I didn't know this was such a sore point for you, and for that matter everyone. Questioning evolution. I also wasn't aware that I am considered a "troll" for questioning evolution. That's really wierd. Especially when this is a debate site for evolution/creation. I suppose the same would apply for evolutionists questioning creationism? Also wierd. I guess I could take your comments as uttlery arrogant for calling me a troll because I questionied evolution on a evolution/creation debate site and simply was wondering what people's answers were for the 15 questions. I also and amazed it takes so much explaining. You say "quite a bit of research" and cavediver says (IIRC) should he explain the thousands of papers on the subject. I hadn't realized evolution was so darn complicated. You would think with "a common anscestor" things wouldn't be so complicated that you would have to call me a troll on debating site because I had the audacity to question evolution. Evidence crashfrog is all I was really asking for. It seems it's not that simple apperantly. Everyones answers are really great and I would love to submit them to CMI to show that this is a fine campaingn as evidenced by this thread. Even tho it's not my thread I think it's a huge success thus far. Sorry to have bothered everyone here. It wasn't my intention to "(troll)?" this thread at all. That's so wierd to call me that for questioning evolution. I must not really know what a troll is. Maybe crashfrog you can start a thread on what a troll is and support it with definitions and explanations. Something you couldn't do on this thread. Thanks to everyone else who gave a detailed explanation to the answers or gave an answer to why they think the questions aren't relevant. I'm not even close to understanding evolution the way most of you are. It seems it's not easy based on a lot of your answers. That being said I wonder why I was called a troll for not knowing that, if most of you cannot even explain it "without quite a bit of research".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Tag writes: Yes, science is a bit more complicated than "God did it". Get used to it. Yeah tell me about it! Apperantly it's so complicated that no one can explain it... Ahhh well. Hey, their teaching something to the kids in school right? What is it...that picture of the geologic column? Then they use the finch beaks? Variation within a kind and pass it off as "the theory of evolution". It's quite a charade they have going. So in the text books it'a all lies because we know variation within a kind doesn't equal what the theory really teaches does it Taq? What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe. Get used to it. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
I'm terribly sorry to hear that Creation Ministries aka CMI did not take your request on as of course you expected them to alert the various news outlets of your request and put all else aside just for you and your supporters. Yes, quite a shame.
Maybe you can email the President of the United States next time and see if He has time to look over your next PNT for a quick critique?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit? Well yeah sure. Does the geologic column even exist?
And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same? No problem at all everything they needed to adapt was in their DNA. What's your problem?
chuck writes: What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe. dwise writes: What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case. Kingdom: AnimaliaAre we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are. Phylum: Chordata Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are. Class: Mammalia Are we mammals? Yes we are. Order: Primates Are we primates? Yes we are. Family: Hominidae Are we of that family? Yes we are. Tribe: Hominini Are we of that tribe? Yes we are. Subtribe: Hominina Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are. Genus: Homo Are we of that genus? Yes we are. Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello? Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello? Get used to it. Oh my. I don't even know what any of that means. In english huh? English this time? Does the TOE say we all branchedd off from some sort of common anscestor? If it does then who were they? Don't say because of DNA either. That just implies a common designer. Get your own ideas. Don't steal from the Bible. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
The reality is we are here. Nothing cannot create something. Sorry. I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese. Your smarter than that right dwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Try reading it this time. It's easy to understand. Even a child could. Are you smarter than a child doc?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
It was silly and naive of Butterflytyrant to suppose that creationists ask questions because they want answers. No kidding man. I'm with you. Some answers would be cool. I'm right there with you Doc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know. For instance? There is a lot evolutionists do not know. We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim. Same evidence. It's there for everyone. Common designer instead of common ancestor. No transitional fossils. We have a theory too. Common designer. The fossil record, the flood, the ice age etc.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024