Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,600 Year: 4,857/9,624 Month: 205/427 Week: 15/103 Day: 4/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Things evolutionists can't (or can???) explain?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 31 of 46 (55221)
09-13-2003 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Trump won
09-12-2003 11:31 PM


MessenjaH, if you could try to answer my questions with more thna just a "Huh?" and understand the point behind them it might make things a lot clearer to you.
As it is you are just repeating the same mistake over and over again, which does nobody any good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Trump won, posted 09-12-2003 11:31 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Trump won, posted 09-13-2003 10:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 32 of 46 (55316)
09-13-2003 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
09-13-2003 7:02 AM


Can you explain what you wrote a little bit?
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2003 7:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DC85, posted 09-14-2003 1:10 AM Trump won has replied
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2003 5:16 PM Trump won has not replied

  
DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 33 of 46 (55337)
09-14-2003 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Trump won
09-13-2003 10:28 PM


He means this
do you think demons make you sick? or do you believe virus and bacteria do?
He wants to know this
can Knowing that virus and bacteria do it Explain things like where the universe came from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Trump won, posted 09-13-2003 10:28 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 1:23 PM DC85 has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 34 of 46 (55374)
09-14-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by DC85
09-14-2003 1:10 AM


No.... I'm not really seeing your point Paulk, thanks DC for explaining it.
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DC85, posted 09-14-2003 1:10 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by DC85, posted 09-14-2003 3:09 PM Trump won has not replied

  
DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 35 of 46 (55379)
09-14-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Trump won
09-14-2003 1:23 PM


his point is why should evolution explain where the universe came from , light , etc....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 1:23 PM Trump won has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 36 of 46 (55407)
09-14-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Trump won
09-13-2003 10:28 PM


It seems clear enough.
All I want you to do is to think about and answer the two qustions I wrote in my first message in this thread. So far your reply is "Huh?" without any explanation - despite my request that you expand on that response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Trump won, posted 09-13-2003 10:28 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 37 of 46 (55434)
09-14-2003 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
09-10-2003 3:58 AM


quote:
Well MessnjaH I expect you accept another theory related to biology - the germ theory of disease.
Do you think that that theory can ever explain things like time, light, inertia and gravity ?
If not what conclusions should we draw from this fact ?
Ok, so your saying evolution has nothing to do with how inertia,light, gravity etc came to be... But evolution suggests how we are here as humans. Evolution as I explained before has an explanation for this, the Big Bang, so maybe this thread should be in the Big Bang forum but evolution relies on the Big Bang to explain how things started. So know I stil ask the question I began with:
Things evolutionists can't (or can???) explain?
Things BIGBANGISTS can't (or can???) explain?*
------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2003 3:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2003 7:35 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2003 7:36 PM Trump won has replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 09-14-2003 7:38 PM Trump won has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 38 of 46 (55438)
09-14-2003 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trump won
09-14-2003 7:26 PM


You still don't answer the questions. And you still repeat the same mistakes. So I'm going to keep on insisting on an answer in the hop ethat you will THINK about the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 7:26 PM Trump won has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 46 (55439)
09-14-2003 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trump won
09-14-2003 7:26 PM


Evolution as I explained before has an explanation for this, the Big Bang, so maybe this thread should be in the Big Bang forum but evolution relies on the Big Bang to explain how things started.
It doesn't matter that cosmologists can't explain why the universe exists as opposed to not existing. It's like waking up drugged in Mexico. You may not know why you're in Mexico, or how you got there. Not knowing doesn't mean that you're not in Mexico, or that God put you in Mexico.
It just means that you're in Mexico, and you don't know why. Even if you can never explain how you go to Mexico, you'll still be in Mexico until you leave.
Get it yet? (This is an analogy, btw.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 7:26 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 8:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22608
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 40 of 46 (55442)
09-14-2003 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trump won
09-14-2003 7:26 PM


messenjaH writes:
Evolution as I explained before has an explanation for this, the Big Bang, so maybe this thread should be in the Big Bang forum but evolution relies on the Big Bang to explain how things started.
All matter and energy in the universe was once part of the Big Bang. This means that everything on the earth was once part of the Big Bang. If you're going to insist on your point of view, then this means that everything, not just evolution, "relies on the Big Bang to explain how things started." If you want to claim this for evolution, then you must also claim it for geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy and all the other sciences.
Because evolution (biology, actually) is no different from all the other branches of science, it makes no sense for you to single out evolution alone as relying on the Big Bang. All the other sciences rely upon it to an equal extent. The Big Bang is not, has never been and never will be an object of study for biologists and evolutionists. The Big Bang is a topic of cosmology, not biology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 7:26 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1321 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 41 of 46 (55462)
09-14-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
09-14-2003 7:36 PM


So your simply saying noone knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2003 7:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2003 8:50 PM Trump won has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 46 (55463)
09-14-2003 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Trump won
09-14-2003 8:47 PM


So your simply saying noone knows?
Yes. We have no idea why there's a universe instead of their not being a universe. Perhaps it's not possible for a universe not to exist. Who knows? The rules that govern the origin of universes need not be the same as the rules that govern what happens in them (aka physics and logic.)
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Trump won, posted 09-14-2003 8:47 PM Trump won has not replied

  
jadeshadow
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 46 (55840)
09-16-2003 6:07 PM


ok lets start over
Now i am aware that evolution doesn't explain cosmology. Evolution only explains the origin of species. But with a naturalstic worldview, how DO you explain these things. These are questions that need answers whether you are an evolutionist or not, or whether evolution explains them or not. I think people should stop hiding behind other people's words and trying to psycho analyze everyone's posts and just answer the question. How would a natulralist explain the prior laws of science, and for my own personal curiosity, moral values. Where does the "instinct" of morality and conscience fit into this strongest survive motto. And also another un-related thing. Darwin himself said that if the fossil record does not prove his theory in the next few decades, it will disprove it. Not one species to species transformation exists in the earth, or at least none have been discovered yet. With the vast amount of different species on earth how is this possible in the evolutionists eyes. What lie is given to account for the disturbing lack of fossil evidence. (and i am not talking at all about man, or pre-man i am talking about cats and dogs and lizards and such the pre-man fossils are suspected to be fake so dont start a circular argument)

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2003 7:04 PM jadeshadow has not replied
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2003 7:11 PM jadeshadow has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 46 (55858)
09-16-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jadeshadow
09-16-2003 6:07 PM


Re: ok lets start over
jade writes:
How would a natulralist explain the prior laws of science,
By "prior laws of science"...
If you mean what scientists believe the universe was like prior to the laws of science we observe now (ie, before the "Bigbang"), then crashfrog has already done a good job. Scientists can, and must, say I don't know when they have no way of knowing.
That ability stops blank assertions moving on to wipe out future investigations.
If you mean why the laws of science are the way they are... then crashfrog has also already answered this question. We do not know, nor do scientists need to know in order to make observations of what the laws are.
jade writes:
Where does the "instinct" of morality and conscience fit into this strongest survive motto.
I would debate that there is an instinct of morality and conscience. If there was then we wouldn't have as many problems as we do regarding clashes of morality and conscience.
If you mean the prevalent human drive to conform, or to dominate/submit, then that probably comes from environmental pressures of having to survive in "groups". It's kind of a symbiotic pressure on any individual to fill a role, and properly adjust to cues from others on what roles need to be filled.
jade writes:
Darwin himself said that if the fossil record does not prove his theory in the next few decades, it will disprove it.
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?
Not only would such a statement be incorrect, if indeed he made such a statement, but your assertion that no species transformations have been seen is incorrect. Just check around the resources on this site, and through threads on such topics. Many have been stated.
jade writes:
What lie is given to account for the disturbing lack of fossil evidence.
Depends on what liar you happen to be talking to. I've heard many creationists lying about the disturbing lack of fossil evidence and giving false accounts of why such a thing might exist. But I wouldn't put much stock in those lies.
If what you are asking is how does science explain the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms between species, that requires no lies to answer.
The question itself was pursued by a scientist named Gould.
According to early evolutionary models, species change was slow and gradual, and the fossil record (which has few transitional species records) does pose a problem for such models.
According to Gould's model, individuals within a species may fluctuate due to temporary changes (like the beak sizes of birds on Galapagos due to rainfall) but center on a norm for the species itself until radical and fixed environmental change occurs. At that time fluctuations are actively and pointedly selected for by the static prerequisites of the new environment.
This new model means that speciation events take place over short periods of time during environmental upheavals, or if an organism finds its way into a new environment and gets isolated there.
Since fossilization is not easy, nor common, it is not surprising that transitional forms (which by this new model would not be around "long") are less likely to have had any of their populations fossilized. When an organism stays pretty consistent in form for longer periods of time, there is a much greater chance that one of their population will get fossilized, which is why we find more of them than any "tweener" organisms.
Hope this helps.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jadeshadow, posted 09-16-2003 6:07 PM jadeshadow has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 46 (55863)
09-16-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jadeshadow
09-16-2003 6:07 PM


But with a naturalstic worldview, how DO you explain these things.
See my previous post.
Where does the "instinct" of morality and conscience fit into this strongest survive motto.
Firstly, it's not "the strongest survive." It's "the fittest survive". "Fit" in this context doesn't mean "healthy", or "strong", or any common meaning of "fit." "Fitness" is the biological context refers to how many of your offspring survive. The more survive, the more fit you are. So literally, the fit survive.
As for morality, it's called "kin selection." Look it up. We've had an evolutionary explanation for this for ten years. Basically it's that the societies that implement some moral code tend to survive longer than those that don't. Also individuals can sometimes pass more copies of the genes they share with their relatives by engaging in behaviors that actually reduce their fitness (i.e. sounding an alarm to their community at the cost of their own lives, etc.) This is the "selfish gene" concept, and it largely explains altruism.
Not one species to species transformation exists in the earth, or at least none have been discovered yet.
You're quite wrong about this. Not only do we have significant evidence of transitional fossils, but we observe new species arising as a contemorary, ongoing process. It's driven by adaptation and reproductive isolation.
It may be that you don't truly understand what a transitional fossil is. Here's a hint - it's not a half-formed, monstrous bird-fish. All transitional fossils are fully-formed examples of their species. Think about it this way - you're the transitional form between your father and your son. Does that mean you're made of half your father and half your son? Of course not. It means that your father is your ancestor, and you are your son's ancestor. All species are transitional forms between their ancestors and their decendants. (Unless they don't have decendants, of course.)
With the vast amount of different species on earth how is this possible in the evolutionists eyes.
Easy. Adaptation and reproductive isolation. That's all it takes to have massive diversity in a system of natural selection and random mutation.
i am talking about cats and dogs and lizards and such
We're all distant decendants of lizards. If you want Mark on this board can show you a diagram of how the lizard jawbone migrated to become part of the mammalian ear through a whole bunch of transitional forms.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jadeshadow, posted 09-16-2003 6:07 PM jadeshadow has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2003 7:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024