Customer Discussions > Science forum

Non-Darwinian evolution


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 13, 2013 2:17:48 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 27, 2013 6:15:04 AM PDT]

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 5:09:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 8:58:25 AM PST
Tends to?
May?
That's proven settled science?

They cant even define evolution anymore.
Today evolutionists are forced to use weasel words, like "might", may, "trends to", "hints of", "emerging insights".

Which makes it tough for us Creationists.
I mean how can we laugh at evolution when they cant say what it is?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 5:15:23 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 27, 2013 6:15:09 AM PDT]

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 7:14:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 7:34:39 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 12:53:44 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 6:23:12 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
This is my favourite thread!

We've got drifter, Chrissy, BeastieBoy and the horse's behind all "debating" with each other!

Please keep it up boys, I want more! (more, more ...)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 8:07:02 PM PST
Re Beast, 1-13 7:14 AM: Every single sentence of this post is wrong. I consider it a waste of my time to refute each allegation individually. Suffice it to say that evolution is conclusively demonstrated [1, 2], and the theory of evolution is provably correct [3].

Yet again, you are accomplishing nothing with your posts except to demonstrate to all the world that you are completely ignorant of the subject.

1. Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth.
2. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters.
3. "Search Customer Discussions" for "saunderse" in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd" for proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 8:27:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 8:29:48 PM PST
After all somebody told you what somebody intrepreted what somebody else translated what somebody else translated which somebody wrote down in non punctated crude ancient Hebrew based on oral tradition which claimed that somebody knew what God was thinking. And if all that is true, one is trusting in this God to be telling the truth... and can we trust this God?

So what does this Bible tell you to help explain all of the life on Earth, and how they are distributed over the Earth? Use some good science unlike the bad science that is used by the current academia. Please give us something to go on so we can actually understand the Earth and all of God's creations across the solar system, galaxy, and universe. Seriously, share.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 8:38:45 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 8:44:59 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
So horse's behind, is creationism provable?

I haven't seen you contributing anything positive to an alternative theory on how life developed on earth. Your posts are generally restricted to saying how evolution is wrong, interspersed with pointless insults. However don't feel bad, that's all we ever hear from creationists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 9:09:41 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 9:21:35 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
So I'll take it from your evasive answer that creationism is not provable?

You've already stated that evolutionary theory is not provable. This is not true of course, but I will have provide examples of that later (no time now).

So if it's not provable, how do you know it's false? Is creationism false?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 9:27:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 9:28:18 PM PST
try proving evolution

i want to see it demonstrated in my lab
or you fail

and before you can talk about evolution
you MUST show how you can create life
else tehre is nothing to evolve and we are wasting our time

Posted on Jan 13, 2013 9:44:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 9:45:03 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
"i want to see it demonstrated in my [?] lab"

Your mother's basement doesn't count as a lab.

"and before you can talk about evolution
you MUST show how you can create life"

Bull dust. The success of modern biology shows that it is possible to explore evolutionary theory without knowing the exact starting point. However, research continues in this area. A reasonable understanding may still be centuries away. We've only been seriously working on an evolutionary model for 150 years and more advanced techniques for 10 years. You need to learn patience, grasshopper.

I'll ask again, if evolutionary theory is not provable, how do you know it's false? Is creationism false?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 9:46:56 PM PST
smoke and boolsheet with logical fallacies

with no life there can be no evolution
nto that it could happen with it at all

otherwise you are a figment of my imagination
and nothing exists at all

you absolutely have to show how you can create life or your evolution nonsense is not worth wasting time discussing

you can research till the cows come home
it is metaphysically impossible for darweenie evolutin to happen

now God could have created life and preprogrammed teh dna to cause something that sort of resembles evolution

but your claims for how it happens are total boolsheet

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 10:11:15 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
The point is evolution is independent of the origin. The process is affected by the environment, not history.

You insistence is, to be blunt, like demanding a consistent theory of quantum gravity in order to explain octaves in music. The two are only related by being a member of the same general field but represent two very different disciplines that have almost nothing in common, except perhaps the mathematics of vibrating strings. Even so, they are two completely different types that have nothing to do with one another physically.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 10:35:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 13, 2013 10:59:06 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
"smoke and boolsheet with logical fallacies"

Show me where the smoke is. You're doin' the huffin' and puffing' so I think the smoke is being generated from your side.
I'm always keen to improve my writing, so I'd really appreciate if you could identify and name the logical fallacies I've presented.

"otherwise you are a figment of my imagination
and nothing exists at all"

You're not really going to pull out that schoolboy solipsist philosophy are you? Really?

"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me" - Bertrand Russell.

To continue in the schoolboy mode for a moment, how do you know that you're not a figment of god's imagination? How do you know that you're not a figment of the devil's imagination?

"you absolutely have to show how you can create life or your evolution nonsense is not worth wasting time discussing"

I realise that you don't understand how science works. We can sometimes study one domain without a full understanding of other domains that might be considered more "basic" or "foundational." For example, physics managed to find and apply quite a lot of useful stuff for several centuries without knowing anything about sub-atomic particles. Biology made some useful gains for over a century without an understanding of genetics. In the same way, evolutionary theory can make progress on its understanding without a complete understanding of biopoiesis.

Can you explain to me what a "metaphysical impossibility" is? How is this different to a "physical impossibility"

"now God could have created life and preprogrammed teh dna to cause something that sort of resembles evolution"

Now you've confused me. Is this a provable statement? If it's not provable, how do you know it's true? How do you know it's false? How is this different to a statement from evolutionary theory?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 7:17:27 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 9:14:19 AM PST
barbW says:
there are many sequences to study, for all to see, and try to falsify. Is there a better explanation?

Science can only continually attempt to develop the best explanation, and there will be set backs.. Why are you so cynical?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 1:30:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 1:31:04 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
"you are so full of yourself"

In the real world it's called trying to engage in debate.

"that you cant think logically"

As I said above, I'm always keen to improve my writing, so I'd really appreciate if you could identify and name the logical fallacies I've presented.

"show me where any evolution happened ever
with real proof"

Try reading this simple introduction to experimental evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

It shows the classic experimental method, generating predictions from the theory and confirming those predictions in the lab. This is how "provable" works in science.

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 2:38:30 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 27, 2013 6:15:22 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 8:21:03 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 8:38:16 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 27, 2013 6:15:29 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 9:49:54 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 10:02:52 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 27, 2013 6:15:34 AM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  31
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2013
Latest post:  Jan 18, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions