Total Posts:248|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Testable Evidence on the Logic of Evolution

Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:01:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

*sigh*

1. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Most evolutionists are Christian.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. They are different theories.
3. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion of spacetime.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:01:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

I will do so once you provide logical, thought out and demonstratable reasons why 'seeing something occur' is the only acceptable way of determining the veracity of anything.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:07:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:01:04 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

*sigh*

1. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Most evolutionists are Christian.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. They are different theories.
3. The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion of spacetime.

Resonse: What came first, the Big Bang or evolution? If the Big Bang came first, then evolution is still the result of it. Thus if evolution is the result of expansion, then present testable and observble evidence of something expanding into a new species?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:08:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, the Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion. A balloon inflating is a more accurate (though not that accurate) analogy than an explosion.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:09:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:01:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

I will do so once you provide logical, thought out and demonstratable reasons why 'seeing something occur' is the only acceptable way of determining the veracity of anything.

Response: Answering a question with a question, thus dodging the question all together and no answer. Thus showing evolution has no logical answer. Thanks.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:12:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:08:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Also, the Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion. A balloon inflating is a more accurate (though not that accurate) analogy than an explosion.

Response: But blowing up a balloon never causes the development of a new balloon or material different from the balloon. So I agree, it is a good analogy of showing the science fiction of evolution.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:12:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:09:48 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:01:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

I will do so once you provide logical, thought out and demonstratable reasons why 'seeing something occur' is the only acceptable way of determining the veracity of anything.

Response: Answering a question with a question, thus dodging the question all together and no answer. Thus showing evolution has no logical answer. Thanks.

The question is based on a false premise. If you were defending yourself in court, would you answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or would you question the assumption behind the question?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:13:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:12:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:08:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Also, the Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion. A balloon inflating is a more accurate (though not that accurate) analogy than an explosion.

Response: But blowing up a balloon never causes the development of a new balloon or material different from the balloon. So I agree, it is a good analogy of showing the science fiction of evolution.

Everything that exists was already contained in a simpler form in the singularity. There are no fundamentally new things that were not present when the big bang took place.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:15:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, although better informed than you, I'm not a physicist. You should take a degree in cosmology before criticising the Big Bang theory - otherwise you won't understand what it is you're critiquing.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:16:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:12:09 AM, Kinesis wrote:


The question is based on a false premise. If you were defending yourself in court, would you answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or would you question the assumption behind the question?

Response: If I was defending myself in court, I would answer the questions being asked, and not dodge them and ask another question.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:20:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:13:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:12:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:08:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Also, the Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion. A balloon inflating is a more accurate (though not that accurate) analogy than an explosion.

Response: But blowing up a balloon never causes the development of a new balloon or material different from the balloon. So I agree, it is a good analogy of showing the science fiction of evolution.

Everything that exists was already contained in a simpler form in the singularity. There are no fundamentally new things that were not present when the big bang took place.

Response: Yet your vey own analogy shows that expansion creates the same entity to only become larger, not to become a different entitly. So your own analogy contradicts the claims of evolution.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:20:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:16:05 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:12:09 AM, Kinesis wrote:


The question is based on a false premise. If you were defending yourself in court, would you answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or would you question the assumption behind the question?

Response: If I was defending myself in court, I would answer the questions being asked, and not dodge them and ask another question.

The question implicitly assumes that you have beaten your wife. If you answer the question assuming its premises, you admit your guilt - whether or not you actually are guilty.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:21:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:15:55 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Anyway, although better informed than you, I'm not a physicist. You should take a degree in cosmology before criticising the Big Bang theory - otherwise you won't understand what it is you're critiquing.

Response: Your own analogy shows otherwise.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:22:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:20:16 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:13:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:12:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:08:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Also, the Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion. A balloon inflating is a more accurate (though not that accurate) analogy than an explosion.

Response: But blowing up a balloon never causes the development of a new balloon or material different from the balloon. So I agree, it is a good analogy of showing the science fiction of evolution.

Everything that exists was already contained in a simpler form in the singularity. There are no fundamentally new things that were not present when the big bang took place.

Response: Yet your vey own analogy shows that expansion creates the same entity to only become larger, not to become a different entitly. So your own analogy contradicts the claims of evolution.

There is no different entity. All life is fundamentally made up of the same stuff that was present at the Big Bang.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:22:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:21:30 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:15:55 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Anyway, although better informed than you, I'm not a physicist. You should take a degree in cosmology before criticising the Big Bang theory - otherwise you won't understand what it is you're critiquing.

Response: Your own analogy shows otherwise.

Your ignorance does not.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:24:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:12:09 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:09:48 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:01:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

I will do so once you provide logical, thought out and demonstratable reasons why 'seeing something occur' is the only acceptable way of determining the veracity of anything.

Response: Answering a question with a question, thus dodging the question all together and no answer. Thus showing evolution has no logical answer. Thanks.

The question is based on a false premise. If you were defending yourself in court, would you answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or would you question the assumption behind the question?

Not in Fatihah's case - he overtly approves of phsyical coercion of wives as do most Muslims.

Harry.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:25:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:22:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:


There is no different entity. All life is fundamentally made up of the same stuff that was present at the Big Bang.

Response: If there is no different entity, then if I askedwhat's the difference between a dog and a cat, would you know the answer?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:27:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:22:59 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:21:30 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:15:55 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Anyway, although better informed than you, I'm not a physicist. You should take a degree in cosmology before criticising the Big Bang theory - otherwise you won't understand what it is you're critiquing.

Response: Your own analogy shows otherwise.

Your ignorance does not.

Response: Nor should it, thus proving my point. Thanks.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:28:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:24:54 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


Not in Fatihah's case - he overtly approves of phsyical coercion of wives as do most Muslims.

Harry.

Response: In other words, even you can't defend your own idiotic belief of evolution. Thanks for he clarification.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:30:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:25:46 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:22:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:


There is no different entity. All life is fundamentally made up of the same stuff that was present at the Big Bang.

Response: If there is no different entity, then if I askedwhat's the difference between a dog and a cat, would you know the answer?

The arrangement. Everything is made up of atoms (quarks, more fundamentally). A cat is an arrangement of atoms different from the arrangement of atoms that makes up a dog.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:31:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:09:48 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:01:49 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

I will do so once you provide logical, thought out and demonstratable reasons why 'seeing something occur' is the only acceptable way of determining the veracity of anything.

Response: Answering a question with a question, thus dodging the question all together and no answer. Thus showing evolution has no logical answer. Thanks.

No, I am wanting you to demonstrate that the question is actually valid question to ask.

I presume by your non-answer, that you can't.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:31:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:28:40 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:24:54 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


Not in Fatihah's case - he overtly approves of phsyical coercion of wives as do most Muslims.

Harry.

Response: In other words, even you can't defend your own idiotic belief of evolution. Thanks for he clarification.

You're a fool - I do not believe evolution to be true.

Harry.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:33:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:27:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:22:59 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:21:30 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:15:55 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Anyway, although better informed than you, I'm not a physicist. You should take a degree in cosmology before criticising the Big Bang theory - otherwise you won't understand what it is you're critiquing.

Response: Your own analogy shows otherwise.

Your ignorance does not.

Response: Nor should it, thus proving my point. Thanks.

My analogy doesn't show that you don't need a scientific education before producing legitimate critiques of established science.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:33:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:30:51 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:25:46 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:22:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:


There is no different entity. All life is fundamentally made up of the same stuff that was present at the Big Bang.

Response: If there is no different entity, then if I askedwhat's the difference between a dog and a cat, would you know the answer?

The arrangement. Everything is made up of atoms (quarks, more fundamentally). A cat is an arrangement of atoms different from the arrangement of atoms that makes up a dog.

Response: So again, I ask , if I asked what's the difference between a dog and a cat, would you know the answer?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:35:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 10:46:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So evolution is true? And it's based on observable and testable evidence? Then my question is simple.

Dear Atheist,

Everytime I've seen something expolde, the end result is a big mess. So, if the Universe and all of creation evolved from an explosion, then can you present something breaking or exploding, and the result is order?

If not, then evolution is once again demonstrated as not being based on scientific evidence, but science fiction.

That's not what evolution means. Go back to school.