Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolutionists! Give Evidence.

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 7:52:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

The first thing you need to understand is that those happenings were not scientific. Science is basically the collective knowledge of what we know and have, so far, found out of our world and how it works. How our world works is not science, science is our interpretation of how all of it works, or in this case how works the amount of what we've found out thus far.
Those happenings were simply parts of our world reacting to each other.

For something natural to happen does not mean in any way that we must know exactly, in the finest detail, right the next moment, how it happened. Are you seriously saying that if something happens naturally we have to absolutely know every smallest detail about it or otherwise it could not have happened?

So if one evolutionist claims something then there must immediately be all evidence there to support it? The same way religious claim that a god/gods exist? That the fantastical stories from various scriptures are true? You are behaving so hypocritically. The very first claims were religious, so, where is all the proof for all that? Where?

Evolution has scientific proofs for the obvious reason that it is actually real, it has happened since the moment life began here, and goes on this very moment, until life here ends. There have been noted changes through generations of rats and mice adapting to new conditions, not to mention so many other experiments and observations of nature over many years and decades and even longer. There is no point providing you evidence because it's been done so many times before, I have no doubt of that, and you still deny all of it - reality itself - obviously.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 8:31:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 7:52:57 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

Most interesting post/reply I have ever got. You explained truly so as the "problem" is rather more clear now which I'm talking about. See!

The first thing you need to understand is that those happenings were not scientific.
Really? Do you agree? So this ends up all of your coming discussion right here. Isn't it so?
Science is basically the collective knowledge of what we know and have, so far, found out of our world and how it works. How our world works is not science, science is our interpretation of how all of it works, or in this case how works the amount of what we've found out thus far.
So you're saying truth can be different from what we know via science. Good!
Those happenings were simply parts of our world reacting to each other.
How do you know that?

For something natural to happen does not mean in any way 1. that we must know exactly, in the finest detail, right the next moment, how it happened. 2. Are you seriously saying that if something happens naturally we have to absolutely know every smallest detail about it or otherwise it could not have happened?

1. Exactly.
2. Surely not necessarily, but the point is if we don't know how was it happened, how can we claim something (that "we people/human" got lives just by a chance without any purpose/reason, specifically denying the creation by Creator)? Lack of proof of one side doesn't prove the other side. Right?
So if one evolutionist claims something then there must immediately be all evidence there to support it? The same way religious claim that a god/gods exist? That the fantastical stories from various scriptures are true? You are behaving so hypocritically. The very first claims were religious, so, where is all the proof for all that? Where?
This is irony. My whole thread is to discuss this hypocrisy but I'm not targeting. Rather I'm raising a notation to stop this hypocrisy that I've noticed here. In other words, if evolutionists don't have proofs why they claim to have proofs, and they just think others don't have and they have?

Evolution has scientific proofs for the obvious reason that it is actually real, it has happened since the moment life began here, and goes on this very moment, until life here ends.
Is it called a scientific proof? So surely then it's an obvious reason that it has happened since the moment of life began here and goes until end by the power of one and only one Creator. That's obvious then it's actually real.
There have been noted changes through generations of rats and mice adapting to new conditions, not to mention so many other experiments and observations of nature over many years and decades and even longer. There is no point providing you evidence because it's been done so many times before, I have no doubt of that, and you still deny all of it - reality itself - obviously.
Which conditions? Have your seen how does life come to start?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 9:45:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 8:31:42 AM, Dazz wrote:
Really? Do you agree? So this ends up all of your coming discussion right here. Isn't it so?
No, it is not so. Unless you misinterpreted what I said, as you obviously did.
So you're saying truth can be different from what we know via science. Good!
In some cases science is wrong, but unlike religious texts science can and will eventually correct itself. But that science is wrong (in some regards) does not mean religion and what it stands for is right 'cause that all is even more wrong.
For example, that how time and space are regarded, and the whole mess with "dimensions", well, that all is pretty much BS.
Those happenings were simply parts of our world reacting to each other.
How do you know that?
Simple objective logic and thinking accompanied by the little knowledge we have about our world.
2. Surely not necessarily, but the point is if we don't know how was it happened, how can we claim something (that "we people/human" got lives just by a chance without any purpose/reason, specifically denying the creation by Creator)? Lack of proof of one side doesn't prove the other side. Right?
We can claim it because what evidence we have, and further adding objective thinking to it, we can determine rather accurately how it came to be. Does scripture explain it as well, or at least something at all? No. What scripture does is simply claim and state without giving any proof of any kind at all.
Which one is better? Some proof? Or none at all?
And yes, that one side has no proof does not make the other necessarily right. But you see, in this case one side has proof while the other has none. You argue against the opposing side but at the same time contradict yourself. You state something universal, something that applies to you as well, yet with your tone you seem to deny it applying to your side.
So if one evolutionist claims something then there must immediately be all evidence there to support it? The same way religious claim that a god/gods exist? That the fantastical stories from various scriptures are true? You are behaving so hypocritically. The very first claims were religious, so, where is all the proof for all that? Where?
This is irony. My whole thread is to discuss this hypocrisy but I'm not targeting. Rather I'm raising a notation to stop this hypocrisy that I've noticed here. In other words, if evolutionists don't have proofs why they claim to have proofs, and they just think others don't have and they have?
The side of evolution has no hypocrisy here, you say it does because you can't see your side for what it really is.
No irony here, I simply noticed hypocrisy you exhibited. You notice some extremely minor flaws, so minor that they are in truth irrelevant, all the while clinging so adamantly to your side and views without noticing you have absolutely no foundation for any of it.
What evolution says and those adhering to it are not being hypocritical in regards to the theory. Because there is so much evidence. If you want to respond to this first give your evidence to what scripture says, you are obligated to do so because over the centuries and millenniums there still is none. And how old is evolution as knowledge? How much have we found out about organisms changing to survive and be more efficient in new conditions? A lot, wouldn't you agree? And it all goes under evolution.
Evolution has scientific proofs for the obvious reason that it is actually real, it has happened since the moment life began here, and goes on this very moment, until life here ends.
Is it called a scientific proof? So surely then it's an obvious reason that it has happened since the moment of life began here and goes until end by the power of one and only one Creator. That's obvious then it's actually real.
If it hadn't happened since the moment life began here, or rather the next moment and onward, then there would be no life here. There is more than just one kind of proof, first is physical and as well experimental, the second is objective logic. Logic is used to make connections between instances explaining how and why something happened and why would it, usually experiments continue from that but it is not always necessary, especially when the opposing view itself has no evidence at all and is actual fantasy.
Why are you so clinging to a "creator" when in reality there isn't one, when in reality there is proof enough that life was not created by design. And if there was a "creator", its existence would be completely irrelevant to us anyway. So why fuss over it either way?
There have been noted changes through generations of rats and mice adapting to new conditions, not to mention so many other experiments and observations of nature over many years and decades and even longer. There is no point providing you evidence because it's been done so many times before, I have no doubt of that, and you still deny all of it - reality itself - obviously.
Which conditions? Have your seen how does life come to start?
As I said, there is no point providing you evidence as it has been done so many times before, and like every previous time you would ignore it the same. So, for proof, refer to all that has been provided to you over all the debates you've been a part of.
Why should I see how life came to be? You literally cannot, couldn't, see it. The eyes do not have that kind of perception, not to mention all other senses, our brains couldn't manage such flow of information, and we could not live so long as to see the entire process.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 11:22:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

Here are 26 videos explaining the evidence behind evolution: http://www.youtube.com...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 11:59:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 9:45:03 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/11/2013 8:31:42 AM, Dazz wrote:
Really? Do you agree? So this ends up all of your coming discussion right here. Isn't it so?
No, it is not so. Unless you misinterpreted what I said, as you obviously did.
So you're saying truth can be different from what we know via science. Good!
In some cases science is wrong,
No, we are just talking about the "science" as having lack of evidence, yet. Wrong science has no meaning here. So better to leave this point as it's irrelevant and misleading for main topic.
but unlike religious texts science can and will eventually correct itself.
I've no issues with science.
But that science is wrong (in some regards) does not mean religion and what it stands for is right 'cause that all is even more wrong.
That's not point of discussion but just seems to be your focus alone.
For example, that how time and space are regarded, and the whole mess with "dimensions", well, that all is pretty much BS.
I'm not getting what mess you're referring to. Will love to know.
Those happenings were simply parts of our world reacting to each other.
How do you know that?
Simple objective logic and thinking accompanied by the little knowledge we have about our world.
"little knowledge" and logic? My point remains unresolved for how can you rely on thinking if there is no evidence? Believing your intuitions?
2. Surely not necessarily, but the point is if we don't know how was it happened, how can we claim something (that "we people/human" got lives just by a chance without any purpose/reason, specifically denying the creation by Creator)? Lack of proof of one side doesn't prove the other side. Right?
1.We can claim it because what evidence we have, and further adding objective thinking to it, we can determine rather accurately how it came to be. 2. Does scripture explain it as well, or at least something at all? No. What scripture does is simply claim and state without giving any proof of any kind at all.
1. Dear for the first time you say there is lack of evidence, just an objective logic and thinking is there, the very next time you state you have evidence?
2. Now it's only you who are comparing things with scriptures, my topic in hand isn't that.
Which one is better? Some proof? Or none at all?
Is thinking a proof?
And yes, that one side has no proof does not make the other necessarily right. But you see, in this case one side has proof while the other has none.
Have you given any proof? Mention please. You just mentioned the words of "little knowledge, objective logic and thinking etc". Right?
You argue against the opposing side but at the same time contradict yourself.
See, that's not so.
You state something universal, something that applies to you as well, yet with your tone you seem to deny it applying to your side.
Sorry for my tone.
So if one evolutionist claims something then there must immediately be all evidence there to support it? The same way religious claim that a god/gods exist? That the fantastical stories from various scriptures are true? You are behaving so hypocritically. The very first claims were religious, so, where is all the proof for all that? Where?
This is irony. My whole thread is to discuss this hypocrisy but I'm not targeting. Rather I'm raising a notation to stop this hypocrisy that I've noticed here. In other words, if evolutionists don't have proofs why they claim to have proofs, and they just think others don't have and they have?
The side of evolution has no hypocrisy here, you say it does because you can't see your side for what it really is.
It comes when one starts comparing.
No irony here, I simply noticed hypocrisy you exhibited. You notice some extremely minor flaws, so minor that they are in truth irrelevant, all the while clinging so adamantly to your side and views without noticing you have absolutely no foundation for any of it.
I didn't compare it. So no point of hypocrisy at all. Sorry if you felt so.
What evolution says and those adhering to it are not being hypocritical in regards to the theory. Because there is so much evidence.
I'm here as OP to find that evidence. Where is that?
If you want to respond to this first give your evidence to what scripture says, you are obligated to do so because over the centuries and millenniums there still is none.
I'm not discussing scriptures here.
And how old is evolution as knowledge? How much have we found out about organisms changing to survive and be more efficient in new conditions? A lot, wouldn't you agree? And it all goes under evolution.
Question is evolution doesn't explain why it is happening so.
Evolution has scientific proofs for the obvious reason that it is actually real, it has happened since the moment life began here, and goes on this very moment, until life here ends.
Is it called a scientific proof? So surely then it's an obvious reason that it has happened since the moment of life began here and goes until end by the power of one and only one Creator. That's obvious then it's actually real.
If it hadn't happened since the moment life began here, or rather the next moment and onward, then there would be no life here. There is more than just one kind of proof, first is1. physical and as well 2. experimental, the second is objective logic.
1. Point of discussion isn't to prove that either the life began or not, it's about why it began so and such.
2. Have you experiment of Man's life beginning? No.
Logic is used to make connections between instances explaining 1. how and why something happened and why would it, usually 2. experiments continue from that but it is not always necessary, especially when the opposing view itself has no evidence at all and is actual fantasy.
1. So tell why and how it happened? That's the query here.
2. False connection of experiment's necessity and opposing view's fantasy (anyhow without evidence this statement seems itself a fantasy).
Why are you so clinging to a "creator" when in reality there isn't one, when in reality there is proof enough that life was not created by design.
Please provide.
And if there was a "creator", its existence would be completely irrelevant to us anyway. So why fuss over it either way?
Irrelevant argument.
There have been noted changes through generations of rats and mice adapting to new conditions, not to mention so many other experiments and observations of nature over many years and decades and even longer. There is no point providing you evidence because it's been done so many times before, I have no doubt of that, and you still deny all of it - reality itself - obviously.
Which conditions? Have your seen how does life come to start?
As I said, there is no point providing you evidence as it has been done so many times before, and like every previous time you would ignore it the same. So, for proof, refer to all that has been provided to you over all the debates you've been a part of.
Not so.
Why should I see how life came to be? You literally cannot, couldn't, see it. The eyes do not have that kind of perception, not to mention all other senses, our brains couldn't manage such flow of information, and we could not live so long as to see the entire process.
Please allow me to go out of context of my topic, as your previous queries are answered here by your own words. You said above this... ( "creator" when in reality there isn't one) I'm not sure which basis you're saying this on. But mostly people ask for proof/ evidence for God to sense or comprehend the Almighty Being. A similar answer must be satisfactory to them then. Right?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 12:05:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 11:22:03 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

Here are 26 videos explaining the evidence behind evolution: http://www.youtube.com...

Point is not to find the evidence of evolution, point is it doesn't explain the reason/logic of beginning? If evolution says that life just got started a time ago, question is why and how? This a point where science get need to have a connection with some understood realities of creation. That's the clue.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 1:37:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 12:05:23 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 11:22:03 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

Here are 26 videos explaining the evidence behind evolution: http://www.youtube.com...

Point is not to find the evidence of evolution, point is it doesn't explain the reason/logic of beginning? If evolution says that life just got started a time ago, question is why and how? This a point where science get need to have a connection with some understood realities of creation. That's the clue.

Oh, I can tell you about that.

To the best of my knowledge, there are two leading theories on where the life that evolved to modern species started. It should be noted that both of these theories could be correct.

The first is (I don't know the name of it) the idea that in the early Earth, amino acids and basic proteins were being formed in the 'sludge' in the early oceans. Eventually, lightning strikes on this sludge fused together the right molecules to make RNA and DNA. The chemistry of the RNA/DNA would have allowed it to form a cell from the surrounding matter. Evidence for this has been found in experiments, whereby scientists re-create the chemical sludge that is thought to have been in the oceans of the early Earth, and then they simulate a lightning strike and UV lights to simulate solar radiation. The results showed that even more complex organic molecules came out of the sludge after they were exposed to electrical shocks and UV radiation.

The second theory is known as 'Panspermia'. This theory asserts that in the early Earth, the same comets that gave our world water, also carried cells from other planets. These cells survived the rigors of reentry and impact, and were able to reproduce on Earth. Evidence for this has been found in meteorites, as many, if not most meteorites do contain amino acids and other organic compounds.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 4:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The theory of evolution is simply a historical hypothesis that offers no real scientific explanation.

First off, lets be clear with the terms to avoid the cliche' fallacy of equivocation. If you are going to define the theory of evolution as genetics changing between generation, then I gladly concede, and you might as well call it genetic inheritance. I have yet to meet someone who believes in species fixity, nobody here is arguing that. (Seriously who still believes that?)
In fact I believe that evolution takes place constantly and it contributed to the diversity of life. However, its (known) effect is simply insignificant when considering all the life forms, in no fashion can it account for 100% of the diversity of life as the theory of evolution claims.

Believers in evolution needs to provide scientific evidence that the claims it proposes ARE EVEN POSSIBLE. So scientific evidence that it is possible evolve organs or for a single celled organism to become multicellular anyone?
With that kind of attitude I wish the fossil record even supported evolution as the basis of all diversity. Instead they are proposing a game of "Heads I win, Tails I win". "Oh! I'll just assume we came from a common ancestor and declare that this fossil is just more evidence of Stasis/Bursts/Convergent evolution/Punctured Equilibrium/*insert ad-hoc*!"
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 4:40:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, we are just talking about the "science" as having lack of evidence, yet. Wrong science has no meaning here. So better to leave this point as it's irrelevant and misleading for main topic.
There is enough evidence for evolution - fact of reality.
Science being wrong is very much relevant here, as you are essentially comparing evolution to creationism which itself has absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Creationism is completely wrong, while science is wrong only in some minor regards (compared to religious claims) and not as much, if at all, in regards to evolution.
I've no issues with science.
You obviously do... Evolution is science, or just backed up by science. Either way.
That's not point of discussion but just seems to be your focus alone.
Not point of discussion? You saying evolution has no proof is as good as saying science is wrong. So yes, very much relevant as well. Proof of evolution comes from science, which in turn is our interpretation of our reality.
What is your focus here? I'm getting the impression you're not exactly clear on it. If something is discussed then the topics directly related and connected to it must as well be discussed, as those topics as well influence the main topic.
I'm not getting what mess you're referring to. Will love to know.
The mess I'm referring to is "dimensions". You've never even heard of them?
"little knowledge" and logic? My point remains unresolved for how can you rely on thinking if there is no evidence? Believing your intuitions?
Are you serious??? No evidence? Please read again what I wrote, and do think it over, at length, as obviously little thinking in your case avails nothing.
If you use the word believe I would advise you to elaborate what you exactly mean by it, as religious people tend to have their own version of it.
1. Dear for the first time you say there is lack of evidence, just an objective logic and thinking is there, the very next time you state you have evidence?
Please read again what I wrote and think it over, at length, as little thinking in your case avails nothing. I can repeat myself as well, but in my case I actually have grounds for it.
You're not the first person I've "debated" that misinterprets what I say merely to fit their beliefs and to simply argue and try to "win" something. I know the drill. If you don't start using your mind for objective debating and thinking then I will simply stop taking part of this "debate". Seen it before, had more than enough.
2. Now it's only you who are comparing things with scriptures, my topic in hand isn't that.
If that was true then why are you denying evolution in the first place? If you did not compare it to scripture you would not deny evolution, or you would provide a better alternative, and not one that correlates scripture.
Is thinking a proof?
Why would it be? Thinking leads to proof - to logical conclusions. Why would you even think that thinking itself is proof? And why would you ask something like that?
Have you given any proof? Mention please. You just mentioned the words of "little knowledge, objective logic and thinking etc". Right?
Here ya go, gave some after all. But it does require thinking, objective at that, so maybe not for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
You argue against the opposing side but at the same time contradict yourself.
See, that's not so.
Yes, it is so, proof of that is above.
The side of evolution has no hypocrisy here, you say it does because you can't see your side for what it really is.
It comes when one starts comparing.
And you began with comparing.
I didn't compare it. So no point of hypocrisy at all. Sorry if you felt so.
This whole debate is comparing evolution to creationism.
I'm here as OP to find that evidence. Where is that?
You've been provided evidence very many times before, I'm not referring only to this debate but every single one you've been a part of where evidence was provided, refer to all that, please do.
I'm not discussing scriptures here.
Then why compare evolution to creationism, as creationism is first taught from scriptures?
Question is evolution doesn't explain why it is happening so.
Doesn't explain why organisms change to adapt to new conditions? To survive. Point of life is survival, because that's what life does, it survives. Species go extinct, others don't, but life as a whole still survives.
You are incapable of making that little conclusion from all (not all needed really...) the evidence humanity has found thus far?
1. Point of discussion isn't to prove that either the life began or not, it's about why it began so and such.
Why? There is absolutely no reason why. It just happened, basically it was an accident, or a random occurrence, go for luck if you so like. It just happened, no creator of any kind.
2. Have you experiment of Man's life beginning? No.
And why should I?
1. So tell why and how it happened? That's the query here.
You are the one denying evidence, not me. Look up evolution and think on it.
2. False connection of experiment's necessity and opposing view's fantasy (anyhow without evidence this statement seems itself a fantasy).
I honestly do not get what you're referring to with this.
Why are you so clinging to a "creator" when in reality there isn't one, when in reality there is proof enough that life was not created by design.
Please provide.
Wikipedia, evolution, reading, thinking the material you read over, objectively. Can you do that?
And if there was a "creator", its existence would be completely irrelevant to us anyway. So why fuss over it either way?
Irrelevant argument.
It really is not as you don't seem to have an answer. You don't know why you are doing what you do. That is very relevant to all this, as you began it.
There have been noted changes through generations of rats and mice adapting to new conditions, not to mention so many other experiments and observations of nature over many years and decades and even longer. There is no point providing you evidence because it's been done so many times before, I have no doubt of that, and you still deny all of it - reality itself - obviously.
As I said, there is no point providing you evidence as it has been done so many times before, and like every previous time you would ignore it the same. So, for proof, refer to all that has been provided to you over all the debates you've been a part of.
Not so.
What exactly? You've never been provided evidence in any debates you've ever been a part of?
Why should I see how life came to be? You literally cannot, couldn't, see it. The eyes do not have that kind of perception, not to mention all other senses, our brains couldn't manage such flow of information, and we could not live so long as to see the entire process.
Please allow me to go out of context of my topic, as your previous queries are answered here by your own words. You said above this... ( "creator" when in reality there isn't one) I'm not sure which basis you're saying this on. But mostly people ask for proof/ evidence for God to sense or comprehend the Almighty Being. A similar answer must be satisfactory to them then. Right?
You are the one claiming there is a creator, are you not? So, why is there a creator, who is it, or he or she? Why is it there? Is there one in the first place? Religious claims were the first ones made, without proof. Then came science that began explaining how our world works, and religion began opposing it with literal fantasy. Evolution is backed up by science, which in turn is backed up by reality itself, so please do provide evidence for a creator, as I have never seen any, only fantasy.
You're, essentially, asking me to try and impersonate evolution? Are you serious? Evolution is a process!!! It's not a living thing, it's an aspect of life, a characteristic.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:32:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 4:40:16 PM, nummi wrote:

You are the one claiming there is a creator, are you not? So, why is there a creator, who is it, or he or she? Why is it there? Is there one in the first place? Religious claims were the first ones made, without proof. Then came science that began explaining how our world works, and religion began opposing it with literal fantasy. Evolution is backed up by science, which in turn is backed up by reality itself, so please do provide evidence for a creator, as I have never seen any, only fantasy.
You're, essentially, asking me to try and impersonate evolution? Are you serious? Evolution is a process!!!
You're here turning your words back, it's you who said like "we aren't capable to perceive/comprehend and are limited etc" when you were talking for evolution. So you have taken a U-turn. Right?

Your other Fascinating Fallacies! Need to rectify them.
1. I have been part of debates with you? May be you're considering me someone else by mistake.
2. Creationism is actually explained by scientists.
3. My thread doesn't point out comparison.
4. Science isn't wrong, the knowledge we attained, or claimed to be science is subject to be wrong. So as evolution as a proposed description to science can be challenged by any time. So again when we discuss something that doesn't mean we're declaring or imposing views, nor we can impose either way.
.....and there're many more.

Sorry but as I said at start that "I'am asking" not debating/arguing for my SIDE, so no point to state or to show you that either I'm clear for my side or not, (about wikipedia and other sources you provided me to search for evidences, I suppose the DDO members much capable to explain things precisely and objectively here by themselves, so as if I have to go for other sources I would go, DDO isn't giving me a winning cup so I'm not here to win something but to learn)

Please stick to the topic and explain what scientific proof evolution has. My request to you.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 7:15:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

If you explain why there is night and day you absolutely have to provide empirical evidence.

They key aspect of science is you must be able to demonstrate what you say with evidence.

If you check out the mountains of evidence thread you will see a collection ofnlinks that summarise the evidence of common descent. The "there is no evidence" claim is simply dishonest as any google search will reveal thousands of links and as I suspect you muat already have done this you know that there is masses of empirical evidence.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 7:59:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 7:15:08 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

If you explain why there is night and day you absolutely have to provide empirical evidence.
Not what I said. If I ask you to give me a claim's evidence (evolution), does it require me to provide the evidence for opposite claim (creationism) as all here are demanding me to do so, by ignoring the fact that I'm not claiming here anything.

They key aspect of science is you must be able to demonstrate what you say with evidence.
Yes.

If you check out the mountains of evidence thread you will see a collection ofnlinks that summarise the evidence of common descent.
Can you explain just one of them briefly, please?

The "there is no evidence" claim is simply dishonest as any google search will reveal thousands of links and as I suspect you muat already have done this you know that there is masses of empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment. I'm asking for experiment of Man's life generation. Okay. And that's complex I know.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 8:28:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you explain why there is night and day you absolutely have to provide empirical evidence.

Not what I said. If I ask you to give me a claim's evidence (evolution), does it require me to provide the evidence for opposite claim (creationism) as all here are demanding me to do so, by ignoring the fact that I'm not claiming here anything.

The point here is you are being disingenuous.

You ask for empirical evidence of evolution of which there is enough that you could spend years reading and studying it. But when presented with this evidence you just say "Well that isn't enough evidence".

The disingenuous part comes in because the alternative you support has no empirical evidence yet you still support it. The obvious conclusion from that is you don't really care about empirical evidence to begin with. Instead you just try to create a scientific straw man by giving lip service to empirical evidence and then claiming that the scientific research by tens of thousands of scientist (none of which you have bothered to really read) doesn't meet your high standards.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 8:39:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment.

That is also not true. Just like with asking for evidence of evolution, you could take initiative and educate yourself using the search engine of your choice (or a good old dictionary in this case).

Empirical evidence encompasses both observation and experimentation. The Earth is roughly spherical. There is empirical evidence that is true all from observation. Must we say the jury is still out on that one?
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 8:49:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 8:28:58 AM, Floid wrote:
If you explain why there is night and day you absolutely have to provide empirical evidence.

Not what I said. If I ask you to give me a claim's evidence (evolution), does it require me to provide the evidence for opposite claim (creationism) as all here are demanding me to do so, by ignoring the fact that I'm not claiming here anything.

The point here is you are being disingenuous.

You ask for empirical evidence of evolution of which there is enough that you could spend years reading and studying it. But when presented with this evidence you just say "Well that isn't enough evidence".

The disingenuous part comes in because the alternative you support has no empirical evidence yet you still support it.
The obvious conclusion from that is you don't really care about empirical evidence to begin with. Instead you just try to create a scientific straw man by giving lip service to empirical evidence and then claiming that the scientific research by tens of thousands of scientist (none of which you have bothered to really read) doesn't meet your high standards.

I'm just tired of replying you all with the same answer that I'm not here to assert my opinion but ASKING you all if you can add something. Please read the full thread first then intent to reply. What I can observe here through out the replies, is that everyone has shown a fear in their behavior and instead of stating a simple possible / direct answer, all are just doing counter questions irrespective of the fact that it's for all of you people to answer the thread accordingly instead of just throwing negative impressions over the case. Definitely you've been fed up or may be no one can explain it here at DDO so that's why I haven't yet got a proper answer.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 8:39:26 AM, Floid wrote:


Can you please just hold your behavior here, as the point you're trying to raise now in your support isn't viable.
Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment.
That is also not true.
My statement has no problem, it's true (you just want to add observation?).
Just like with asking for evidence of evolution, you could take initiative and educate yourself using the search engine of your choice (or a good old dictionary in this case).
No need of dictionaries dear, I'm lucky to find you here, right?

Empirical evidence encompasses both observation and experimentation.
Observation is just a part of an experiment. You observe something to get experience, without getting an experience you have no observation.
The Earth is roughly spherical. There is empirical evidence that is true all from observation. Must we say the jury is still out on that one?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:47:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

You are asking that creationism is used as a null hypothesis. Any lacking evidence for evolution is not evidence that affirms the existence of a creator of any kind. Life could have just happened for absolutely no reason without a creator. It's even possible that the universe arose in its current state at the moment you gained self-awareness. I can't provide evidence for either of these hypotheses, which puts them on equal footing with your hypothesis of the universe being created with the complete lack of evidence that you have provided. If you can provide empirical evidence for creationism, then we can start talking about which offers more explanatory power and which makes the least assumptions, which are the things that determine which theory is more likely to be closer to the truth.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 10:16:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:47:44 AM, drhead wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

You are asking that creationism is used as a null hypothesis. Any lacking evidence for evolution is not evidence that affirms the existence of a creator of any kind.
Definitely I'm not considering creationism a null hypothesis here. So apart from that, do you agree there is lack of evidence for evolution?

1. Life could have just happened for absolutely no reason without a creator.
2. It's even possible that the universe arose in its current state at the moment you gained self-awareness.

I can't provide evidence for either of these hypotheses, which puts them on equal footing with your hypothesis of the universe being created with the complete lack of evidence that you have provided.
Right now I'm not proposing any hypothesis.

If you can provide empirical evidence for creationism, then we can start talking about which offers more explanatory power and which makes the least assumptions, which are the things that determine which theory is more likely to be closer to the truth.
Let's start...... how many assumption have been provided by you until now? Two.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 12:37:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 10:16:52 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:47:44 AM, drhead wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

You are asking that creationism is used as a null hypothesis. Any lacking evidence for evolution is not evidence that affirms the existence of a creator of any kind.

Definitely I'm not considering creationism a null hypothesis here. So apart from that, do you agree there is lack of evidence for evolution?

Refer to this for how theories work: http://i.imgur.com...

All theories make assumptions. Creationism assumes that there is a god that created life. This is a big assumption, considering how it is assuming that the laws of physics can be thrown out the window. On top of that, it provides absolutely no evidence to support it. Unless you can provide some, of course.

As far as evidence for evolution goes, I can show you experiments where single-celled organisms independently evolved multicellularity, I can show experiments where ribonucleotides and amino acids have been synthesized, I can show the fossil record, and I could probably show more if both my free time and the character limit permitted it. Some of this evidence is fairly recent - I'm fairly certain that the experiments for multicellularity and ribonucleotide synthesis only came out this year. We can't quite make our own protocells in a laboratory yet, though it is unlikely that that is far off. However, any amount of evidence should be enough to demonstrate that evolution is a better theory than creationism, since evolution actually has evidence.

1. Life could have just happened for absolutely no reason without a creator.
2. It's even possible that the universe arose in its current state at the moment you gained self-awareness.

I can't provide evidence for either of these hypotheses, which puts them on equal footing with your hypothesis of the universe being created with the complete lack of evidence that you have provided.

Right now I'm not proposing any hypothesis.

At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

If you're not proposing a hypothesis, then what is this? Obviously you're implying that if evolution cannot be verified with empirical evidence, then life started with a creator.

If you can provide empirical evidence for creationism, then we can start talking about which offers more explanatory power and which makes the least assumptions, which are the things that determine which theory is more likely to be closer to the truth.

Let's start...... how many assumption have been provided by you until now? Two.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 4:14:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The theory of evolution is simply a historical hypothesis that offers no real scientific explanation.

Is it a theory or a hypothesis?

First off, lets be clear with the terms to avoid the cliche' fallacy of equivocation. If you are going to define the theory of evolution as genetics changing between generation, then I gladly concede, and you might as well call it genetic inheritance. I have yet to meet someone who believes in species fixity, nobody here is arguing that. (Seriously who still believes that?)

Good. Save for the "genetic inheritance". Why would you do that?

In fact I believe that evolution takes place constantly and it contributed to the diversity of life. However, its (known) effect is simply insignificant when considering all the life forms, in no fashion can it account for 100% of the diversity of life as the theory of evolution claims.

OK, let's see your counter-evidence.


Believers in evolution needs to provide scientific evidence that the claims it proposes ARE EVEN POSSIBLE. So scientific evidence that it is possible evolve organs or for a single celled organism to become multicellular anyone?
With that kind of attitude I wish the fossil record even supported evolution as the basis of all diversity.

First sentence is true. Second sentence:

Single celled to multicelluar has been done, see here for the summary: http://www.dailygalaxy.com... and

As for the evolution of organs: I am not sure what you think is stopping natural selection from gradually evolving organs. Could you elaborate? The only thing I can of is if you were to say: "Half a heart would kill an animal" or "half a heart would not work for survival and wouldn't be selected." Of course, that would never happen and isn't evolution, so that would be just a strawman.

On your third sentence: It...does. Why doesn't it?

(Bear in mind, we don't expect to see a lot - if any - transitional forms at all. Geology dictates that it is very difficult for a good fossil to form)
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 6:15:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:18:47 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 12/11/2013 4:14:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The theory of evolution is simply a historical hypothesis that offers no real scientific explanation.

Is it a theory or a hypothesis?

In actuality, it is a historical hypothesis. The different semantics of the words "Theory" doesn't really contribute to the topic. I simply used the common name for what I am referring to. Furthermore, there are people who do not mind calling hypotheses "Theories".

First off, lets be clear with the terms to avoid the cliche' fallacy of equivocation. If you are going to define the theory of evolution as genetics changing between generation, then I gladly concede, and you might as well call it genetic inheritance. I have yet to meet someone who believes in species fixity, nobody here is arguing that. (Seriously who still believes that?)

Good. Save for the "genetic inheritance". Why would you do that?

You are not being clear. Didn't really get what you are referring to.

In fact I believe that evolution takes place constantly and it contributed to the diversity of life. However, its (known) effect is simply insignificant when considering all the life forms, in no fashion can it account for 100% of the diversity of life as the theory of evolution claims.

OK, let's see your counter-evidence.

The burden of proof is not on me. There is simply not enough evidence to rationally believe in the claims of the theory of evolution.

Believers in evolution needs to provide scientific evidence that the claims it proposes ARE EVEN POSSIBLE. So scientific evidence that it is possible evolve organs or for a single celled organism to become multicellular anyone?
With that kind of attitude I wish the fossil record even supported evolution as the basis of all diversity.

First sentence is true. Second sentence:

Single celled to multicelluar has been done, see here for the summary: http://www.dailygalaxy.com... and

That is a pre-existing adaptive mechanism that was claimed to be an evolution toward multicellularity. So this is simply an assumption, not a scientific evidence of a "step into multicellularity".
A claim that yeast is actually devolving from multicellularity, or not evolving into multicellularity at all have as much evidence as the claim that it is evolving.

As for the evolution of organs: I am not sure what you think is stopping natural selection from gradually evolving organs. Could you elaborate? The only thing I can of is if you were to say: "Half a heart would kill an animal" or "half a heart would not work for survival and wouldn't be selected." Of course, that would never happen and isn't evolution, so that would be just a strawman.

Selection selects from something pre-existing. I want you to explain the physical steps for an organ of your choosing to start existing.
Natural selection requires the evolutionary steps within the millions of generations to have an advantage. Lets say we have a complete heart. Well, what will the heart pump? Through what vessels will the heart pump to? What will the pumped substance carry?
For simplicity, lets say the evolution of some sort of a heart took a 1000 generations. So really, mutating something like 1/1000 -> 2/1000 -> ... -> 999/1000 of a heart will be equal to a tumor growing. Is there an evolutionary advantage for that?
It is simply impossible without ridiculous oversimplification,

On your third sentence: It...does. Why doesn't it?

(Bear in mind, we don't expect to see a lot - if any - transitional forms at all. Geology dictates that it is very difficult for a good fossil to form)

The problem is: Transitional forms are not the norm in the fossil record. They are not the exception. They are simply non-existent. We can't claim they exist until we do find them.
Fossils remain recognizably the same for the whole time of their existence (which can be hundreds of millions of years). We do not see bone structures, such as limbs or eye sockets, growing or shrinking, neither do we see a structure appearing. So T-Rex fossils had short arms for the three millions of years they existed. Living fossils virtually had no change for millions of years, unlike what ToE predicted (Without ad-hocs). Fossils simply disappear and be replaced by other fossils. Similar to the evolution of automobiles.

It is a mystery. However, neither ToE or anything else can currently provide a scientific answer for this mystery.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 8:36:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 6:15:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:18:47 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 12/11/2013 4:14:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The theory of evolution is simply a historical hypothesis that offers no real scientific explanation.

Is it a theory or a hypothesis?

In actuality, it is a historical hypothesis. The different semantics of the words "Theory" doesn't really contribute to the topic. I simply used the common name for what I am referring to. Furthermore, there are people who do not mind calling hypotheses "Theories".

First off, lets be clear with the terms to avoid the cliche' fallacy of equivocation. If you are going to define the theory of evolution as genetics changing between generation, then I gladly concede, and you might as well call it genetic inheritance. I have yet to meet someone who believes in species fixity, nobody here is arguing that. (Seriously who still believes that?)

Good. Save for the "genetic inheritance". Why would you do that?

You are not being clear. Didn't really get what you are referring to.

In fact I believe that evolution takes place constantly and it contributed to the diversity of life. However, its (known) effect is simply insignificant when considering all the life forms, in no fashion can it account for 100% of the diversity of life as the theory of evolution claims.

OK, let's see your counter-evidence.

The burden of proof is not on me. There is simply not enough evidence to rationally believe in the claims of the theory of evolution.

Believers in evolution needs to provide scientific evidence that the claims it proposes ARE EVEN POSSIBLE. So scientific evidence that it is possible evolve organs or for a single celled organism to become multicellular anyone?
With that kind of attitude I wish the fossil record even supported evolution as the basis of all diversity.

First sentence is true. Second sentence:

Single celled to multicelluar has been done, see here for the summary: http://www.dailygalaxy.com... and

That is a pre-existing adaptive mechanism that was claimed to be an evolution toward multicellularity. So this is simply an assumption, not a scientific evidence of a "step into multicellularity".
A claim that yeast is actually devolving from multicellularity, or not evolving into multicellularity at all have as much evidence as the claim that it is evolving.

Then how about algae?

http://www.newscientist.com...

This happened within the last month. And no, there is no multicellular ancestor here.

As for the evolution of organs: I am not sure what you think is stopping natural selection from gradually evolving organs. Could you elaborate? The only thing I can of is if you were to say: "Half a heart would kill an animal" or "half a heart would not work for survival and wouldn't be selected." Of course, that would never happen and isn't evolution, so that would be just a strawman.

Selection selects from something pre-existing. I want you to explain the physical steps for an organ of your choosing to start existing.
Natural selection requires the evolutionary steps within the millions of generations to have an advantage. Lets say we have a complete heart. Well, what will the heart pump? Through what vessels will the heart pump to? What will the pumped substance carry?
For simplicity, lets say the evolution of some sort of a heart took a 1000 generations. So really, mutating something like 1/1000 -> 2/1000 -> ... -> 999/1000 of a heart will be equal to a tumor growing. Is there an evolutionary advantage for that?
It is simply impossible without ridiculous oversimplification,

On your third sentence: It...does. Why doesn't it?

(Bear in mind, we don't expect to see a lot - if any - transitional forms at all. Geology dictates that it is very difficult for a good fossil to form)

The problem is: Transitional forms are not the norm in the fossil record. They are not the exception. They are simply non-existent. We can't claim they exist until we do find them.
Fossils remain recognizably the same for the whole time of their existence (which can be hundreds of millions of years). We do not see bone structures, such as limbs or eye sockets, growing or shrinking, neither do we see a structure appearing. So T-Rex fossils had short arms for the three millions of years they existed. Living fossils virtually had no change for millions of years, unlike what ToE predicted (Without ad-hocs). Fossils simply disappear and be replaced by other fossils. Similar to the evolution of automobiles.

It is a mystery. However, neither ToE or anything else can currently provide a scientific answer for this mystery.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 8:19:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:06:06 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/12/2013 8:39:26 AM, Floid wrote:


Can you please just hold your behavior here, as the point you're trying to raise now in your support isn't viable.
Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment.
That is also not true.
My statement has no problem, it's true (you just want to add observation?).

Your statement has a huge problem. It is incomplete and you go on to use your incomplete definition in an attempt to make an argument.

You claim evolution (of humans) does not have empirical evidence to support it scientific because it can't hasn't be reproduced by experiment. So lets do use the definition of empirical evidence that has been accepted for the last couple of centuries and then we should also revisit your argument that you require experimental reproduction of human decent to accept evolutionary theory... why again is that not a disingenuous standard?

Just like with asking for evidence of evolution, you could take initiative and educate yourself using the search engine of your choice (or a good old dictionary in this case).
No need of dictionaries dear, I'm lucky to find you here, right?

Sure, if you wish to rely on other people correcting your own ignorance go ahead. It won't get you very far in life, but we each get to choose our own approach to things.

Empirical evidence encompasses both observation and experimentation.
Observation is just a part of an experiment. You observe something to get experience, without getting an experience you have no observation.

The first statement is wrong. Observation is a part of an experiment but not just a part of an experiment. You seem to correct yourself in the second statement in that you observe something to get "experience" (I would say information or evidence here instead of experience).

So you can get observation from an experiment, but you can also get it through observing natural phenomenon, historical information, etc. Modern science started with the careful observation of the motion of celestial bodies which gave enough empirical evidence heliocentrism. There was no experiment taking place, no one recreated the solar system in a laboratory to prove this true (which seems to be the standard you wish to prove evolution), they simply observed natural phenomenon.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:07:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 5:32:14 AM, Dazz wrote:
You're here turning your words back, it's you who said like "we aren't capable to perceive/comprehend and are limited etc" when you were talking for evolution. So you have taken a U-turn. Right?
You asked me if I had seen how life came to be! I said it is impossible to see it.
To understand and thus know how a process happens does not require to physically see the entirety of it.
Assuming god was real. You are comparing evolution and god as if they fall under the same category. If a god existed it would be an individual, a person, or just an intelligent being, while evolution, as I already stated, is a process. Begs an important question, why would you regard god and evolution as equals in the first place?

Your other Fascinating Fallacies! Need to rectify them.
1. I have been part of debates with you? May be you're considering me someone else by mistake.
This counts as your fallacy as I've never said I've debated with you before.
2. Creationism is actually explained by scientists.
Yes, as fantasy.
3. My thread doesn't point out comparison.
Yet compare you did.
4. Science isn't wrong, the knowledge we attained, or claimed to be science is subject to be wrong. So as evolution as a proposed description to science can be challenged by any time. So again when we discuss something that doesn't mean we're declaring or imposing views, nor we can impose either way.
Science is the knowledge of our world, as much as we've found out. It is an explanation of our world as subject to words. So obviously it can be wrong, it has been wrong, it has been corrected, in some regards still is, until someone corrects it.
.....and there're many more.
I would love to know what those are.
Sorry but as I said at start that "I'am asking" not debating/arguing for my SIDE, so no point to state or to show you that either I'm clear for my side or not, (about wikipedia and other sources you provided me to search for evidences, I suppose the DDO members much capable to explain things precisely and objectively here by themselves, so as if I have to go for other sources I would go, DDO isn't giving me a winning cup so I'm not here to win something but to learn)
You may ask as much as you want but this is a debate site, is it not?
Furthermore, it is very easy to find evidence for evolution. Scientists have found so much over the years, those findings have been documented, and a lot of them can be read about from wikipedia, among so many other sources.
So, basically, you are asking members here to hand all information over without you doing any research of your own previously? Got it... And then when they do give you something you simply go for total denial. Yeah, seen that kind behavior before...
You might think you are here to learn but judging from your behavior, and the mentality you exhibit, that is not so.
Please stick to the topic and explain what scientific proof evolution has. My request to you.
Funny... OP telling others to stick to the topic while he himself doesn't seem to fathom the boundaries of the topic, not to mention how easily you misinterpret arguments.
Includes documented proof of evolution --------> http://en.wikipedia.org...
My request is that you read it all and consider it with an objective mind. As evidently you have never done it before. As you say, you're here to learn, now's your chance.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 8:30:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 7:59:38 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/12/2013 7:15:08 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

If you explain why there is night and day you absolutely have to provide empirical evidence.
Not what I said. If I ask you to give me a claim's evidence (evolution), does it require me to provide the evidence for opposite claim (creationism) as all here are demanding me to do so, by ignoring the fact that I'm not claiming here anything.

You seem to be arguing from a point of view of creationism. I find it a little obtuse that you can demand evidence of evolution, yet complain when you are asked to do the same.

They key aspect of science is you must be able to demonstrate what you say with evidence.
Yes.

If you check out the mountains of evidence thread you will see a collection ofnlinks that summarise the evidence of common descent.
Can you explain just one of them briefly, please?

When organising life by it's structure you form an unviolated nested set:
he diagnostic features are not chosen randomly, but based upon physical and observed differences in the form of the species that are shared between more than one species. We are classified as apes, for example not because an evil atheist said we were apes, but because we share almost all key physical features with apes, mammals, pentadactyl tetrapods, verterbrate skulled eukaryotes and the properties of all hundreds of intermediate clads.

In fact, there is no objective way you could define or group animals that didn't yield a nested set, this mechanism for classification is objective: looking at real and observed differences and similarities to group animals.

For example all tetropod species have a skull, backbone, lungs, heart, red blood, have a digestive system, with a rectum that forms before the mouth, nucleic cells (and those are the ones I can name off the top of my head) You never find a tetrapodal species with properties diagnostic of a tetrapod with blue blood; and never find mixed and matched diagnostic features of multiple disparate ranches. IE: No violations of this nested set.

When adding in the 250,000 fossile species that have thus far been discovered, they also fit nicely into this nested set with morphology. When you view this in terms of time, you see morphologies appearing in the fossile record, and then radiating into multiple species over time, with no violations: No fossiel bunnies in the cambrian explosion.

When adding in geography, there are also no violations. No species discovered in a geological area they shouldn't appear in because they have not had time to get there, or they first appeared in one unrelated location.

When adding in molecular genomic analysis both of whole genome, and more importantly Cytochrome C analysis; which is a conserved gene; these match very closely the relative predicted relatedness of different extant species (Cyt C mutates over time, but the protein function never changes due to the way DNA works, so you can detect random mutations that occur over time without worrying about selection or that the DNA may give you false results as the DNA matches the form.

The tree is best explained by common descent. Nothing intelligently designed forms a tree when applied in this way; and the only things in our world that do form such a tree are systems that use descent with modification.

The "there is no evidence" claim is simply dishonest as any google search will reveal thousands of links and as I suspect you muat already have done this you know that there is masses of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment. I'm asking for experiment of Man's life generation. Okay. And that's complex I know.

There are many types of evidence other than direct observation and direct experiment.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 1:24:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 8:30:59 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/12/2013 7:59:38 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/12/2013 7:15:08 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:45:18 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/11/2013 2:11:26 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 7:01:49 AM, Dazz wrote:
Question is that if the Man's life started with a matching behavior of scientific happenings, and that got suited with the process of life generation by chance (without Creator), then one must have a full understanding and proofs of what were those scientific approaches and happenings that took part in developing a man. Thus if one (evolutionist) claim it so, then it (the claim) must be verified by providing the empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence can be executed repeatedly by getting same result every time, means this time you're going to produce a man in a laboratory via scientific mixture, irrespective of natural fertilization process that is a secondary level of production, not primary- we need a new first Human)

* I'm asking because I got some replies before like "we don't have enough knowledge yet to proof this theory", so if it's so then, why I'm still observing some members here claiming that evolution has scientific proofs.

I actually recently wrote a research paper on abiogenesis recently for my English class. I'd be glad to let you read it, though first I would like to ask: what empirical evidence exists for creationism?

When I ask if there is night, do I need to provide evidence for why there is day, firstly? Or you would tend to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. Let's first decide it.

If you explain why there is night and day you absolutely have to provide empirical evidence.
Not what I said. If I ask you to give me a claim's evidence (evolution), does it require me to provide the evidence for opposite claim (creationism) as all here are demanding me to do so, by ignoring the fact that I'm not claiming here anything.

You seem to be arguing from a point of view of creationism. I find it a little obtuse that you can demand evidence of evolution, yet complain when you are asked to do the same.

They key aspect of science is you must be able to demonstrate what you say with evidence.
Yes.

If you check out the mountains of evidence thread you will see a collection ofnlinks that summarise the evidence of common descent.
Can you explain just one of them briefly, please?

When organising life by it's structure you form an unviolated nested set:
he diagnostic features are not chosen randomly, but based upon physical and observed differences in the form of the species that are shared between more than one species. We are classified as apes, for example not because an evil atheist said we were apes, but because we share almost all key physical features with apes, mammals, pentadactyl tetrapods, verterbrate skulled eukaryotes and the properties of all hundreds of intermediate clads.

In fact, there is no objective way you could define or group animals that didn't yield a nested set, this mechanism for classification is objective: looking at real and observed differences and similarities to group animals.

For example all tetropod species have a skull, backbone, lungs, heart, red blood, have a digestive system, with a rectum that forms before the mouth, nucleic cells (and those are the ones I can name off the top of my head) You never find a tetrapodal species with properties diagnostic of a tetrapod with blue blood; and never find mixed and matched diagnostic features of multiple disparate ranches. IE: No violations of this nested set.

When adding in the 250,000 fossile species that have thus far been discovered, they also fit nicely into this nested set with morphology. When you view this in terms of time, you see morphologies appearing in the fossile record, and then radiating into multiple species over time, with no violations: No fossiel bunnies in the cambrian explosion.

When adding in geography, there are also no violations. No species discovered in a geological area they shouldn't appear in because they have not had time to get there, or they first appeared in one unrelated location.

When adding in molecular genomic analysis both of whole genome, and more importantly Cytochrome C analysis; which is a conserved gene; these match very closely the relative predicted relatedness of different extant species (Cyt C mutates over time, but the protein function never changes due to the way DNA works, so you can detect random mutations that occur over time without worrying about selection or that the DNA may give you false results as the DNA matches the form.

The tree is best explained by common descent. Nothing intelligently designed forms a tree when applied in this way; and the only things in our world that do form such a tree are systems that use descent with modification.

The "there is no evidence" claim is simply dishonest as any google search will reveal thousands of links and as I suspect you muat already have done this you know that there is masses of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment. I'm asking for experiment of Man's life generation. Okay. And that's complex I know.

There are many types of evidence other than direct observation and direct experiment.

So it's a "how" part, where's the "why".
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 1:34:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 8:19:22 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:06:06 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/12/2013 8:39:26 AM, Floid wrote:


Can you please just hold your behavior here, as the point you're trying to raise now in your support isn't viable.
Empirical evidence is what you can prove by experiment.
That is also not true.
My statement has no problem, it's true (you just want to add observation?).

Your statement has a huge problem. It is incomplete and you go on to use your incomplete definition in an attempt to make an argument.

You claim evolution (of humans) does not have empirical evidence to support it scientific because it can't hasn't be reproduced by experiment. So lets do use the definition of empirical evidence that has been accepted for the last couple of centuries and then we should also revisit your argument that you require experimental reproduction of human decent to accept evolutionary theory... why again is that not a disingenuous standard?


Just like with asking for evidence of evolution, you could take initiative and educate yourself using the search engine of your choice (or a good old dictionary in this case).
No need of dictionaries dear, I'm lucky to find you here, right?

Sure, if you wish to rely on other people correcting your own ignorance go ahead. It won't get you very far in life, but we each get to choose our own approach to things.


Empirical evidence encompasses both observation and experimentation.
Observation is just a part of an experiment. You observe something to get experience, without getting an experience you have no observation.

The first statement is wrong. Observation is a part of an experiment but not just a part of an experiment. You seem to correct yourself in the second statement in that you observe something to get "experience" (I would say information or evidence here instead of experience).

So you can get observation from an experiment, but you can also get it through observing natural phenomenon, historical information, etc. Modern science started with the careful observation of the motion of celestial bodies which gave enough empirical evidence heliocentrism. There was no experiment taking place, no one recreated the solar system in a laboratory to prove this true (which seems to be the standard you wish to prove evolution), they simply observed natural phenomenon.

Interesting to learn from you that Science can rely on Historical Information, anyway I acknowledge my mistake to ignore the observation part that you deliberately made me understand. But you see, observation is what you're doing in current environment, (only assumption can link it with past) and about new days experiments; that's good to learn for how things happen in natural environment that's what science do but about the evolution theory the assertion that "it happened and just so" is somewhat awkward that 's a lag of explanation here. That should be accepted as the area yet to be searched for.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~