Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution debunked.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:20:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Sighs. I will not read this. If you want to have a discussion, talk to us. Raise key points.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 4:01:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Yes, just behind everything else important, such as footballers, and the latest celebrity news.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 7:35:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Or hearing about the people winning a nobel prize for doing so.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:39:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

I don't think that I can read this whole thing. So I'll just ask: how many base pairs of DNA does the most simple lifeform possess?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:09:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Against my better judgement, I decided to read this article. Yep, it was a colossal waste of my time and just made me lose faith in humanity even more.

As MysticalEgg said, if you are so sure you can disprove evolution, why don't you actually debate one of us and see how it goes?

I'd be able to refute virtually every one of the claims and 'evidence' in the linked article, but I again feel that it would be a waste of time since you wouldn't listen at all.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:48:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:09:26 AM, KafkaF wrote:
Against my better judgement, I decided to read this article. Yep, it was a colossal waste of my time and just made me lose faith in humanity even more.

As MysticalEgg said, if you are so sure you can disprove evolution, why don't you actually debate one of us and see how it goes?

I'd be able to refute virtually every one of the claims and 'evidence' in the linked article, but I again feel that it would be a waste of time since you wouldn't listen at all.

Go ahead. I'll listen. I probably won't agree with you, but I'll listen.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:53:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

A media controlled by atheists? Yeah, right. It is to laugh.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:58:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

From the way you're thinking, if Evolution had been debunked, all the atheists would convert to theists and the whole world would be Christian-type. Do you honestly think it's possible? Mainstream scientists will always have an excuse for not believing in a Creator.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

'Sides - it's just common sense knowing that evolution is a random chance process - there's no observable evidence for it that's not been distorted and remodeled (by scientists).
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:08:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

'Sides - it's just common sense knowing that evolution is a random chance process - there's no observable evidence for it that's not been distorted and remodeled (by scientists).

In my biosystematics class I've done the math myself.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:15:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.

In your first "rebuttal" you contradicted yourself by saying it's not a random process, then blatantly stating genes show up randomly in science labs. Not only you contradict your own hypothesis, but your statement proves nothing and is probably a lie.

You cannot prove that evolution doesn't happen by chance. If you can, email me.

Evolution, or the Big Bang, COULD have been started by ANY supernatural being/Creator. But the Christian God, whom we can research and learn about using God's Word, specifically creates each species in 7 days and that is made quite clear. The person(s) who wrote the article Dr. Obvious presented are Christians who believe that the Bible is literal. Why be Christian if there are more than one unstable ways to say God is a creator?

A doctrine is a "...set of beliefs...held by any group." (http://www.google.com...) We could argue all day on if evolution requires faith or not. But again, common sense kicks in and - SOMEHOW - says, 'you can't see evolution happening therefore you have to believe it is/was!'

Every single claim you made was ignorant. And you only attempted to rebut 4 paragraphs from the extremely long article.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:16:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:08:07 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

'Sides - it's just common sense knowing that evolution is a random chance process - there's no observable evidence for it that's not been distorted and remodeled (by scientists).

In my biosystematics class I've done the math myself.

And...?
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:20:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:16:36 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:08:07 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

In my biosystematics class I've done the math myself.

And...?

And you're wrong -- I do have an idea how to compare an evolutionary model against random chance because I've done exactly that.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:22:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

Really? If it isn't, that means someone influenced it, or caused it to happen. Explain how it is not random.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Again. How is it not random?

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

The article provided quotes from scientists about this. It is perfectly clear that they refuse to even consider the possibility of intelligent design. That's not science. It's dogma.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

Why don't you provide us with just one fact that supports evolution. You can't. There aren't any.

The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Religion was responsible for those events. Not God. The acts were not based on what the Bible teaches. These acts were committed by evil men, who rejected the teachings of Christ. The Bible even mentions events like those. How false Christians deceive people, for their own gain.

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.

Way to cherry pick. The article raised some valid points about the claims of evolution. Funny how you didn't mention any of those. The simple fact is that evolution has zero scientific facts to support it's claims. It is nothing more than a fairy tale for grown ups.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:23:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:20:23 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:16:36 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:08:07 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

In my biosystematics class I've done the math myself.

And...?

And you're wrong -- I do have an idea how to compare an evolutionary model against random chance because I've done exactly that.

If I'm wrong about this, though, tell me: it takes more than math and numbers to prove the evolutionary model. For example, why isn't there any observable evidence? Why don't we hear about animals evolving every week in the newspaper if it's such a proven "fact?"
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Shadow-Dragon
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:24:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, as long as scientists are getting paid, they will keep finding "new evidence", and wont admit the truth to the public.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:26:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 7:35:15 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Or hearing about the people winning a nobel prize for doing so.

Debunking evolution promotes PEACE? You think so? ;)
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:31:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:24:00 AM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, as long as scientists are getting paid, they will keep finding "new evidence", and wont admit the truth to the public.

Shadow Dragon why you not friend me yet? :D
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Shadow-Dragon
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:37:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:31:37 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:24:00 AM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, as long as scientists are getting paid, they will keep finding "new evidence", and wont admit the truth to the public.

Shadow Dragon why you not friend me yet? :D

I have no friends.
Graph
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:38:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:23:49 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:20:23 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:16:36 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:08:07 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

In my biosystematics class I've done the math myself.

And...?

And you're wrong -- I do have an idea how to compare an evolutionary model against random chance because I've done exactly that.

If I'm wrong about this, though, tell me: it takes more than math and numbers to prove the evolutionary model. For example, why isn't there any observable evidence? Why don't we hear about animals evolving every week in the newspaper if it's such a proven "fact?"

It does take more than math and numbers to support the evolutionary models; you also need the data. In systematics, the data is obtained using DNA sequencing methods. You can then do the math and numbers with the determined sequences.

I don't know why you wouldn't consider DNA sequences to be observable evidence. In earlier biology, shared morphological traits were used to construct evolutionary trees using the methodology of cladistics; these traits are also observable. Similarly, you can use fossil data to strengthen the morphological phylogeny, and you can compare the morphological and genetic phylogenies which demonstrates that the evolutionary tree of life is not the result of chance.

Speciation is not particularly interesting, nor common; it's a slow moving process. You can find discussion of observed speciation events in some scientific journals.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:41:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:15:35 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.

In your first "rebuttal" you contradicted yourself by saying it's not a random process, then blatantly stating genes show up randomly in science labs. Not only you contradict your own hypothesis, but your statement proves nothing and is probably a lie.

You cannot prove that evolution doesn't happen by chance. If you can, email me.

The creation of genes is a random process, random in the sense that we can not predict where DNA polymerase will commit an error and create a new alele. In this sense, the creation of new genes is random.

However, evolution is precissely a selective process, that's why "natural selection" is called natural SELECTION and not natural randomness.

Evolution, or the Big Bang, COULD have been started by ANY supernatural being/Creator. But the Christian God, whom we can research and learn about using God's Word, specifically creates each species in 7 days and that is made quite clear. The person(s) who wrote the article Dr. Obvious presented are Christians who believe that the Bible is literal. Why be Christian if there are more than one unstable ways to say God is a creator?

A doctrine is a "...set of beliefs...held by any group." (http://www.google.com...) We could argue all day on if evolution requires faith or not. But again, common sense kicks in and - SOMEHOW - says, 'you can't see evolution happening therefore you have to believe it is/was!'

You can't see the Sun traveling through the galaxy, you can not see atoms, you can not see the sweetness of chocolate, and you can barely see the hours' needle of a clock moving. You can't even see your mother aging. Are these things a doctrine too?

In summary, you don't need to see something to assert it is true, you just need evidence. For evolution there's plenty, for God there's none.

Every single claim you made was ignorant. And you only attempted to rebut 4 paragraphs from the extremely long article.

In fact, you missunderstanding me was a product of YOUR ignorance about evolution and YOUR ignorance about what a doctrine is.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:52:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:41:09 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:15:35 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.

In your first "rebuttal" you contradicted yourself by saying it's not a random process, then blatantly stating genes show up randomly in science labs. Not only you contradict your own hypothesis, but your statement proves nothing and is probably a lie.

You cannot prove that evolution doesn't happen by chance. If you can, email me.

The creation of genes is a random process, random in the sense that we can not predict where DNA polymerase will commit an error and create a new alele. In this sense, the creation of new genes is random.

However, evolution is precissely a selective process, that's why "natural selection" is called natural SELECTION and not natural randomness.

So you admit that it's a random process. The selection you claim happens is random too.

Evolution, or the Big Bang, COULD have been started by ANY supernatural being/Creator. But the Christian God, whom we can research and learn about using God's Word, specifically creates each species in 7 days and that is made quite clear. The person(s) who wrote the article Dr. Obvious presented are Christians who believe that the Bible is literal. Why be Christian if there are more than one unstable ways to say God is a creator?

A doctrine is a "...set of beliefs...held by any group." (http://www.google.com...) We could argue all day on if evolution requires faith or not. But again, common sense kicks in and - SOMEHOW - says, 'you can't see evolution happening therefore you have to believe it is/was!'

You can't see the Sun traveling through the galaxy, you can not see atoms, you can not see the sweetness of chocolate, and you can barely see the hours' needle of a clock moving. You can't even see your mother aging. Are these things a doctrine too?

Your belief that they are happening, which is a part of a theory, is a doctrine, yes. Evolution is too. If you read farther in the article things might be less complicating for you.

In summary, you don't need to see something to assert it is true, you just need evidence. For evolution there's plenty, for God there's none.

Again you contradict yourself. An how can you be sure the evidence is real if you can't see it? It's a different argument for the evidence of God because it's historical and supernatural evidence. There is scientific evidence for the Bible (and for the Creator), but all these you can actually observe, unlike your theory which relies solely on science which, as you say, "doesn't have to be seen in order to be true."

Yay! You admitted you DO need faith to believe in evolution!

Every single claim you made was ignorant. And you only attempted to rebut 4 paragraphs from the extremely long article.

In fact, you missunderstanding me was a product of YOUR ignorance about evolution and YOUR ignorance about what a doctrine is.

Please restate that so that I can understand. (LOL)
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:57:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:22:40 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

Really? If it isn't, that means someone influenced it, or caused it to happen. Explain how it is not random.

Natural Selection:
Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism [...] Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore the population evolves. [...] Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection [...] a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In summary, a process in which some individuals are selected and favoured, can not be random by definition.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Again. How is it not random?

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

The article provided quotes from scientists about this. It is perfectly clear that they refuse to even consider the possibility of intelligent design. That's not science. It's dogma.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

Why don't you provide us with just one fact that supports evolution. You can't. There aren't any.

I won't. I have done it plenty of times in recent threads:
http://www.debate.org...


The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Religion was responsible for those events. Not God. The acts were not based on what the Bible teaches. These acts were committed by evil men, who rejected the teachings of Christ. The Bible even mentions events like those. How false Christians deceive people, for their own gain.

The bible is full of violence, propagand, advocates genocide and slavery, discriminates homosexuals, atheists and women, etc. So no, it wasn't christians diverting from Jesus' teachings, but rather christians following them to the point.

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.

Way to cherry pick. The article raised some valid points about the claims of evolution. Funny how you didn't mention any of those. The simple fact is that evolution has zero scientific facts to support it's claims. It is nothing more than a fairy tale for grown ups.

I didn't cherry pick, since my "picking" was actually a random process!
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:58:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:38:32 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:23:49 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:20:23 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:16:36 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:08:07 AM, Graph wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:02:43 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 8:27:30 AM, Graph wrote:
I've always found arguments like "if evolution is true then everything is just random chance" interesting, because scientists actually compare the possibility that the data is simply the result of chance, or if it's the result of evolutionary processes - and doing the statistics routinely rejects the hypothesis that the data is the result of chance.

I bet you have no idea how they figure if it's random or not.

In my biosystematics class I've done the math myself.

And...?

And you're wrong -- I do have an idea how to compare an evolutionary model against random chance because I've done exactly that.

If I'm wrong about this, though, tell me: it takes more than math and numbers to prove the evolutionary model. For example, why isn't there any observable evidence? Why don't we hear about animals evolving every week in the newspaper if it's such a proven "fact?"

It does take more than math and numbers to support the evolutionary models; you also need the data. In systematics, the data is obtained using DNA sequencing methods. You can then do the math and numbers with the determined sequences.

I don't know why you wouldn't consider DNA sequences to be observable evidence. In earlier biology, shared morphological traits were used to construct evolutionary trees using the methodology of cladistics; these traits are also observable. Similarly, you can use fossil data to strengthen the morphological phylogeny, and you can compare the morphological and genetic phylogenies which demonstrates that the evolutionary tree of life is not the result of chance.

I consider DNA sequences to be evidence for God. For evolution the facts don't fit together and it just doesn't make sense. I do quite consider fossil evidence as proof for a Creator (also), and there are many instances where I have seen evolution textbooks with false fossil assumptions, etc. If the "tree of life" is not chance, then what is it? God's doing? Creatures planned their own evolution out?!

Here's one of my favorite websites for debunking the Evolution Family Tree: http://www.newgeology.us.... Feel free to try and rebut what it says, too.

Speciation is not particularly interesting, nor common; it's a slow moving process. You can find discussion of observed speciation events in some scientific journals.

Proof?
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:00:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:37:26 AM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:31:37 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:24:00 AM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:52:34 AM, apb4y wrote:
If Evolution had been debunked, we would be reading about it in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, as long as scientists are getting paid, they will keep finding "new evidence", and wont admit the truth to the public.

Shadow Dragon why you not friend me yet? :D

I have no friends.

Didn't I request you?
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:07:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:52:00 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:41:09 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:15:35 AM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:35:26 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:47:52 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article, but it is worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you are interested in the truth, then you will find it here.

http://members.toast.net...

Since this is a long article and probably a waste of time, I will randomnly read some paragraphs and see if there's actually something with sense in there:

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Evolution is not a random process (hello strawman). Plus genes appear randomnly as observed in any high school laboratory.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion"that everything in the universe happened by chance"would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Again evolution does not happen "by chance" (oh strawman! stop following me!).

It is a bit disturbing that this is called "Reputable Scientists critique evolution"

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design,

Evolution is not a doctrine and doesn't deny God "creating the living world with purpose and design" since it could very well be a process created by God.

I like how they talk about evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because it "lacks" evidence, and yet they don't critique why is then religion (which has 0 evidence to pretty much everything it states) also taught at schools.

The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition.
I don't think it was intelligent to name the monstruosities that religion is capable of, in order to give credibility to creationism lol

Those who argue this way fail to realize that the ultimate "truth" which science ought to reveal to us is that God does exist, and that He is marvelously wise, incredibly powerful, perfectly just and incomprehensibly good.

Lmfao. I see how how rigorous is the article now. Stop reading asap.

In your first "rebuttal" you contradicted yourself by saying it's not a random process, then blatantly stating genes show up randomly in science labs. Not only you contradict your own hypothesis, but your statement proves nothing and is probably a lie.

You cannot prove that evolution doesn't happen by chance. If you can, email me.

The creation of genes is a random process, random in the sense that we can not predict where DNA polymerase will commit an error and create a new alele. In this sense, the creation of new genes is random.

However, evolution is precissely a selective process, that's why "natural selection" is called natural SELECTION and not natural randomness.

So you admit that it's a random process. The selection you claim happens is random too.

Nop, I admit it is a process of nature selecting varieties within a population. Which, by definition, can not be a random process.

Evolution, or the Big Bang, COULD have been started by ANY supernatural being/Creator. But the Christian God, whom we can research and learn about using God's Word, specifically creates each species in 7 days and that is made quite clear. The person(s) who wrote the article Dr. Obvious presented are Christians who believe that the Bible is literal. Why be Christian if there are more than one unstable ways to say God is a creator?

A doctrine is a "...set of beliefs...held by any group." (http://www.google.com...) We could argue all day on if evolution requires faith or not. But again, common sense kicks in and - SOMEHOW - says, 'you can't see evolution happening therefore you have to believe it is/was!'

You can't see the Sun traveling through the galaxy, you can not see atoms, you can not see the sweetness of chocolate, and you can barely see the hours' needle of a clock moving. You can't even see your mother aging. Are these things a doctrine too?

Your belief that they are happening, which is a part of a theory, is a doctrine, yes. Evolution is too. If you read farther in the article things might be less complicating for you.

No, those are facts, not theories.

In summary, you don't need to see something to assert it is true, you just need evidence. For evolution there's plenty, for God there's none.

Again you contradict yourself. An how can you be sure the evidence is real if you can't see it?

Because giving more credibility to the eyes than to the nose, skin or tongue, is a logical absurdity.

It's a different argument for the evidence of God because it's historical and supernatural evidence. There is scientific evidence for the Bible (and for the Creator), but all these you can actually observe, unlike your theory which relies solely on science which, as you say, "doesn't have to be seen in order to be true."

It doesn't have to be seen, but still it needs evidence. IE, you don't see colesterol of your blood rising, but you consider the result of a blood analysis evidence of your colesterol is indeed rising. You don't see the flu virus under your skin, and yet you consider a collection of symptoms an evidence that you have the flue. You don't see galaxies getting further, but them changing to red spectrum is evidence that they are indeed getting further. If you have your eyes closed, you don't need to see a Coke to know that what I'm giving to you is indeed Coke. Etc.

Yay! You admitted you DO need faith to believe in evolution!

Ummm... Nop.