Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution a Theory in Crisis

Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:13:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Irreducible Complexity was considered by Darwin. This isn't just some term that Evolution's critics pulled out of thin air. They are using a term that he himself used. He understood that his theory wasn't by any means "a fact".
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 7:31:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudo-scientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

If the only thing the Theory of Evolution is attacked with is pseudo-science, it is safe forever. Crisis, what crisis? Lol.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 8:35:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 7:31:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudo-scientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design.

Shh... Tell him evolution is in a crisis, Dee-Em...

Creationism would hate to be in a crisis alone. :(
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:31:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 8:35:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 7:31:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudo-scientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design.

Shh... Tell him evolution is in a crisis, Dee-Em...

Creationism would hate to be in a crisis alone. :(

No need. His intellectual honesty is in crisis. That should be company enough.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:56:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution is not a theory in crisis, and the only "evolution controversy" that exists can be summarized as this:

1.) creationists and those with a religious agenda make stuff up, point out some ridiculous fact that makes no sense and holds no water when analyzed rigorously, or simply ignore the detailed evidence that supports evolution.
2.) scientists easily refute the claims on scientific and logical grounds.
3.) creationists repeat the claims for a decade.
4.) scientists continue to refute the claims.
5.) creationists claim that because Scientists are defending evolution, there is a controversy.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 1:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 12:56:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis, and the only "evolution controversy" that exists can be summarized as this:

1.) creationists and those with a religious agenda make stuff up, point out some ridiculous fact that makes no sense and holds no water when analyzed rigorously, or simply ignore the detailed evidence that supports evolution.
2.) scientists easily refute the claims on scientific and logical grounds.
3.) creationists repeat the claims for a decade.
4.) scientists continue to refute the claims.
5.) creationists claim that because Scientists are defending evolution, there is a controversy.

----------

I'm not a Creationist.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 1:57:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:13:13 AM, Sooner wrote:

1. Irreducible complexity is pseudo-scientific. It has no basis in real biology. The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by Behe, an advocate of intelligent design. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 2005, the court found that peer-reviewed research papers had refuted Behe's claims of irreducible complexity.

2. The eye as an example is very dubious. The eye had some basic stages in evolution before becoming as complex as ours:

(a) A pigment spot -- composed of pigmented cells, epithelial cells, and nerve fiber
(b) A simple pigment cup - epithelial cells contract to curve the pigmented cells and nerve fibers to form a cup-like shape
(c) The simple optic cup found in abalone - the nerve fibers form the optic nerve, and the pigmented layer expands to form a water-filled gap, with the epithelial cells present on the boundary
(d) The complex lensed eye of the marine snail and the octopus - A lens is formed in the gap between the two bounds of pigmented layers, and the cornea is formed
(e) The complex lensed eye with irises, e.g. in humans - the pigmented cells form the retina, and the lens branches out to form the iris while retaining its own shape

Certainly (a), (b), (c), and (d) are "reduced" versions of (e), meaning our eyes are not "irreducible," as you claim.

3. The ears aren't even used as examples of this supposed "irreducible complexity" because everybody recognizes they are reducible. According to Allin 1975 (Allin EF (December 1975). "Evolution of the mammalian middle ear". J. Morphol. 147 (4): 403"437), the evolution of the ear is one of the most documented forms of evolution. "In modern amniotes (including mammals), the middle ear collects airborne sounds through an ear drum and transmits the vibrations to the inner ear via thin cartilaginous and ossified structures, which usually include the stapes (a stirrup-shaped auditory ossicle). But the earliest tetrapods, amphibians and amniotes probably did not have ear drums. In fact ear drums apparently evolved independently three to six times, in: stegocephalians (very primitive amphibians); in anurans (the amphibian group that includes frogs and toads); in synapsids (mammals and their extinct relatives), in diapsids (the most important sauropsid group, including lizards, crocodiles, dinosaurs and birds); perhaps separately in anapsids (turtles and their extinct relatives), if turtles are not modified diapsids; probably in seymouriamorphs (a group of reptiliomorphs); and possibly in some temnospondyls (primitive amphibians). In all basal members of the 3 major clades of amniotes (synapsids, eureptiles, and parareptiles) the stapes bones are relatively massive props that support the braincase, and this function prevents them from being used as part of the hearing system. But there is increasing evidence that synapsids, eureptiles and parareptiles developed eardrums connected to the inner ear by stapes during the Permian." -- https://en.wikipedia.org...

4. The heart example is equally dubious. I think Bishopric 2005 is a good study on the evolution of the heart, and traces it in detail from the beginning. "Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of the eukaryotes. The primitive coelom, characteristic of early multicellular organisms ( approximately 800 million years ago), is lined by endoderm and is a passive receptacle for gas exchange, feeding, and sexual reproduction. The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Further evolution of this structure in the bilaterian branches Ecdysoa (Drosophila) and Deuterostoma (amphioxus) culminate in a peristaltic tubular heart, without valves, without blood vessels or blood, but featuring a single layer of contracting mesoderm. The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. With differentiation of the cardiac chambers, regional specialization of the proteins in the cardiac myocyte can be detected in the teleost fish and amphibians. In mammals, growth constraints are placed on the heart, presumably to accommodate the constraints of the body plan and the thoracic cavity, and adult cardiac myocytes lose the ability to re-enter the cell cycle on demand. Mammalian cardiac myocyte innervation betrays the ancient link between the heart, the gut, and reproduction: the vagus nerve controlling heart rate emanates from centers in the central nervous system regulating feeding and affective behavior." -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Your claims of irreducible complexity are refuted. Evolution is hardly "in crisis".
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:16:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

----------

And that changes what?

I bet the OP figured the [1] [2] before every new thought made that pretty dam* clear. Good god.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:18:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:16:46 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

----------

And that changes what?

Nothing. People would be interested in viewing the article :)


I bet the OP figured the [1] [2] before every new thought made that pretty dam* clear. Good god.

Lol, I know.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:34:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 1:56:35 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:56:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis, and the only "evolution controversy" that exists can be summarized as this:

1.) creationists and those with a religious agenda make stuff up, point out some ridiculous fact that makes no sense and holds no water when analyzed rigorously, or simply ignore the detailed evidence that supports evolution.
2.) scientists easily refute the claims on scientific and logical grounds.
3.) creationists repeat the claims for a decade.
4.) scientists continue to refute the claims.
5.) creationists claim that because Scientists are defending evolution, there is a controversy.

----------

I'm not a Creationist.

If you are championing ID, yes you are. You can't just have design. You also need to create following the design.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:16:46 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

----------

And that changes what?

Do you often pass off other people's work as your own? You can claim it was obvious but it's unethical to copy another's work without a citation.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:39:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:16:46 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

----------

And that changes what?

Do you often pass off other people's work as your own? You can claim it was obvious but it's unethical to copy another's work without a citation.

----------

How didst thou know it was unethical? Did God let you eat from the tree of the Knowlegde of good and Evil? Sorry, but now thou shalt surely die. I art very sad.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:24:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:06:56 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:39:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:16:46 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

----------

And that changes what?

Do you often pass off other people's work as your own? You can claim it was obvious but it's unethical to copy another's work without a citation.

----------

How didst thou know it was unethical? Did God let you eat from the tree of the Knowlegde of good and Evil? Sorry, but now thou shalt surely die. I art very sad.

Still claiming you're not a Creationist? Lol.

Some people don't know when to stop lying.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:24:14 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:06:56 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:39:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:16:46 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:00:53 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'd also like to add that the OP just copy/pastes this article -- http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

----------

And that changes what?

Do you often pass off other people's work as your own? You can claim it was obvious but it's unethical to copy another's work without a citation.

----------

How didst thou know it was unethical? Did God let you eat from the tree of the Knowlegde of good and Evil? Sorry, but now thou shalt surely die. I art very sad.

Still claiming you're not a Creationist? Lol.

Some people don't know when to stop lying.

----

This was a reference meaning YOU do not believe in God so who has decided it is "unethical for me to copy and paste? You? God?

Me: Let me ask myself. Okay self. Do you claim a god or creationism?
Self: No
Me: okay, thanks.
Me: do you claim Atheism?
Self: no.
Me: okay self. I agree.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:58:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How didst thou know it was unethical? Did God let you eat from the tree of the Knowlegde of good and Evil? Sorry, but now thou shalt surely die. I art very sad.

-----
You knew what this was referencing. You must be a Creationist.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 4:36:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you support an intelligent design hypothesis for the origin of life?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 4:36:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you support an intelligent design hypothesis for the origin of life?

I'm Agnostic. I don't claim anything. I just like being a pain in the as*.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 4:46:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 4:36:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you support an intelligent design hypothesis for the origin of life?

I don't know. Perhaps your evolution evolved a computer in another dimension and it randomly put code together until our reality came to be. You know it's true...
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 4:48:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 4:46:41 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 4:36:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Do you support an intelligent design hypothesis for the origin of life?

Or perhaps god has a sense of humor and Noah did get every species in the boat... you know it's true....
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 1:56:35 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:56:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis, and the only "evolution controversy" that exists can be summarized as this:

1.) creationists and those with a religious agenda make stuff up, point out some ridiculous fact that makes no sense and holds no water when analyzed rigorously, or simply ignore the detailed evidence that supports evolution.
2.) scientists easily refute the claims on scientific and logical grounds.
3.) creationists repeat the claims for a decade.
4.) scientists continue to refute the claims.
5.) creationists claim that because Scientists are defending evolution, there is a controversy.

----------

I'm not a Creationist.

Feel free to convince me otherwise or state what you actually believe, however the portrayal of evolution you've made here, and through other posts indicates the same religious science serialism typical of creationism, and I have yet to see someone frame their arguments like a creationist, object to responses like a creationist, and not be a creationist.

I have, however, seen people deny that they are creationists many times in order to make it seem like their argument is not the same as every other creationist; and I'm sure you're separating yourself from what you will define as a creationist by some minor semantic distinction. Indeed the very source you quote is from a group of individuals who do just that.

Saying this though, I was not actually claiming you were (although that was my opinion, and I think it's likely you are, and am claiming it now).

I will however give you the benefit of the doubt, even though if you weren't a creationist you would have gone into more detail in your previous reply.

What is your view on the origin of life and biodiversity on this planet?
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 1:56:35 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:56:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis, and the only "evolution controversy" that exists can be summarized as this:

1.) creationists and those with a religious agenda make stuff up, point out some ridiculous fact that makes no sense and holds no water when analyzed rigorously, or simply ignore the detailed evidence that supports evolution.
2.) scientists easily refute the claims on scientific and logical grounds.
3.) creationists repeat the claims for a decade.
4.) scientists continue to refute the claims.
5.) creationists claim that because Scientists are defending evolution, there is a controversy.

----------

I'm not a Creationist.

of course you aren't sweety, of course you aren't.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 7:07:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:13:13 AM, Sooner wrote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Irreducible Complexity was considered by Darwin. This isn't just some term that Evolution's critics pulled out of thin air. They are using a term that he himself used. He understood that his theory wasn't by any means "a fact".

A theory in Crisis, eh?
Link please?

If you have done any reading whatsoever on Evolution you would know the Theory is stronger than ever and has never failed to rise to any challenge to it and deflate it with flying colors. Like I.C.. I think even Behe has recanted that now! LOL
So, thanks for the thought, but you should put it in Philosophy Forum. Since it is bereft of science. I'll wait for that link, meanwhile. GodBless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Creationists have attempted to push the "theory in crisis" line for decades. Meanwhile research and insights into evolutionary development have proceeded unhindered by such allegations.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:53:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:00:28 PM, Enji wrote:
Creationists have attempted to push the "theory in crisis" line for decades. Meanwhile research and insights into evolutionary development have proceeded unhindered by such allegations.

Please don't rub it in, Enji -- this is quite a sore point, y'know.

Creationism hasn't produced a single, significant, independently-verified finding in its entire 3,000 year history.

So Creationists can't really contribute to science constructively. They just have to try and drag better ideas into their own reeking storm-water drain of ignorance, impotence and intellectual despair.

But it's lonely being so scared and so ignorant. And so eager are they to pull people back to live in the stinky little darkness with them, they're always reaching out through their grating for company. Perhaps their biggest fear is that one day they might crawl out by accident.

That might be why they have to sample tiny crumbs of astronomy, geochemistry and biological science that sometimes sluice down the gutters toward them, and then spit it out loudly, yelling "Eeeew! I couldn't POSSIBLY swallow THAT!" and waiting to see if anyone notices or cares.

Meanwhile the rest of the world bustles past on their evolved feet, living their evolved lives, and I'm sorry to say -- most don't.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 2:39:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:38:32 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:56:35 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:56:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis, and the only "evolution controversy" that exists can be summarized as this:

1.) creationists and those with a religious agenda make stuff up, point out some ridiculous fact that makes no sense and holds no water when analyzed rigorously, or simply ignore the detailed evidence that supports evolution.
2.) scientists easily refute the claims on scientific and logical grounds.
3.) creationists repeat the claims for a decade.
4.) scientists continue to refute the claims.
5.) creationists claim that because Scientists are defending evolution, there is a controversy.

----------

I'm not a Creationist.

of course you aren't sweety, of course you aren't.

------
Define devil'sadvocate. I know you can do it sweety. You got this...
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:01:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
While Evolutionists carry on and on, I'm still waiting with a smile.

An infinite "physical" (finite) universe (reality) cannot exist. In simpler wording:

A rock that never ends does not exist.

Result: One theory of how our universe exists is impossible. Infinite matter is not logical, reasonable, and an insult to common sense. Any normal, sane, person can pause and quickly mentally reject any idea that finite matter continues infinitely.

One theory is gone.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:07:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A limited finite universe (reality) is impossible. You cannot have an object end then have nothing outside of it. In other words, a basketball cannot exist inside of nowhere. It's the same as the "Earth is flat" theory from 1492 AD. Go too far, and you'll fall off the Earth into nothing, into the abyss, into the nothingness. It's a mythological thought.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:09:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:01:08 AM, Sooner wrote:
While Evolutionists carry on and on, I'm still waiting with a smile.

An infinite "physical" (finite) universe (reality) cannot exist. In simpler wording:

A rock that never ends does not exist.

Result: One theory of how our universe exists is impossible. Infinite matter is not logical, reasonable, and an insult to common sense. Any normal, sane, person can pause and quickly mentally reject any idea that finite matter continues infinitely.

One theory is gone.

I agree. There is a finite quantity of matter in this universe.

What does that have to do with this discussion on evolution?
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:17:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So there it is Evolutionists. Feast. Enlighten me.

The universe/reality either ends or is infinite/unending. That's its only 2 options.

There is no such thing as an object that exists inside of nothing.

There is no such thing as an object or group of objects that never end.

These 2 statements show that our universe/reality cannot exist by itself. It must be helped by an outside influence. Notice I did not say God, but neither do I refute that theory.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.