Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Unexplainable by Evolution

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:13:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

1) Conscience: Evolutionists are totally unfazed by what defies explanation by Evolution. They have faith that answers will be found. And, they're too stupid to recognize that this makes Evolution falsifiable to them (i.e. the evidence is irrelevant to them).

2) See #1

3) Like trained chickens, Evolutionists will ask how did God arrive, ignoring that this is not an answer to your question. You question should be modified to: If there was always something, never nothing, and the universe arrived, did it arrive? The dumb chickens will still ask how God arrived (even though I'm telling before hand their error), even though God by definition, if he exists, did not arrive but has always existed.

What do you expect from dumb chickens, or monkeys, or whatever they think they are?
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:22:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

Emergent phenomena arising out of complex brains. In the case of addiction the brains don't have to be very complex.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

Not a biological question and hence unrelated to evolution.

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Not a biological question and hence unrelated to evolution.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:47:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:13:53 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

1) Conscience: Evolutionists are totally unfazed by what defies explanation by Evolution. They have faith that answers will be found. And, they're too stupid to recognize that this makes Evolution falsifiable to them (i.e. the evidence is irrelevant to them).

2) See #1

3) Like trained chickens, Evolutionists will ask how did God arrive, ignoring that this is not an answer to your question. You question should be modified to: If there was always something, never nothing, and the universe arrived, did it arrive? The dumb chickens will still ask how God arrived (even though I'm telling before hand their error), even though God by definition, if he exists, did not arrive but has always existed.

What do you expect from dumb chickens, or monkeys, or whatever they think they are?

ME: What I am asking is nothing more than I would ask for myself. If they so firmly believe in their 'faith' let them have the chance to explain.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:49:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 8:22:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

Emergent phenomena arising out of complex brains. In the case of addiction the brains don't have to be very complex.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

Not a biological question and hence unrelated to evolution.

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Not a biological question and hence unrelated to evolution.

ME: Yep! typical answer from those that haven't a clue on what they are talking about.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:44:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Did you just now come up with that or hear/see it somewhere? It's a perfect summary.
Shukr
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

Where is science?
(:'j
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 11:58:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

ME: So the trick is, if you can't explain something, pretend it isn't in existence.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

ME: I don't say I can explain things, I am a creationist and let my God explain. He hasn't been wrong yet.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Running roughshod, both science and religion have crated more damage the any bomb scientists could build. Your comment is only a gimmick comment, and has no significant meaning.

It is a bit like: If you say nothing you say nothing wrong.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:32:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

And gravity doesn't explain why helium is combustible.

Evolution does not seek to describe the origin of the universe or the nature of time. It only tangentially relates to conscience, imagination, dreaming, addiction, etc -- as Psychology is the study more suited to those.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 1:25:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Actually, there are a number of relatively good explanations for how just that happened.

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

That is not true; you have no supportive evidence to make that claim, and that claim is shown to be false with even the most basic examples such as pressure.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

No it doesn't.

Lets play a game.

It's called "Hunt the assumption".

How it works, is that you make a claim about something evolution "assumes". What I will do, is show either:

a.) The assumption has been tested in many cases reasonably, in most cases more than once.

b.) Significant evidence exists that indicates that the assumption is true.

c.) The assumption isn't relevant to evolution.

or

d.) You need even bigger, or more crazy assumptions upon assumptions to conclude that the assumption is wrong.

Where is science?

All throughout evolution,

and in your face.
Shukr
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:51:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 1:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Actually, there are a number of relatively good explanations for how just that happened.

If several theories can successfully explain how we dream, you must admit many of them are false. Anyway you are free to refer to those explainations to answer these questions -

Where do our dreams originate?

How can we imagine something?

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

That is not true; you have no supportive evidence to make that claim, and that claim is shown to be false with even the most basic examples such as pressure.

Give me that example please.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

No it doesn't.

Lets play a game.

It's called "Hunt the assumption".

How it works, is that you make a claim about something evolution "assumes". What I will do, is show either:

a.) The assumption has been tested in many cases reasonably, in most cases more than once.

b.) Significant evidence exists that indicates that the assumption is true.

c.) The assumption isn't relevant to evolution.

or

d.) You need even bigger, or more crazy assumptions upon assumptions to conclude that the assumption is wrong.


Evolution presumes there were single celled organisms in the begining .

Where has this assumptions been tested? (Also, tested assumption is no longer an assumption.)

What evidence exists suggesting it was so?

How is this assumption irrevelent to evolution?

What big crazy assumptions are required to prove that it was not so?

Where is science?

All throughout evolution,

and in your face.

Let's play a game.

It's called ' Hunt the first carnivorous mammal '.

Also, can you explain how did it survive?

What did it feed upon?
(:'j
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:06:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:51:03 AM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Actually, there are a number of relatively good explanations for how just that happened.

If several theories can successfully explain how we dream, you must admit many of them are false. Anyway you are free to refer to those explainations to answer these questions -

Where do our dreams originate?

As what we perceive when our neurons are firing as we sleep, for the purposes of training our brain as we sleep based on the day's events.

How can we imagine something?

By calling up neural associations.

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

That is not true; you have no supportive evidence to make that claim, and that claim is shown to be false with even the most basic examples such as pressure.

Give me that example please.

Pressure, random movement of particles and atoms that give a fairly constant effect.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

No it doesn't.

Lets play a game.

It's called "Hunt the assumption".

How it works, is that you make a claim about something evolution "assumes". What I will do, is show either:

a.) The assumption has been tested in many cases reasonably, in most cases more than once.

b.) Significant evidence exists that indicates that the assumption is true.

c.) The assumption isn't relevant to evolution.

or

d.) You need even bigger, or more crazy assumptions upon assumptions to conclude that the assumption is wrong.


Evolution presumes there were single celled organisms in the begining .

Where has this assumptions been tested? (Also, tested assumption is no longer an assumption.)

Comparative morphology, and genetics; combined with a nested hierarchy that shows small changes lead back to a single called organism.

What evidence exists suggesting it was so?

The fact we start as a single cell, the fact that the first chronological life were single celled organisms and were for billions of years. Analysis of genomes indicating our shared lineage.

How is this assumption irrevelent to evolution?

Evolution would still be true even if our ancestors weren't what the evidence says they were something else

What big crazy assumptions are required to prove that it was not so?

- genomic patterns indicating inheritance appear by chance.
- taxonomic patterns indicating descent appear by chance
- that going back in time life get simpler is just by chance
- that the chronology of life is all wrong for no discernible reason.
- that dating methods all give relatively consistent dates even though the dates are wrong for no reason.
- that even though what we observe today would definitely lead to evolution, it didn't happen.

Where is science?

All throughout evolution,

and in your face.

Let's play a game.

It's called ' Hunt the first carnivorous mammal '.

I don't know; there were a lot of carnivorous mammals, all the first ones were partially carnivorous.

Also, can you explain how did it survive?

What did it feed upon?

This is a retarded question. Do you honestly think this is an issue? If you do, I think you need to readdress you're understanding.

One of the inordinately large number of species that were alive at the same time as the first mammals.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:14:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Actually, there are a number of relatively good explanations for how just that happened.

If several theories can successfully explain how we dream, you must admit many of them are false.

There are several good reasons for why people have heart attacks. Does that make one reason true above all else? ;) Of course not. There might be many different reasons and way in which some one dreams.

Anyway you are free to refer to those explainations to answer these questions -

Where do our dreams originate?

Dreams originate in the subconscious. Basically, not all parts of your brain turn off when you sleep, and those parts that don't have had a vast majority of their sensory input muted. Because of this, your brain will then invent images and sounds, and string them together, pulling images, concepts, and various other needed ideas from whatever memories have been accrued. Because certain neural pathways have been "routine", those same neural pathways are used to dream, which is why generally, a dream is coherent in of itself, but not when compared to the outside world.

How can we imagine something?

Our minds have the capacity to recall and model something outside our experience.

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

That is not true; you have no supportive evidence to make that claim, and that claim is shown to be false with even the most basic examples such as pressure.

Give me that example please.

Bismuth crystals and Old faithful, though I am not Ram, so he/she has a much different example, I'm sure.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:21:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:13:53 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

1) Conscience: Evolutionists are totally unfazed by what defies explanation by Evolution. They have faith that answers will be found. And, they're too stupid to recognize that this makes Evolution falsifiable to them (i.e. the evidence is irrelevant to them).

Actually, I am curious as to why you think that evolutionists have a problem with this. You don't think learned behavior can be passed from generation or specie to the next? Or that bad/poor behaviors can inspire or cause entire generations/specie to be wiped out?

Interesting.


2) See #1

What exactly is the complication? If anything, the realms of conscience, imagination, etc, wouldn't have anything to do with biological evolution, though it would enable things to pass on.

3) Like trained chickens, Evolutionists will ask how did God arrive, ignoring that this is not an answer to your question.

Ah, but it is. If you consider God alive, and you routinely ask "Where did Life come from if not God", asking where did God come from is the next obvious question.

You question should be modified to: If there was always something, never nothing, and the universe arrived, did it arrive? The dumb chickens will still ask how God arrived (even though I'm telling before hand their error), even though God by definition, if he exists, did not arrive but has always existed.

Special pleading, then. Just assign whatever traits you want to God as opposed what traits you have observed to God, write it down, and... pray, or something.

What do you expect from dumb chickens, or monkeys, or whatever they think they are?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Shukr
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:46:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 12:06:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:51:03 AM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Actually, there are a number of relatively good explanations for how just that happened.

If several theories can successfully explain how we dream, you must admit many of them are false. Anyway you are free to refer to those explainations to answer these questions -

Where do our dreams originate?

As what we perceive when our neurons are firing as we sleep, for the purposes of training our brain as we sleep based on the day's events.

Evolution has no purpose.

How can we imagine something?

By calling up neural associations.

How does it work? I want to read more about it.

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

That is not true; you have no supportive evidence to make that claim, and that claim is shown to be false with even the most basic examples such as pressure.

Give me that example please.

Pressure, random movement of particles and atoms that give a fairly constant effect.

I don't know what are you up to.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

No it doesn't.

Lets play a game.

It's called "Hunt the assumption".

How it works, is that you make a claim about something evolution "assumes". What I will do, is show either:

a.) The assumption has been tested in many cases reasonably, in most cases more than once.

b.) Significant evidence exists that indicates that the assumption is true.

c.) The assumption isn't relevant to evolution.

or

d.) You need even bigger, or more crazy assumptions upon assumptions to conclude that the assumption is wrong.


Evolution presumes there were single celled organisms in the begining .

Where has this assumptions been tested? (Also, tested assumption is no longer an assumption.)

Comparative morphology, and genetics; combined with a nested hierarchy that shows small changes lead back to a single called organism.

Leading back to a single celled organism has nothing to do with evolution. Reverse engineering doesn't help to create a living organism.

What evidence exists suggesting it was so?

The fact we start as a single cell, the fact that the first chronological life were single celled organisms and were for billions of years. Analysis of genomes indicating our shared lineage.

Fact? How?

How is this assumption irrevelent to evolution?

Evolution would still be true even if our ancestors weren't what the evidence says they were something else

Read my question. Again.

What big crazy assumptions are required to prove that it was not so?

- genomic patterns indicating inheritance appear by chance.
- taxonomic patterns indicating descent appear by chance
- that going back in time life get simpler is just by chance
- that the chronology of life is all wrong for no discernible reason.
- that dating methods all give relatively consistent dates even though the dates are wrong for no reason.
- that even though what we observe today would definitely lead to evolution, it didn't happen.

Crazier assumptions are to be considered if TOE fails to explain something.

Where is science?

All throughout evolution,

and in your face.

Let's play a game.

It's called ' Hunt the first carnivorous mammal '.

I don't know; there were a lot of carnivorous mammals, all the first ones were partially carnivorous.

Partial carnivores are favoured by natural selection. Explain how Partial carnivorous became full carnivores?

Also, can you explain how did it survive?

What did it feed upon?

This is a retarded question. Do you honestly think this is an issue? If you do, I think you need to readdress you're understanding.

One of the inordinately large number of species that were alive at the same time as the first mammals.

No, I seriously don't think there is any explaination, how the first fully carnivore mammal survived. You can't explain it.
(:'j
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:34:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Your basic error is assuming that if something is unexplained, or if only an imperfect explanation is available, then a magical explanation that can perfectly explain everything is superior. The problem with magical explanations is that they have no predictive power, so they have no practical use. It far better to leave something "unknown" until it's known. There are about two million scientists in the world, most of them trying to find solutions to unsolved problems. Each scientist could say "The solution to the problem I'm contemplating is that God willed it thus." Then they could all pack up a go home, having "solved" every problem. That's beyond useless.

There is ample fossil evidence of one-celled animals early in the evolutionary process. The science of abiogenisis (how life began) is only about twenty years old. If you care about the subject, read a book like "Abiogenesis: How Life Began. The Origins and Search for Life." You should try to understand the current science.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:56:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:34:12 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Your basic error is assuming that if something is unexplained, or if only an imperfect explanation is available, then a magical explanation that can perfectly explain everything is superior. The problem with magical explanations is that they have no predictive power, so they have no practical use. It far better to leave something "unknown" until it's known. There are about two million scientists in the world, most of them trying to find solutions to unsolved problems. Each scientist could say "The solution to the problem I'm contemplating is that God willed it thus." Then they could all pack up a go home, having "solved" every problem. That's beyond useless.

There is ample fossil evidence of one-celled animals early in the evolutionary process. The science of abiogenisis (how life began) is only about twenty years old. If you care about the subject, read a book like "Abiogenesis: How Life Began. The Origins and Search for Life." You should try to understand the current science.

Unfortunately, Peter has shown little inclination toward making any effort to understand science. He and many other creationists start "Science can't explain this..." threads not in an attempt to learn, but as a way of saying "Gotcha", as if pointing out phenomena that are as yet unexplained must mean a theory is completely invalid.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 12:26:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 12:06:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:51:03 AM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/23/2016 1:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Actually, there are a number of relatively good explanations for how just that happened.

If several theories can successfully explain how we dream, you must admit many of them are false. Anyway you are free to refer to those explainations to answer these questions -

Where do our dreams originate?

As what we perceive when our neurons are firing as we sleep, for the purposes of training our brain as we sleep based on the day's events.

ME: Just like many folk, you stumble with your answer on dreams. Saying neurons fire up for the purpose of training. What evolutionary process created this neurological event? Do some neurons have Todd-A-O Surround Sound in full colour and other don't? What training does the brain get with disconnected dreams that the dreamer can make no sense of? Dreams in animals are presumed as well, the family dog will "Chase a rabbit" in its sleep and it can be seen in the jerks of leg movement.

Human dreaming can be beneficial, but there is only history of these type of dreams in the chronicles of the Bible. But I wont go there as this is science.

Imagination: Now, this is a doosey! You can imagine something that you have never seen, heard or ever had brain training about. Random imagination can be harmful to the human ego or self.

It is so very difficult for this brain, the many functions that it undertakes as we go about our day, and as we sleep without any conscious function or switching from us personally, that it is almost impossible that the balanced, logical brain can accept that it all just happened without some intelligent force in charge. I am not saying, in charge of the evolution process as proposed here. I am referring to the easier acceptance of a Creator of all thing.


How can we imagine something?

By calling up neural associations.

ME: What about dreams that you don't call up, the ones that are outside your imagination?

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

That is not true; you have no supportive evidence to make that claim, and that claim is shown to be false with even the most basic examples such as pressure.

Give me that example please.

Pressure, random movement of particles and atoms that give a fairly constant effect.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

No it doesn't.

ME: Evolution does not start with the one celled bug, it has no start, and each time the evolutionists come up with an assumption, thousands of others come up with a different assumption.

Lets play a game.

It's called "Hunt the assumption".

How it works, is that you make a claim about something evolution "assumes". What I will do, is show either:

ME: Evolution assumes that once there was nothing, no time even, and from this nothing came everything.

a.) The assumption has been tested in many cases reasonably, in most cases more than once.

b.) Significant evidence exists that indicates that the assumption is true.

ME: This is where the real "Board of Assumptions" get to work, but there is no Chairperson.

c.) The assumption isn't relevant to evolution.

or

d.) You need even bigger, or more crazy assumptions upon assumptions to conclude that the assumption is wrong.


Evolution presumes there were single celled organisms in the begining .

Where has this assumptions been tested? (Also, tested assumption is no longer an assumption.)

Comparative morphology, and genetics; combined with a nested hierarchy that shows small changes lead back to a single called organism.

What evidence exists suggesting it was so?

The fact we start as a single cell, the fact that the first chronological life were single celled organisms and were for billions of years. Analysis of genomes indicating our shared lineage.

How is this assumption irrevelent to evolution?

Evolution would still be true even if our ancestors weren't what the evidence says they were something else

What big crazy assumptions are required to prove that it was not so?

- genomic patterns indicating inheritance appear by chance.
- taxonomic patterns indicating descent appear by chance
- that going back in time life get simpler is just by chance
- that the chronology of life is all wrong for no discernible reason.
- that dating methods all give relatively consistent dates even though the dates are wrong for no reason.
- that even though what we observe today would definitely lead to evolution, it didn't happen.

Where is science?

All throughout evolution,

and in your face.

Let's play a game.

It's called ' Hunt the first carnivorous mammal '.

I don't know; there were a lot of carnivorous mammals, all the first ones were partially carnivorous.

Also, can you explain how did it survive?

What did it feed upon?

This is a retarded question. Do you honestly think this is an issue? If you do, I think you need to readdress you're understanding.

One of the inordinately large number of species that were alive at the same time as the first mammals.

ME: Let's play a game. It is called "Hump the Assumptions" LOL
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:19:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

As far as the first two go, i believe that these are fairly limited to human brains. As far as human civilizations go, those with a greater capacity for conscience and imagination would be better suited for survival. With both of those properties came religion, which allows for clergy and therefore a hierarchy, with a hierarchy order, and with order, survival.

As for dreaming, this is present in almost all mammals and birds. Though it holds no biological purpose, it also causes no harm. It could have simply begun as a mutation that was lucky enough to survive with the species until today. If anything, this is a great way to prove the common ancestry of mammals and birds. Among the living organisms of the animal kingdom, Reptiles, fish and amphibians do not dream, so then dreaming must have originated with one of the first mammalian / aviary species to come about. It transfers the dreaming gene on, and its carried throughout countless species. I will admit that most of this answer is speculation however, as i am unsure of the scientific consensus on the genetics of dreaming.

Addiction is the easiest to explain, as it is not always psychological, but often chemical and thus is present in any living creature. Any living thing, if given heroin, would eventually go through withdrawals. This is because the body in essence becomes used to the sensation of being high, and without the chemical to produce this pseudo-homeostasis, the body freaks out.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

Though these next two are irrelevant, i will answer them anyways. According to Einstein, time began with the birth of the universe. This is because time, like the three dimensions we know and love, is a dimension itself. It doesn't make sense to me personally, but who am i to argue with Einstein?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

This one does not make much since. If there was always something, then it never arrived, if by something you mean the dot scientists theorize gave birth to our universe. it could not have arrived from anywhere, because before it, there were no dimensions to travel through. It would have always been where it was until it expanded.
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:33:49 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:58:10 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/22/2016 11:58:35 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Even if that were true, which it isnt; conscience for example is one of the psychological aspects of humanity I've seen explained hundreds of times here; you can't explain them either.

The difference is, that you pretend as if you can explain them.

And that's the difference: science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything.

Science has yet to explain how we dream and how can we imagine something.

Key word being yet. Of course scientists can't explain everything. Science however, can, given enough time and effort.

Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Not exactly. Randomness does not know what a pattern is. If it makes one, it does so by accident. but it does make them sometimes. If i throw a jack, queen, king and ace card into the air, they will at some point land in order. Was it my doing? no. Was it the card's doing? no. it happened randomly. Granted this example is simple, but it need not be complex to disprove your statement.

Theory of evolution starts with an assumption ( taking single celled organisms ) and goes on making assumptions based on assumptions.

Scientists do not publish works of assumption. They publish works of science. If you refuse to acknowledge hundreds of years of careful research and observation, along with a massive scientific consensus, then you are too far gone. I do not claim to know how they reached the conclusions they did. But if they don't know what they're talking about after years of education and work on the matter, then who are you and i to say that we do?

Where is science?
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:44:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:46:00 PM, Shukr wrote:

No, I seriously don't think there is any explaination, how the first fully carnivore mammal survived. You can't explain it.

There are many different ways. feeding on any fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians, insects or herbivorous mammals that it could kill. there's a good chance it would have survived fairly well.
Shukr
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:09:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Not exactly. Randomness does not know what a pattern is. If it makes one, it does so by accident. but it does make them sometimes. If i throw a jack, queen, king and ace card into the air, they will at some point land in order. Was it my doing? no. Was it the card's doing? no. it happened randomly. Granted this example is simple, but it need not be complex to disprove your statement.

There is nothing random about jack, queen, king and ace carnivorous, you have picked these cards.

You are saying : Non Random + Randomness = Possibility of Non Random

Randomness can only result in randomness.
(:'j
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 9:56:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 8:49:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:22:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:18:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Conscience, Imagination, Dreaming, Addiction, and many more.

Emergent phenomena arising out of complex brains. In the case of addiction the brains don't have to be very complex.

When time began? Is there time backwards from when time began?

Not a biological question and hence unrelated to evolution.

If there was always something, and never nothing, what was that something and how did it arrive?

Not a biological question and hence unrelated to evolution.

ME: Yep! typical answer from those that haven't a clue on what they are talking about.

ME: Yep! Typical response from someone who hasn't got a clue how to formulate a coherent question.
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:40:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:09:02 AM, Shukr wrote:
Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Not exactly. Randomness does not know what a pattern is. If it makes one, it does so by accident. but it does make them sometimes. If i throw a jack, queen, king and ace card into the air, they will at some point land in order. Was it my doing? no. Was it the card's doing? no. it happened randomly. Granted this example is simple, but it need not be complex to disprove your statement.

There is nothing random about jack, queen, king and ace carnivorous, you have picked these cards.

You are saying : Non Random + Randomness = Possibility of Non Random

Randomness can only result in randomness.

Then why do we have crystalline structures like we see in gemstones and salts? These things form very clear patterns, and yet are begotten through random processes.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:31:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:56:30 PM, Stronn wrote:
Unfortunately, Peter has shown little inclination toward making any effort to understand science. He and many other creationists start "Science can't explain this..." threads not in an attempt to learn, but as a way of saying "Gotcha", as if pointing out phenomena that are as yet unexplained must mean a theory is completely invalid.

Yes, I understand that. It is a religious belief. I'm more concerned with non-creationists knowing the refutations.
Shukr
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 5:39:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 1:40:48 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:09:02 AM, Shukr wrote:
Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Not exactly. Randomness does not know what a pattern is. If it makes one, it does so by accident. but it does make them sometimes. If i throw a jack, queen, king and ace card into the air, they will at some point land in order. Was it my doing? no. Was it the card's doing? no. it happened randomly. Granted this example is simple, but it need not be complex to disprove your statement.

There is nothing random about jack, queen, king and ace carnivorous, you have picked these cards.

You are saying : Non Random + Randomness = Possibility of Non Random

Randomness can only result in randomness.

Then why do we have crystalline structures like we see in gemstones and salts? These things form very clear patterns, and yet are begotten through random processes.

When I asked how random can make pattern, one guy answered - Bismuth crystals.

Well, the pressure/temperature required to make gemstones or salts or crystals is anything but random.

Again, random + non random = possibility of non random

(Also, when you can predict the result - it is no longer random, right?)

By the way, when You give specific examples, the battle is lost.

You guys have to prove that everything came out of randomness,not just a non random object of your choice.

Randomness is a result of non random. Always.

Infinite monkey theorem doesn't apply to theory of evolution, there were never Infinite organisms to mutate and make different species.

Typewriter keyboard has fixed key elements, language has meaning.

Randomness is not what an evolutionist thinks.
(:'j
bamiller43
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 7:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 5:39:19 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:40:48 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:09:02 AM, Shukr wrote:
Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Not exactly. Randomness does not know what a pattern is. If it makes one, it does so by accident. but it does make them sometimes. If i throw a jack, queen, king and ace card into the air, they will at some point land in order. Was it my doing? no. Was it the card's doing? no. it happened randomly. Granted this example is simple, but it need not be complex to disprove your statement.

There is nothing random about jack, queen, king and ace carnivorous, you have picked these cards.

You are saying : Non Random + Randomness = Possibility of Non Random

Randomness can only result in randomness.

Then why do we have crystalline structures like we see in gemstones and salts? These things form very clear patterns, and yet are begotten through random processes.

When I asked how random can make pattern, one guy answered - Bismuth crystals.

Well, the pressure/temperature required to make gemstones or salts or crystals is anything but random.

Again, random + non random = possibility of non random

(Also, when you can predict the result - it is no longer random, right?)

By the way, when You give specific examples, the battle is lost.

You guys have to prove that everything came out of randomness,not just a non random object of your choice.

Randomness is a result of non random. Always.

Infinite monkey theorem doesn't apply to theory of evolution, there were never Infinite organisms to mutate and make different species.

While this is correct, there don't need to be infinite organisms. In the infinite monkey theorem, there is only one monkey, and an infinite amount of time. Granted we have neither infinite time nor infinite organisms, but we had a large supply of both. Given many monkeys and lots of time, they could eventually type out probably 20 sentences. So why couldnt many organisms with much time make many different species?

Typewriter keyboard has fixed key elements, language has meaning.

Randomness is not what an evolutionist thinks.

OOOOOOOHHHH i think i see what you're getting at. Are you saying that evolution cannot have occurred because things do not get more complex, but instead more simple with time? Is that it or am i completely off?
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 1:13:41 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 5:39:19 PM, Shukr wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:40:48 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:09:02 AM, Shukr wrote:
Randomness can only churn out randomness. Patterns require intelligence.

Not exactly. Randomness does not know what a pattern is. If it makes one, it does so by accident. but it does make them sometimes. If i throw a jack, queen, king and ace card into the air, they will at some point land in order. Was it my doing? no. Was it the card's doing? no. it happened randomly. Granted this example is simple, but it need not be complex to disprove your statement.

There is nothing random about jack, queen, king and ace carnivorous, you have picked these cards.

You are saying : Non Random + Randomness = Possibility of Non Random

Randomness can only result in randomness.

Then why do we have crystalline structures like we see in gemstones and salts? These things form very clear patterns, and yet are begotten through random processes.

When I asked how random can make pattern, one guy answered - Bismuth crystals.

Well, the pressure/temperature required to make gemstones or salts or crystals is anything but random.

Again, random + non random = possibility of non random

(Also, when you can predict the result - it is no longer random, right?)


You are totally right. random + non random = possibility of non random.

random (mutations) + non random (natural selection) = possibility of non random (evolution).

omg you just proved darwins theory of evolution right!!

By the way, when You give specific examples, the battle is lost.

You guys have to prove that everything came out of randomness,not just a non random object of your choice.

Randomness is a result of non random. Always.

Infinite monkey theorem doesn't apply to theory of evolution, there were never Infinite organisms to mutate and make different species.

Typewriter keyboard has fixed key elements, language has meaning.

Randomness is not what an evolutionist thinks.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2016 3:17:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
To get philosophical, Socrates once said that knowledge is the only good.

Deep, ain't it? According to the professor that was explaining this last night, Socrates, who never wrote anything down, was saying that only knowledge that aids mankind get through his short life span is good. Theories and assumptions are worthless.

If his statement is to be held as a tenet for mankind, then evolution is useless in that it has no benefit to mankind, and it is only a theory and an assumption with no value to cope with life as we live it. Just the amount of evolution theories is sufficient to call it useless knowledge.

Quote:
I can think of gradualism or punctuated equibrium so there are at least two, but there are probably nearly as many variations as there are evolutionary biologists. New scientis recently published an article on a new variation, "Uncertainty principle: How evolution hedges its bets" , 10 January 2011.

Note that evolution is not the same as natural selection and adaption. Some creationists accept adaption and natural selection while rejecting evolution. [1]
Source(s): [1] http://creation.com......