Quote from: BADecker on December 12, 2017, 05:02:53 PM

Quote from: protokol on December 12, 2017, 12:46:45 PM

Quote from: Astargath on December 11, 2017, 11:14:48 PM

Quote from: BADecker on December 11, 2017, 10:35:36 PM

Quote from: Astargath on December 10, 2017, 12:18:07 PM

Quote from: BADecker on December 10, 2017, 03:19:10 AM

Quote from: Astargath on December 10, 2017, 12:02:42 AM

Quote from: BADecker on December 09, 2017, 08:52:30 PM

Quote from: Astargath on December 05, 2017, 07:54:24 PM

Quote from: BADecker on December 05, 2017, 05:21:49 PM

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

Cool

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

Cool

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

Cool

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as true. The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (Survival of the fittest is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Cool

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.

Where does Astargath provide any solid evidence that evolution exists? The only place that there is anything close to solid evidence for evolution, is in the dreams of evolutionists.

Where did I say "... so it's false?" All I did was answer Astargath's question, even though I may have shown how unanswerable it is. Since you are trying to say that I said something that you know well that I didn't say, you are shown to have bad faith, and should be regarded with caution.

You seem to suggest that spontaneous generation of human life doesn't exist. But that is exactly what evolution is... spontaneous generation of life, be it human or otherwise. Make up your mind. What do you believe in?

Look at all the living things around. None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature, according to the complex laws of reproduction physics. That we know of, it has always been like this.

I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution, in other words. If there was any, it would have to be back in the beginning, when everything was being put into place, because everything else in nature operates by cause and effect, not spontaneous generation.

In other words, no evolution. Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

ugh where to start here. Abiogenesis or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This has nothing to do with your claims that god created us. What you are claiming is that complex life (humans) were created spontaneously, that's what the bible says, right? God created animals and humans instantly.

''None of them simply jumped into life spontaneously. All of them became alive through complex cause and effect actions in nature'' What? I thought god created them all in 1 day.

''I totally agree with you that there isn't any spontaneous generation of life... no evolution'' So you agree god doesn't exist? Since when is evolution the spontaneous generation of life? Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

Seems like you are the one without google or a dictionary.