Explain the Trilobite

This life is a test for the next life. Yet, I still know how to have fun during a test.

 

I love how Evofundies are always reduced to attempt to 'frame' the debate and set their own positions.
'Evolution is facts and true... Creationism is not.. therefore the debate is over before it starts.'

In reality, you believe evolution happened by faith (your illogical version) and if you ever took the time to look into it you would know this.
Evolution (as imaged happened) does not happen in reality.
Its not observed, tested and even worse there is no known mechanism (real or imagined) by which this would, could or should happen.

You believe it happened anyways.
Your 'logic' says that it might be illogical based on anything we know now BUT it simple 'must' have happened before.
And it must have been 'logical' back then in another time and place I never saw.

Creationism is different in the sense it starts with one unchanging claim, a historical document, then looks for and finds evidence that supports the claim.
Actual theory put to actual tests and squared up with real tangible science.

The thing here is that most Evofollowers actually believe that Evolution is a 'real thing' that is observable or could happen.
They dont know that its not.

etc etc etc

 

Are you serious? Evolution has been observed, it has been tested, and there is a known mechanism by which it would, could, and should happen. You obviously don't know jack crap about what you're trying to put down; maybe you should try and understand what it is you're talking about.

Creationism has been put to test and squares up with tangible science? Replace 'tangible science' with 'intangible literature' and you've got yourself a correct statement.

Perhaps you've confused yourself as to why evolution of humans has ceased; it's because in today's society we have equal opportunity employers, we have welfare, we have modern medicine. Those that are born weak are given handicaps to keep them in par with society, thus giving them equal chance to reproduce, if not better, thus stopping nature's way of weeding out the weak.

 

There actually is no tomorrow, it's a man-made idea with a man-made label. It's measured in units of time which is man-made. At the present, tomorrow doesn't exist, just as Posthumous said. If you can't understand this, you lack enough intellect for me to continue a conversation.

 

The idea of macroevolution...that the first life in the universe evolved spontaneously, without a first cause, from a primordial soup of chemicals and energy...is a theory, nothing more, but we can observe microevolutionary processes and natural selection at work.


We can also intelligently conclude through science, history, and other scholarship that Biblical creationism per Genesis is a story developed to explain the unexplainable by people in a prescientific era...as a real answer, it has about as much credibility as the primordial-soup evolution version, though it does put a higher power into the equation.

As a believer, I'm pushed into the areas of intelligent design/theistic evolution.

 

Very well said, spook13.

 

Thank you.

 

I notice you said two different things.
You said you 'can' see microevolutionary processes.
and
another topic,
A different thing,
'Natural selection'.

Let me try that.
"We can observe creation and natural selection at work"

See the problem there?

You do not see evolution happen.
Its not observed.
In fact its not even known how it would be possible for new information to write itself into the code.
Its actually 'scientifically impossible' never mind that its never seen.

Leave Natural Selection to its own. It is after all an example of 'devolution' and is not an example of 'evolution' at all.
[/QUOTE]And im not 'asserting a position' as you seem to have been.
Im telling you these things are true for everyone.

Who told you that evolution is observed anyways?
Is this the 'virus' trick thing again?

 

Ikdenkhetniet rather then trying to disprove evolution, why don't you prove what you are saying? #1 prove the existance of god #2 you have to prove that god did all the things you said it did. And I mean with actual real physical evidence, not just some quotes from the bible and you have to prove both.

 

I can do both but it would be helpful if people would stop accidently claiming that evolution (the kind evos want) is some sort of 'fact' or 'real' observable thing that happens.

It is astonishing how many people actually believe that evolution is a 'real thing' that is somehow known to happen.
Its definatey not.

Anyways, your question is a good one to ask the Evowarriors too.
Instead of just 'asserting' that evolution happens why not try and find some evidence for it.
Unfortunately this leads a bunch of people to mistakenly list Fossils, Old dates and Natural Selection as evidence 'for' evolutionism.
Which they are not.

 

Here's some food for thought for everyone that likes tossing the "logic" term around:

[size=-1]Natural selection is the process in which some organisms live and reproduce and others die before reproducing. Some life forms survive and reproduce because they are better suited to environmental pressures, ensuring that their genes are perpetuated in the gene pool.[/size]

The problem is that this is a logical tautology. It is, in effect, saying that survivors survive and that those that do not survive are not survivors. It is true by definition (like saying that bachelors are not married). Now, as a description of a mechanism, it *might* work, but as *logical* support for evolution, it can't. It is really just stating the obvious.

Does that make sense? You can say that evolution happened by natural selection. You cannot say that natural selection is proof or support of evolution.

This is a problem that evolutionists and philosophers of science have noted.

 

Sometimes a reply to that will say something along the 'logical lines' of:
"well yes, but evolution would still work 'through' Natural Selection so in that sense Natural Selection is 'part' of Evolutions would-be process"
Errr...
This is as good as saying that we evolved through 'mating' and then showing me how mating is a fact.
Or how about defecation.

In other words, if evolution did happen and was happening and is ever going to happen again then it would naturally be happening while Natural Selection was too.
It 'would be' happening through mating and a 'part of mating'.

Just taking it to the ends... Evolution and Defecation or realy anything that nature does and is would be 'part of evolution'.

The truth is (and i mean the scientific, observable, repeatedly testable) truth is that Natural Selection is exactly what it says it is:
Selecting out of a pool of information.
Selecting FROM that information.
You really need to know this - selecting FROM an already existing pool of information.
Not adding.
There is no 'adding' here.
In theory and in fact - Natural selection goes along and occasionaly some information gets lost, dropped, goes missing.

Dont worry... there are HUGE pools of information to be chosen from so it would take a longggggg time at this rate before we die off as a species from Natural Selection and those occasional losses.

The big problem for Evolution believers is knowing that, according to what we see in Natural Selection.... the further back you go the MORE INFORMATION would be there (if we assume rates of loss stayed the same).
Oh oh!

Right now at least someone is reading this and knows what Im saying really is the scientific facts of life,
but,
Inside a voice is screaming... "Well then WTF do some people keep fucking insisting that Evolution (adding information) happened when the damm facts and hard science show us the opposite in reality!?!?"

Explanation: Because 'by faith' its just believed that somehow, somewhere, evolution just MUST HAVE HAPPENED.
It *Must* have.
It had to have happened because we see biology SELECTING from gene pools of information.
Occasionally losing information.
So,
Do you understand that there simply 'must' have been something different before where it was the opposite?
You just simply have to believe that it was different no matter what you see today because otherwise.... how else could gene pools have come into existance in the first place?
Did somebody make them?
That is NOT an answer so instead just believe by faith that somehow, somewhere scientific facts were the opposite as they are today because they must have been.

*Poster of Darwin Fish with slogan 'I believe' over desk*

 

The people that say evolution is a fact have thousands of university libraries across the world filled with data and research and 99% of the people that study those fields of research professionally (everyday) to support their claims.

In a debate, you have to substantiate your claim. In order for your stance to be true, you have to prove points #1,#2, that I mentioned previously. Simple trying to refute evolution doesn't make your claim true. Even if evolution is completely false, it would not make christian creationism true, there is no shortage of other religious beliefs to explain it and even ufological & xenological explanations of alterations and engineering by alien species.

 

No.
These people do not say evolution is a 'fact'.
Not the kind of evolution they want and need to believe in.

Seriously, I can talk to the Uni Bio Prof about this and he knows for sure that there is no real mechanism or imagined mechanism by which the Evolution (the kind they need, want and dream about) could actually take place in reality.

Im trying to make this as clear as possible - even if you totally believe evolution happened... its not something that is actually observed today and there is no known way it would happen.
Not that we know of.

I understand that Evos 'believe it did' but its not a real thing we see happening.
Even if evolution actually did happen - we do not see it anymore today.

I just dont know how much more clear i can be about this.

 

Hmmmm...looks like my post about evolution, creation, and intelligent design gave this thread a bump...an interesting discussion with some challenging counters and good pros. I don't have time now but will throw in another $.25 worth later.

 

Where are you getting your information from? I'm sorry to tell you but you are horribly misinformed. Evolution is carried out by natural selection, if you don't see the correlation it's obvious you don't understand evolution, denying you the slightest shred of credibility. It is by no means scientifically impossible and it is surely seen on a daily basis; it's due to genetics, look up meiosis, more specifically pachynema in prophase I; it alone disproves everything you just said. And what the hell is devolution? Besides the fact that you slaughtered a very specific political term, even if things were de-evolving it would still be evolution; acceleration is acceleration whether it's positive or negative.

Honestly, if all that you say is true where is your evidence?

 

I am by no means claiming that natural selection is the cause of evolution, I am merely stating that they have a strict connotation with one another, for if natural selection did not exist, evolution would be impossible.

Evolution itself is proven elsewhere, natural selection is purely the logic needed to assert the theory into reality. It lies in the heart of genetics; honestly, I have seen you give a single shred of evidence; you make claims that evolution is false and cannot even prove it. Instead you try to undermine and stereotype the logic of so called 'evofollowers'; how old are you? Ten?

 

You do have a point, but note that it only holds true to humans due to science as a means of leveling the playing field. And what kind of evolution exactly are we dreaming about? Evolution is evolution, it's apparent you have some major misconceptions in your head.

 

This is patently false.

Evolution is happening faster than ever. Cows, horses, dogs, cats, fish, plants, etc. have all been evolving due to selective breeding. Even homo sapiens are evolving.

 

I'm not quite sure if homo sapiens are 'evolving'. Due to science in society today natural selection is non existant; a body builder has no more of an advantage to reproduce than a paraplegic. Perhaps we're just evolving slower?