Question for evolutionists

Grugore said:
Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.
Click to expand...

A useless thread. Evolution as accepted by these Darwinian Cultists has never been proven to be a FACT OF SCIENCE, its all theory, conjecture, speculation void of the required evidence to be called a FACT. Why waste time with a theory that has faith that everything came from nothing? When you start with nothing, NOTHING IS WHAT YOU GET. On the other hand....no one has ever presented the scientific experiment that disproves CREATION. Funny......the cultists accept blind faith but declare Creation to be blind. :bigthink:
 
CFM said:
That wasn't his original post. You really should try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Odd, sounds like YOU are the one not keeping up with the posts, you just said so.

Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl

No, insects and humans are quite different, that's the fucking point.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Odd, sounds like YOU are the one not keeping up with

Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl

No, insects and humans are quite different, that's the fucking point.
Click to expand...

That wasn't his original post on the topic. You can't jump on in the middle of things, think you know what you're talking about, and expect people to acknowledge you're anything but a fucking dumbass, boy.
 
Ralph said:
A useless thread. Evolution as accepted by these Darwinian Cultists has never been proven to be a FACT OF SCIENCE, its all theory, conjecture, speculation void of the required evidence to be called a FACT. Why waste time with a theory that has faith that everything came from nothing? When you start with nothing, NOTHING IS WHAT YOU GET. On the other hand....no one has ever presented the scientific experiment that disproves CREATION. Funny......the cultists accept blind faith but declare Creation to be blind. :bigthink:
Click to expand...

So no one can explain how a negative can not be proven. Man that's deep.
 
CFM said:
That wasn't his original post on the topic. You can't jump on in the middle of things, think you know what you're talking about, and expect people to acknowledge you're anything but a fucking dumbass, boy.
Click to expand...

Right, you're not keeping up with the posts in a conversation you're having, I got it.
 
It comes down to belly buttons!

Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?

If you can't answer that, then I can't give you credit for knowing much of anything else!
 
Fentoine Lum said:
So no one can explain how a negative can not be proven. Man that's deep.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Science requires OBSERVATION, REPRODUCTION, and CONSISTENCY. Evolution has been debunked every time it is placed to the test of the Scientific Method. (If not show me the experiment that confirms evolution, one life form morphing into another after life was created from nothing. As I said...its a faith based belief void of even the Prima Facie evidence required to support it. With every statement from an evolutionist.....there are many demonstrated DOUBTS provided to accept it as a common sense truth.

First everything came from nothing, That from Hawking. Next we must accept that every element came from the two basic elements found after the big ban (another unprovable theory) …….Hydrogen and Helium...somehow morphed into all the elements found on the periodic table of elements. Then we must accept that life came from DEAD MATTER (when no such example has ever been witnessed)….then we must believe that a single asexual cell morphed into complex examples of life that require a male and a female to procreate. Then we must accept that fish (cold blooded life) morphed into land dwelling warm blooded mammals.

Should I go on?
 
Grugore said:
Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.
Click to expand...

What’s the point of asking a question when you think you know the answer already? What’s the point of anyone trying to answer you when you’ve declared that your answer is the only rational possibility?

What’s the point of pretending to be an expert in a field that it’s quite obvious you’ve never studied? I think there’s a passion for easy answers in the creationist community. Like you want to feel like you know up from down but you don’t want to put any effort in.

If you seriously want to know about this stuff, we live in a time of unparalleled access to relatively inexpensive books, lectures, museum exhibits, etc. I’d be happy to give some recommendations. But it’s a bit weird to throw gauntlets down on stuff you’ve never studied and then expect either 1) people to hold your hand through an entire scientific discipline or 2) cower before your unfamiliarity with the material.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ralph said:
Exactly. Science requires OBSERVATION, REPRODUCTION, and CONSISTENCY. Evolution has been debunked every time it is placed to the test of the Scientific Method. (If not show me the experiment that confirms evolution, one life form morphing into another after life was created from nothing. As I said...its a faith based belief void of even the Prima Facie evidence required to support it. With every statement from an evolutionist.....there are many demonstrated DOUBTS provided to accept it as a common sense truth.

First everything came from nothing, That from Hawking. Next we must accept that every element came from the two basic elements found after the big ban (another unprovable theory) …….Hydrogen and Helium...somehow morphed into all the elements found on the periodic table of elements. Then we must accept that life came from DEAD MATTER (when no such example has ever been witnessed)….then we must believe that a single asexual cell morphed into complex examples of life that require a male and a female to procreate. Then we must accept that fish (cold blooded life) morphed into land dwelling warm blooded mammals.

Should I go on?
Click to expand...

Please do, you've obviously not understood what proving a negative is.


Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
Click to expand...
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence
 
Phantasmal said:
Organism evolved due to their environments, they mutated to adapt.
Click to expand...
Not exactly but close. A mutation provides an adaptation that improves the likely hood of survival or procreation and thus is naturally selected. Natural selection is what causes biological evolution, genetic mutations and reproductive mortality are the mechanism that make natural selection work. Natural selection and time (usually lots and lots of time but not always) cause biological evolution to happen, which in turn creates speciation.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Mutations arise randomly all the time, all enviroment does is result in selective pressure(s) upon randomly arising mutations in the population which may be beneficial/advantageous, detrimental/disadvantageous, both or indifferent. Semantics for you perhaps, but clearly we need to make this as simple as possible for the Grug.
Click to expand...
One important key here. The mutation, adaptation has to be selected. No natural selection, no evolution. Vast number of mutations occur that could be neutral, harmful or advantageous all of which means nothing if they are not selected.
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
It's progression. You don't start out with warm blooded animals because they appear after cold blooded ones, which appear after bloodless ones, and so on down the line.
Click to expand...
Actually that's an important point but it must be qualified that though yes over time it is progressive, it is not directional.
 
Ralph said:
A useless thread. Evolution as accepted by these Darwinian Cultists has never been proven to be a FACT OF SCIENCE, its all theory, conjecture, speculation void of the required evidence to be called a FACT. Why waste time with a theory that has faith that everything came from nothing? When you start with nothing, NOTHING IS WHAT YOU GET. On the other hand....no one has ever presented the scientific experiment that disproves CREATION. Funny......the cultists accept blind faith but declare Creation to be blind. :bigthink:
Click to expand...

Gosh now us biologist have been elevated to "cultist". LOL

An age isn't dark because there is no light but because people refuse to see it.
 
DarthPedant said:
What’s the point of asking a question when you think you know the answer already? What’s the point of anyone trying to answer you when you’ve declared that your answer is the only rational possibility?

What’s the point of pretending to be an expert in a field that it’s quite obvious you’ve never studied? I think there’s a passion for easy answers in the creationist community. Like you want to feel like you know up from down but you don’t want to put any effort in.

If you seriously want to know about this stuff, we live in a time of unparalleled access to relatively inexpensive books, lectures, museum exhibits, etc. I’d be happy to give some recommendations. But it’s a bit weird to throw gauntlets down on stuff you’ve never studied and then expect either 1) people to hold your hand through an entire scientific discipline or 2) cower before your unfamiliarity with the material.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You cant answer the question. No one can. You can deflect all you like. It changes nothing.
 
Ralph said:
A useless thread. Evolution as accepted by these Darwinian Cultists has never been proven to be a FACT OF SCIENCE, its all theory, conjecture, speculation void of the required evidence to be called a FACT. Why waste time with a theory that has faith that everything came from nothing? When you start with nothing, NOTHING IS WHAT YOU GET. On the other hand....no one has ever presented the scientific experiment that disproves CREATION. Funny......the cultists accept blind faith but declare Creation to be blind. :bigthink:
Click to expand...

BTW, we don't have to "disprove" Creation. If "Creation" is not, in principle, falsifiable in some manner, then it simply isn't science. Which is a problem for Creationism as the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. The theory of biological evolution is easily falsifiable in principle, it just hasn't been done yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top