Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PostmodernProph]

Why would you expect to find human beings with thumbs but not wheels? There actually isn't anything that creationism actually predicts so as a theory it is useless. If we find a 500 million year old fossil bed, creationism "predicts" we might find fish or dinosaurs or people. Funny thing, we never do find those dinosaurs or people.

well, if you expected wheels, then your expectation of intelligent design has not been met......personally, I expected that if macro-evolution were true, a multicelled organism might have evolved from a single celled organism......like you, I was disappointed....predictions are such fickle scientists......

I have no expection of ID predictions. I was asking about the prediction you made about ID.

then why do you complain about the fact my prediction was fulfilled?.....using your argument, I have turned it into "science"....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:

dude, arguing that something which has never been tested and supported is "scientific" is NOT progress......

I like your tagline.
I may actually steal it in the future so call the cops.

feel free......the whole world should know.....

 

[alang1216]

I like your tagline.
I may actually steal it in the future so call the cops.

One person tells us what God knows and another repeats it. Are seeing how scripture was born?

 

[PostmodernProph]

What is the source of the Sun's power?

observe and see.....

But we can't perform an experiment so what is the use of observation?

we can observe with spectrum analysis happening in real time......show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism.....

 

[alang1216]

well, if you expected wheels, then your expectation of intelligent design has not been met......personally, I expected that if macro-evolution were true, a multicelled organism might have evolved from a single celled organism......like you, I was disappointed....predictions are such fickle scientists......

I have no expection of ID predictions. I was asking about the prediction you made about ID.

then why do you complain about the fact my prediction was fulfilled?.....using your argument, I have turned it into "science"....

I'm not complaining, I just want to understand what it was based on. If there is no theory behind the prediction how is anyone else supposed to make predictions. That's what it would take to turn it into a science.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I have no expection of ID predictions. I was asking about the prediction you made about ID.

then why do you complain about the fact my prediction was fulfilled?.....using your argument, I have turned it into "science"....

I'm not complaining, I just want to understand what it was based on. If there is no theory behind the prediction how is anyone else supposed to make predictions. That's what it would take to turn it into a science.

I think you have just succeeded in showing why your claims of "fulfilling expectations" is not really science........you just look at what you find, then "predict" that something similar to both will eventually show up.....then, you find something and argue its 1) similar to both and 2) proof its transitional......the problem is, it might just be something that has the characteristic (see previous example of butterflies, bats and meadowlarks)........

 

[alang1216]

then why do you complain about the fact my prediction was fulfilled?.....using your argument, I have turned it into "science"....

I'm not complaining, I just want to understand what it was based on. If there is no theory behind the prediction how is anyone else supposed to make predictions. That's what it would take to turn it into a science.

I think you have just succeeded in showing why your claims of "fulfilling expectations" is not really science........you just look at what you find, then "predict" that something similar to both will eventually show up.....then, you find something and argue its 1) similar to both and 2) proof its transitional......the problem is, it might just be something that has the characteristic (see previous example of butterflies, bats and meadowlarks)........

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as to evolution being science since you established this "science" strawman. I think we both agree that creationism is not science so where does that leave you? You have no scientific basis for how we got here. That's fine, you really don't need one since (I assume) you're not a scientist, but that puts you exactly on par with whatever creation myth is believed by Hindus, Aztecs, ancient pagans, etc. I prefer to be in different company.

 

[pinqy]

then why do you complain about the fact my prediction was fulfilled?.....using your argument, I have turned it into "science"....

I'm not complaining, I just want to understand what it was based on. If there is no theory behind the prediction how is anyone else supposed to make predictions. That's what it would take to turn it into a science.

I think you have just succeeded in showing why your claims of "fulfilling expectations" is not really science........you just look at what you find, then "predict" that something similar to both will eventually show up.....then, you find something and argue its 1) similar to both and 2) proof its transitional......the problem is, it might just be something that has the characteristic (see previous example of butterflies, bats and meadowlarks)........

But butterflies, bats, and meadowlarks all have completely different wing structures. If we found a mammal with the wing structure of a bird, then that would DISPROVE evolution, because under current evolutionary understanding that would be impossible. If the platypus' bill was structurally identical to a ducks (which it's not) or if it's tail was structurally the same as a beaver's (which it's not) those would disprove evolution.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What's doing the selection in assembling the first cell??????????

The "first cell" is really an assembly of pre-existing modules. Each module evolved on its own and then survived better in conjunction with other modules. Likely each module was an assemply of pre-existing submodules that evolved on its own. Etc.

Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator

There is no "evidence of creation and a creator" in DNA.

What might be beyond your comprehension is not necessarily true for everyone else. DNA is comprised of chemical bonds. Chemicals react with one another. Given the time frame of billions of years there is every reason to believe that a chemical reaction created a DNA bond that proved itself to be an evolutionary benefit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The "first cell" is really an assembly of pre-existing modules. Each module evolved on its own and then survived better in conjunction with other modules. Likely each module was an assemply of pre-existing submodules that evolved on its own. Etc.

Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator

That argument fails because it doesn't explain who or what created the creator, despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator,

unless it assumes that the creator just happened randomly. That assumption, of course, destroys the premise of the original argument.

If their argument is that the universe was "created" then logically the "creator" was in turn created because everything must have a "beginning" under that scenario.

But to claim that the "creator" always existed while denying that the universe has always existed is nonsensical.

We have hard physical evidence for the existence of the universe and the laws of physics to establish that it has always existed whereas there is zero evidence for a "creator".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "first cell" is really an assembly of pre-existing modules. Each module evolved on its own and then survived better in conjunction with other modules. Likely each module was an assemply of pre-existing submodules that evolved on its own. Etc.

Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator

There is no "evidence of creation and a creator" in DNA.

What might be beyond your comprehension is not necessarily true for everyone else. DNA is comprised of chemical bonds. Chemicals react with one another. Given the time frame of billions of years there is every reason to believe that a chemical reaction created a DNA bond that proved itself to be an evolutionary benefit.

Really? Which came first: DNA or proteins?

Again, it's a Simple Math Problem.

The odds of forming a structure with 2,000 elements like say in a protein are 3.3 *E 5735 - 1

There are 3.1 E 16 seconds in a billion years

Do you see the problem?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The "first cell" is really an assembly of pre-existing modules. Each module evolved on its own and then survived better in conjunction with other modules. Likely each module was an assemply of pre-existing submodules that evolved on its own. Etc.

Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator

That argument fails because it doesn't explain who or what created the creator, despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator,

unless it assumes that the creator just happened randomly. That assumption, of course, destroys the premise of the original argument.

Yeah, who created the creator...there you go.

The Creator is beyond human comprehension; it's like expecting an ant to read a set of architectural plans

 

[Derideo_Te]

Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator

There is no "evidence of creation and a creator" in DNA.

What might be beyond your comprehension is not necessarily true for everyone else. DNA is comprised of chemical bonds. Chemicals react with one another. Given the time frame of billions of years there is every reason to believe that a chemical reaction created a DNA bond that proved itself to be an evolutionary benefit.

Really? Which came first: DNA or proteins?

Again, it's a Simple Math Problem.

The odds of forming a structure with 2,000 elements like say in a protein are 3.3 *E 5735 - 1

There are 3.1 E 16 seconds in a billion years

Do you see the problem?

Only problem I see is a failure to comprehend how the process actually works. I am sure that the odds of finding a fully formed electric toothbrush on the surface is Mars are astronomical.

A protein is not a single structure. It consists of amino acids which are chemical compounds. Amino acids combining to form a peptide which then evolves into a protein is how it works.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator

That argument fails because it doesn't explain who or what created the creator, despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator,

unless it assumes that the creator just happened randomly. That assumption, of course, destroys the premise of the original argument.

Yeah, who created the creator...there you go.

The Creator is beyond human comprehension; it's like expecting an ant to read a set of architectural plans

So now you have to "cloak" your mythical "creator" in mumbo jumbo because it fails all logic and reason. Hardly surprising since omnipotence is a logical paradox.

That you are forced to twist your position into a pretzel tells me that it has no basis in reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no "evidence of creation and a creator" in DNA.

What might be beyond your comprehension is not necessarily true for everyone else. DNA is comprised of chemical bonds. Chemicals react with one another. Given the time frame of billions of years there is every reason to believe that a chemical reaction created a DNA bond that proved itself to be an evolutionary benefit.

Really? Which came first: DNA or proteins?

Again, it's a Simple Math Problem.

The odds of forming a structure with 2,000 elements like say in a protein are 3.3 *E 5735 - 1

There are 3.1 E 16 seconds in a billion years

Do you see the problem?

Only problem I see is a failure to comprehend how the process actually works. I am sure that the odds of finding a fully formed electric toothbrush on the surface is Mars are astronomical.

A protein is not a single structure. It consists of amino acids which are chemical compounds. Amino acids combining to form a peptide which then evolves into a protein is how it works.

Right!

Right!

Now you're getting it!

The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any person who believes evolution is a 'salvation issue' simply does not know God.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That argument fails because it doesn't explain who or what created the creator, despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator,

unless it assumes that the creator just happened randomly. That assumption, of course, destroys the premise of the original argument.

Yeah, who created the creator...there you go.

The Creator is beyond human comprehension; it's like expecting an ant to read a set of architectural plans

So now you have to "cloak" your mythical "creator" in mumbo jumbo because it fails all logic and reason. Hardly surprising since omnipotence is a logical paradox.

That you are forced to twist your position into a pretzel tells me that it has no basis in reality.

I'm not cloaking anything. Humans simply lack the perceptual ability to grasp it, but our ego keeps whispering in our ears, "You're the greatest!!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists are in the same league as jihadists and far right Christians: beyond the pale.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really? Which came first: DNA or proteins?

Again, it's a Simple Math Problem.

The odds of forming a structure with 2,000 elements like say in a protein are 3.3 *E 5735 - 1

There are 3.1 E 16 seconds in a billion years

Do you see the problem?

Only problem I see is a failure to comprehend how the process actually works. I am sure that the odds of finding a fully formed electric toothbrush on the surface is Mars are astronomical.

A protein is not a single structure. It consists of amino acids which are chemical compounds. Amino acids combining to form a peptide which then evolves into a protein is how it works.

Right!

Right!

Now you're getting it!

The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!

You aren't getting it.

Chemicals naturally form chemical compounds all the time.
Simple structures are formed from chemical compounds.
Complex structures are formed from simple structures.

That is how it works.

You are making the erroneous assumption that complex structures suddenly form all by themselves.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah, who created the creator...there you go.

The Creator is beyond human comprehension; it's like expecting an ant to read a set of architectural plans

So now you have to "cloak" your mythical "creator" in mumbo jumbo because it fails all logic and reason. Hardly surprising since omnipotence is a logical paradox.

That you are forced to twist your position into a pretzel tells me that it has no basis in reality.

I'm not cloaking anything. Humans simply lack the perceptual ability to grasp it, but our ego keeps whispering in our ears, "You're the greatest!!"

When you attempt to invoke the ineffability argument you are admitting that you have zero evidence for your mythical "creator".

Your "ego" deflection is further proof that your position is hopeless.