JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
Your mom is a fox.
Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That is where you are wrong. My viewpoint is based on ID proposed by scientists, and my criticisms of Darwinism are also based on scientific criticisms.
95% of Scientists believe in evolution as it is defined... and you're making it sound like you're going with the scientific flow. Can I ask who are these scientists, and what are their beliefs?
so here's my question: Do you believe that canned peas are canned vegetables?
some background: Canned goods is a broad category that encompasses a wide variety of food items, including canned fruits, canned soups, and canned vegetables. Canned peas would be a specific example of one type of canned vegetable. So it is correct to say that canned peas are canned vegetables?
Trout, how'm I doin' here? Think this is helping you find your answers?
<3 Moe
some background: Canned goods is a broad category that encompasses a wide variety of food items, including canned fruits, canned soups, and canned vegetables. Canned peas would be a specific example of one type of canned vegetable. So it is correct to say that canned peas are canned vegetables?
Trout, how'm I doin' here? Think this is helping you find your answers?
<3 Moe
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Pardon me if I don't believe you. I'm sure you do have some "scientific criticisms," but I'm willing to bet you're trying to justify a Christian viewpoint. You are Christian, yes? Because if you weren't trying to justify a viewpoint that you felt was religiously important to defend, I'd think you would have been more willing to listen to everyone in this thread who's been telling you that your "scientific criticisms" don't make a lick of sense.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't an Evolutionist include "random" right before that mutation part.
You can assert that this is the only way a new a trait develops but Evolutionists have been unable to show how a simple bacteria flagellum with 20+ coordinated parts develops this way, let alone a blood-clotting mechanism, and it gets extremely tricky explaining how the first female mammal simultaneously randomly mutated a uterus, fallopian tubes, and a ****** in order to reproduce with the first male mammal who also had to simultaneously mutate balls, a prostate, and a weener. She also simultaneously randomly mutated her way into having boobs that could feed her young once she popped it out.
It looks to me that these complicated traits, organs, and biological systems are designed into the genetic code/blueprint already (much like windows are designed to be in a building) or an intelligent force (like gravitational force) was involved in the "change over time" from simple to complex organisms. It takes a lot more faith to believe in an accidental process to get all life on earth (especially in the face of contrary evidence) than it does to believe in an intelligent force or being.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
If that is really the % (I haven't seen a real poll on it) it looks to me like I'm going with that 5% of scientists that don't believe in evolution because the evidence doesn't support it.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
It doesn't really matter whether Evolutionist missionaries/preachers tell me that my scientific criticisms don't make sense because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.
God believers don't need evolution to be false (God can do anything), atheists need evolution to be true. One evolutionist even said, "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Um... why? You talk as though there's some monolithic "atheist agenda," and that's just about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Buddhists are atheists, but they're quite different from disillusioned Christian atheists. I can't imagine why an atheist would "need evolution to be true." The only reason evolution even became an issue in the general public was that the religious right believed -- wrongly -- that it somehow discredited their religious beliefs, when in reality it threatended nothing essential to their faith.
Since ID is a philosophical/religious position, you actually confirmed AtheistPreacher was right. Since you have not been using the scientific undertandings of the Theory of Evolution, you are not making criticisms of it.
You've already been provided with Maztke's explanation, which is one possible way, and you presented no substantive objections to it. Now, you can fairly claim that no one has shown how it *did* happen, but then you can't show that you were conceived by a sperm and ova, either. Both are historical events, and it is not more reasonable to deny one that the other based merly on their being historical.
Actually, we have good explanations for the blood-clotting mechanism, as well.
That's not in the Theoy of Evolution to begin with, so there is no need to explain it. You're using the Hopeful Monster idea again.
Except, the accidental/reactive process can be studed in detail and shown to have the ability to generate the various forms of life on earth, while the intelligient force or being is removed from study by definiion in ID. It takes more faith to believe in what you can't see than what you can.
The answers to the criticism do't sease to exist simply becaue you stick your fingers in your ear when presented with them.
Wrong. Before evolution, many atheists believed that life was static, and had always been the way it is in a never-altering chain.