FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:The first thing that comes to mind for me is that if this was true then many billions of one celled creatures must have started at the same time. There is no other plausibility. If the event happened once then it will continue to happen over and over, like earth quakes, lightening, floods, mudslides, and all the other real geological and scientific events. They all repeat over and over. Don't you know this?
ALL NATURAL EVENTS REPEAT OR THEY WOULD NOT BE NATURAL EVENTS.
First off, the current environment is not the same as the primordial environment. The mixture of chemicals, the temperature, etc, are no longer conducive for that initial process.
That being said, how do you know it isn't happening all over, right now? It's entirely possible that "seed" organisms are coming into existence all over... but are being destroyed due to competition with the highly advanced existing organisms.
Additionally, I disagree with the claim that natural events must repeat in order for them to be natural events. Was the formation of Earth's moon not a natural event, because it only happened once? Even then, maybe it's only happened once here on Earth, but there is no guarantee that it hasn't happened other times in other places in the universe. And even then, there is still no basis for you to claim that an event must reoccur for it to be considered natural.
You arguments are ridiculous, because the world is far more conducive to life now than it has ever been. If that primordial soup was so difficult to occur, it is now much easier, by your own words.
I keep telling people that the conditions of matter from millions of years ago are not the same as now. Thus the radiometric dating system is utterly flawed. You have no clue about any time, date, or conditions that far in the past.
Evodelusionists are always making up fantasy scenarios to back up their religious nonsense.
On the one hand they use random to state that this random is the cause of evolution. Then they state there is no random when confronted with mathematics that disproves evolution as even a plausibility even in trillions of years.
Evodelusionists are confused and stupid.
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:The HUGE GAPS in the fossil record...
... are irrelevant. The fossil record is supporting evidence, and every fossil we find fits the theory. Think about it - would it be reasonable to claim that, because your mother's photo album is missing a few pictures of you at certain stages of development, there is no connection between the photos of you as a baby and the man that exists now?
This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. And it is not original. You cannot fill in the gaps with faith and belief and call yourself a scientist.
If there is no evidence in the fossil record to back this moronic belief, then there is no evidence and you can't fill in the blanks with your religious nonsense.
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:Not one Evolutionist (Evodelusionist) can answer my extremely honest and to the point question about this theory of evolution.
Calling those that accept Evolution "Evodelusionists" betrays the non-neutrality of this forum. For the sake of honesty, you should stop claiming that the forum is neutral. It's all well and good to have a forum that invites scientific challenges to the Theory of Evolution, but to claim that it is neutral when it is blatantly anti-evolution is dishonest.
I have given all of you a chance to bring out your evidence, and the facts are in that you have no evidence. You have faith and belief and nothing else.
I have studied this for over 42 years and none of the evidence supports the beliefs. It is just not there.
This is why I keep trying to get you into reality and understand that opinions by believers is not evidence. It is religious slogans and garbage that sounds "reasonable", but like most flim flam artists there is no substance to the belief. [/quote]
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:The question again is; Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?
Asking for one single piece of evidence that proves evolution is ridiculous. You might as well ask for one piece of evidence that proves smoking causes cancer.
"evidence is plural and singular" When all the evidence is in, there is no evidence that show evolution as even a plausibility. That is a true statement. [/quote]
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:These believers, will tell you that you don't need physical evidence, and that you can make it fit evolution "nicely".
But what is evolution "fitting" with? Answer: Every single piece of physical evidence known to exist.
Every single piece of evidence combined only shows this: Creatures come into being, the remain the same for up to 125,000,000 years (the oldest we have found). Most are in the 25 to 70 million years of existence. They go extinct when they can no longer survive as the same creatures or they are still here in nearly the same morphology as the original fossils we have found.
Creatures only can adapt to a point. There is no programming for evolution. There is only programming for the creatures to survive as the same creatures. They adapt in order to survive when there is the ability to do so.
After the environment changes to a point where the foundational genetic structures can no longer survive it dies.
This is what we really know. All the rest is religious nonsense.
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:The latest thing they are teaching is that "you don't need the fossil record to back this". Can you possibly believe that statement? The reason they are rejecting the fossil record is because we have so many fossils now that show evolution has not happened.
"They" are not rejecting the fossil record. There is simply so much additional evidence now, due to advanced techniques such as genome sequencing, that the fossil record need not be relied upon as the primary evidence for evolution. And yes, I can believe it quite easily, because it is true.
What evidence are you talking about, because I have seen all of it and there is no evidence of any creature ever breaking the boundaries of their genetics.
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:In science all the factors must concur (must point to the same thing) in order for you to even start a theory on something.
Yes, and all factors point to evolution, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory today.
Where is your evidence? Where is it? Where is your evidence that proves evolution?
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:However, If you believe this idea that you can manipulate evidence and leave out the only physical evidence we have,
What physical evidence is being left out?
How about all the fossil evidence that is not shown in the classrooms, because it would discourage the belief? Maybe you need to get away from those Evotards and take a look at all the garbage they shoved under the table or used a bunch of belief rhetoric to "make it go away" so they can keep their f**king jobs.. [/quote]
FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote:In every premise they use, there are at least 10 other very plausible answers that do not have the word "evolution" in them.
That's a claim you'll have to back up. For example, explain the giraffe's neck? 10 "very plausible answers" please.
Quote:There is so much conflicting evidence that anyone who spends a couple of weeks researching this will find it.
I've spent years researching, and I haven't found any conflicting evidence. Maybe you could point some out?
You have not "seen" any conflicting evidence because you have your head up your ass. In order to see what is right in front of your nose you have to get past your dumb ass beliefs in this religion of Evolutionism.
The giraffe's neck is from adapting to the food. It has never evolved into any other animal. It has the same genetics as the day it arrived. Once it can no longer eat it dies out. It did not come from some other genus.
You are really confused and have been manipulated into religious beliefs that are not based on any reason or sanity.