15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
PapaG said:
Well, that depends on which Evolution Fundie one is debating. I've read it many times over where a EvFundie has tried to show amino acids being created, and other such nonsense. It's a flawed theory if it can't account for how life actually started, and required a great deal of faith to believe completely.
Click to expand...

That's not the theory of evolution. The amino acids and so on.

The theory of evolution isn't proven by any means. It's just that there is evidence upon evidence that suggests the theory is true. Seen over and over again, and its expected results taken advantage of in numerous sectors, from agriculture to medicine.

It isn't flawed if it doesn't account for how life started. That isn't what the theory is about. The theory is about how once life has started, it changes over time and creates a large diversity of life forms.

You are arguing against the theory and clearly don't know what it is about.
 
Denny Crane said:
So yeah, I would say Evolution has the flaw I put forward.
Click to expand...

When you say "evolution" are you talking about the actual process of evolution? You know, the literal meaning of the word? Because I am. Or are you talking about Darwin's theory of evolution? Or something else? If so, please say that instead of simply 'evolution'.

Extinction level events have nothing to do with evolution, and the fact they've happened is certainly not a flaw in evolution. If anything, they underscore how life has evolved and has been opportunistic after those cautostrophic events.
 
noknobs said:
When you say "evolution" are you talking about the actual process of evolution? You know, the literal meaning of the word? Because I am. Or are you talking about Darwin's theory of evolution? Or something else? If so, please say that instead of simply 'evolution'.

Extinction level events have nothing to do with evolution, and the fact they've happened is certainly not a flaw in evolution. If anything, they underscore how life has evolved and has been opportunistic after those cautostrophic events.
Click to expand...

Darwin's theory of evolution.

His theory does not explain how man came to be because we came to be in huge part due to an ELE that killed almost all the dinosaurs.
 
Denny Crane said:
Darwin's theory of evolution.

His theory does not explain how man came to be because we came to be in huge part due to an ELE that killed almost all the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for being unclear and confusing, you could have saved me valuable minutes.
 
Was god born alive, or hatched from an egg?

Was god created by the big bang, or as a tool to manipulate the masses?

Were god's parents just lousy role models, or are they blameless for his mass murders and other frequently sadistic moral crimes?

Where was god's crib, or was he a transient?

What was god's main ride?

Was god gay, or just afraid of women?

Why did god think anyone would give a rat's ass what someone with his obvious character flaws tells them?

Was god cyber-bullied as a child?

Boxers or tidy-whities?

Where is god buried?
 
PapaG said:
Then it's an incomplete and invalid theory.
Click to expand...

No, you just want to make it into something it's not for some reason. Big Bang simply proposes that the universe expanded (is expanding) from a hot dense initial state. It was proposed as an explanation for evidence seen in the current universe, and as a theory opposed to static state models.

It does not and was never intended to claim anything specific about what the initial conditions were (what "banged") or imply anything about external causality. Someone theorizing about those things would be making different hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Like I said, the will to disbelieve is every bit as strong as the will to believe.
Click to expand...


Do you apply this to yourself?

If I were to make the hypothesis that the websites and/or literature you're relying on for information about evolution and geology are in fact propaganda sites that intentionally obfuscate the evidence in order to appeal to people who are ignorant of science, would you dismiss my hypothesis out of hand? Are you able to take a step back and at least objectively consider the possibility?

I think this is important for both sides. I'm an atheist, but I'm always double-checking, and trying to assess the objectivity of claims made in the name of science. As previously discussed with Denny the show Beyond the Wormhole (and a few others) drive me batty in this regard.
 
crowTrobot said:
No, you just want to make it into something it's not for some reason. Big Bang simply proposes that the universe expanded (is expanding) from a hot dense initial state. It was proposed as an explanation for evidence seen in the current universe, and as a theory opposed to static state models.

It does not and was never intended to claim anything specific about what the initial conditions were (what "banged") or imply anything about external causality. Someone theorizing about those things would be making different hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like a hypothesis to me. There is no way to know why the universe is expanding, so the Big Bang was slapped together, and has yet to even been close to be validated using the scientific method.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
One can make a strong case that it is in fact a real historical event.
Click to expand...

02334ad0f46633cca4090e85fb431319af2795827d3d27e133ecc10f5a7918fd.jpg
 
Regardless of what you believe or don't believe in... Assuming that something can code itself by accident is probably the hardest or even impossible to prove. There hasn't been a single scientific observation of this happening.

Every program has a programmer and every life-force needed a life force of some kind to make another.

As far as the "big bang" is concerned, argument for those that disbelieve in creation, has a valid theory of how the universe is and will continue to be. It expands and will eventually contract back to singularity, then expand again... Wash and repeat.
 
Could god make a dick so big that even he couldn't get it up?
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Could god make a dick so big that even he couldn't get it up?
Click to expand...

With God, everything is possible. I would assume he could make a dick the size of this universe with a blink of an eye. Probably be able to hold it too
 
MARIS61 said:
Was god born alive, or hatched from an egg?

Was god created by the big bang, or as a tool to manipulate the masses?

Were god's parents just lousy role models, or are they blameless for his mass murders and other frequently sadistic moral crimes?

Where was god's crib, or was he a transient?

What was god's main ride?

Was god gay, or just afraid of women?

Why did god think anyone would give a rat's ass what someone with his obvious character flaws tells them?

Was god cyber-bullied as a child?

Boxers or tidy-whities?

Where is god buried?
Click to expand...

The one thing I find the most amusing about you and your atheism, is the deep hatred you have over something you don't even believe in. Theist must call out atheism, because atheism would ruin every moral fabric of their belief. But an atheist really shouldn't give a flying fuck. In fact, if I was an atheist, I would brush any theistic belief like water from my brow.

I think this is the funniest thing about most atheist really... They really shouldn't give a rats ass about what anyone else chooses to believe in, yet most are butting into any theistic belief and trying to discredit the hell out of it.
 
You better start posting, Mags. I'm catching up.
 
magnifier661 said:
Regardless of what you believe or don't believe in... Assuming that something can code itself by accident is probably the hardest or even impossible to prove.
Click to expand...

Good thing evolution doesn't operate by accident.

There hasn't been a single scientific observation of this happening.
Click to expand...

What would expect science to observe if evolution is true? Serious question. You know scientists are documenting small environmental adaptations that creationists call "micro" evolution all the time. Is there some barrier you think would keep thousands or millions of small adaptations from adding up to speciation ("macro" evolution) over a time period too long for scientists to directly observe?
 
magnifier661 said:
I think this is the funniest thing about most atheist really... They really shouldn't give a rats ass about what anyone else chooses to believe in, yet most are butting into any theistic belief and trying to discredit the hell out of it.
Click to expand...



There are no shortage of valid reasons for wanting to discredit pseudo-science when you see it. Doesn't even have to relate to theism/atheism.
 
crowTrobot said:
Good thing evolution doesn't operate by accident.
Click to expand...

Further explain why you think it's not by accident? Because we are talking about the beginning right? The evolution from that point forward could be argued, but if there isn't a creator, then the "first program" was by accident.

What would expect science to observe if evolution is true? Serious question. You know scientists are documenting small environmental adaptations that creationists call "micro" evolution all the time. Is there some barrier you think would keep thousands or millions of small adaptations from adding up to speciation ("macro" evolution) over a time period too long for scientists to directly observe?
Click to expand...

I think you have me confused with someone else bro. I haven't proclaimed evolution is not happening. In fact, I really won't get into that part of the argument.

The only "BIG QUESTION" I have, is that of when life first began. You call it God of the Gaps. I call it, "Show me the money". Most other theories have been observed. Even small expansions and contractions within this universe has been observed. What hasn't been observed is something being "programed" by natural accident. When something like that pops up, my tune can change drastically. Until then, I think I like my "designer" approach much better (Observed infinite times). Makes more sense.
 
crowTrobot said:
What would expect science to observe if evolution is true? Serious question. You know scientists are documenting small environmental adaptations that creationists call "micro" evolution all the time. Is there some barrier you think would keep thousands or millions of small adaptations from adding up to speciation ("macro" evolution) over a time period too long for scientists to directly observe?
Click to expand...

I'm just curious if you watched that Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate? Ken Ham tried to claim the "micro" no "macro" line.
 
magnifier661 said:
The only "BIG QUESTION" I have, is that of when life first began. You call it God of the Gaps. I call it, "Show me the money". Most other theories have been observed. Even small expansions and contractions within this universe has been observed. What hasn't been observed is something being "programed" by natural accident. When something like that pops up, my tune can change drastically. Until then, I think I like my "designer" approach much better (Observed infinite times). Makes more sense.
Click to expand...

When you see stars collide and form bigger galaxies, when you see black holes and supernovas occur, and when you see rocks fall into our orbit, you've witnessed something programming itself by accident.
 
X2XP said:
When you see stars collide and form bigger galaxies, when you see black holes and supernovas occur, and when you see rocks fall into our orbit, you've witnessed something programming itself by accident.
Click to expand...

FAIL.. We are talking about a living, conscious, think for itself objects. Like a single-celled organism or even a complex organism like a pokemon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top