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)
Denny Crane said:
If there is a flaw in Evolution, it is that it doesn't account for mass extinction type events. Dinosaurs evolved to dominate the planet for hundreds of millions of years. We're not even close to that kind of longevity. But without the ELEs, we wouldn't be the dominant species.

That is, things don't evolve from here to there in a straight line. The ELEs completely reroll the dice and species that weren't able to dominant are suddenly able to thrive and dominate. That's without developing some traits that make the species superior, it's just dumb luck that the species lived in deep water at the right time.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how that's a flaw in evolution.
 
noknobs said:
I fail to see how that's a flaw in evolution.
Click to expand...

We aren't here because of evolution. We're here because the dinosaurs died when a meteor hit the earth. There was nothing in our adaptive history that would suggest we'd become dominant over the dinosaurs if there wasn't that ELE.
 
Denny Crane said:
We aren't here because of evolution. We're here because the dinosaurs died when a meteor hit the earth. There was nothing in our adaptive history that would suggest we'd become dominant over the dinosaurs if there wasn't that ELE.
Click to expand...

That's not a flaw in evolution.
 
Denny Crane said:
A truer theory of how life gets from single cell to Man should include the ELEs, no?
Click to expand...

The prevailing theory of how life gets from single cell to man accounts for ELE's quite clearly...
 
noknobs said:
The prevailing theory of how life gets from single cell to man accounts for ELE's quite clearly...
Click to expand...

It does. But it's not Evolution as Darwin wrote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Evolutionary_importance

Furthermore, many groups which survive mass extinctions do not recover in numbers or diversity, and many of these go into long-term decline, and these are often referred to as "Dead Clades Walking".[21] So analysing extinctions in terms of "what died and what survived" often fails to tell the full story.

Darwin was firmly of the opinion that biotic interactions, such as competition for food and space—the ‘struggle for existence’—were of considerably greater importance in promoting evolution and extinction than changes in the physical environment. He expressed this in The origin of species: “Species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting causes…and the most import of all causes of organic change is one which is almost independent of altered…physical conditions, namely the mutual relation of organism to organism-the improvement of one organism entailing the improvement or extermination of others”.[22]
 
Denny Crane said:
It does. But it's not Evolution as Darwin wrote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Evolutionary_importance

Furthermore, many groups which survive mass extinctions do not recover in numbers or diversity, and many of these go into long-term decline, and these are often referred to as "Dead Clades Walking".[21] So analysing extinctions in terms of "what died and what survived" often fails to tell the full story.

Darwin was firmly of the opinion that biotic interactions, such as competition for food and space—the ‘struggle for existence’—were of considerably greater importance in promoting evolution and extinction than changes in the physical environment. He expressed this in The origin of species: “Species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting causes…and the most import of all causes of organic change is one which is almost independent of altered…physical conditions, namely the mutual relation of organism to organism-the improvement of one organism entailing the improvement or extermination of others”.[22]
Click to expand...

1st off, why are you quoting Darwin... Get with the times.

2nd, it's not evolution as you say, so how can it be a flaw in evolution? Evolution doesn't take place in a vacuum. Everyone knows that. The environment dictates which mutations are advantageous to survival, and the environment changes on Earth all the time (and I'd say an ELE qualifies as an environmental change).
 
Denny Crane said:
It's an example of a mutation of the existing species. It is not different enough to be its own species because they can reproduce with 5 toed cats.

It is called a polydactyl cat.
Click to expand...

There are humans born with lobster claws for hands. Others are born with two heads. That doesn't mean they're not human, though.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between speciation and genetic mutations within a species.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
I fully believe God could have used Darwin's theory to bring about life on this planet, only problem is that the evidence for it is severely lacking IMO and it also would contradict the biblical account and create a mess that many Christians have caved in to and tried to reconcile. I'm not of that school. Remember, without the theory of evolution you are essentially admitting we are created beings in a created world. Keep that in mind when you think about how that might rub people the wrong way, especially if the biblical testimony is true that we are born sinners and enemies of God.
Click to expand...

I think we have pretty much the same view, and it's a view that always blows the minds of those on the evolutionary side of the binary evolution/creation debate. There are so many questions that evolution can't answer, yet the hardcore believers try to insist there is information that explains it. IMO, the Big Bang theory is as useless as some God creating things, at least in terms of it being believable.
 
Denny Crane said:
If there is a flaw in Evolution, it is that it doesn't account for mass extinction type events.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't account for how life actually started on earth, either, at least in terms of a scientifically proven and tested answer.
 
Science has never been about holding a theory, and then working backward to find evidence supporting this theory. The same thing is done today with AGW. More snow, well, it's because of AGW/climate change. Droughts? It's AGW/CC. Record low temps? AGW/CC.

I can 'prove' a lot of things when I already have the answer, and then use observed data to fit into that theory.
 
PapaG said:
Noah's ark is a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

No it's not, Russell Crowe just did a movie about it. It's coming out in a couple of weeks.

[video=youtube;6qmj5mhDwJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ[/video]

Burn!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
No it's not, Russell Crowe just did a movie about it. It's coming out in a couple of weeks.

[video=youtube;6qmj5mhDwJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ[/video]

Burn!
Click to expand...

Hermione is aging quite nicely...
 
PapaG said:
IMO, the Big Bang theory is as useless as some God creating things, at least in terms of it being believable.
Click to expand...


Yeah, like I can't possibly believe Kaley Cuoco could evolve from smoking hot in season 1 to a chunky horse face now.
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
Actually yes, yes I can. Whether or not one chooses to accept the evidence is up to them though. Like I said, the will to disbelieve is every bit as strong as the will to believe.
Click to expand...

Just because I don't think it's been proven to have happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. I really don't know, but I don't take the Big Bang theory as anything other than a fairy tale, either. What existed before the Big Bang? Why did it occur? Why hasn't it happened again?
 
PapaG said:
Just because I don't think it's been proven to have happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. I really don't know, but I don't take the Big Bang theory as anything other than a fairy tale, either. What existed before the Big Bang? Why did it occur? Why hasn't it happened again?
Click to expand...


Like ORLMA2 is constantly doing with evolution, you're asking questions that are beyond the scope of the theory.
 
Eastoff said:
You lack a fundamental understanding of science which will prevent you from ever understanding why all but two of these statements are ignorant. At this point you're shouting the equivalent of "Why are my underpants white?! I just shit my pants, but the front is white!!! You can't explain that!!"
Click to expand...

Typical.
 
noknobs said:
1st off, why are you quoting Darwin... Get with the times.

2nd, it's not evolution as you say, so how can it be a flaw in evolution? Evolution doesn't take place in a vacuum. Everyone knows that. The environment dictates which mutations are advantageous to survival, and the environment changes on Earth all the time (and I'd say an ELE qualifies as an environmental change).
Click to expand...

People call it "Evolution." The so-called debates are about evolution vs. creationism, not about "the latest prevailing theory of life" vs. creationism.

So yeah, I would say Evolution has the flaw I put forward.

Why am I quoting Darwin? He wrote the book.
 
PapaG said:
It also doesn't account for how life actually started on earth, either, at least in terms of a scientifically proven and tested answer.
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't claim to account for how life actually started. Do you have a point to make, or do you want to ascribe to the theory something that it isn't about and argue against that?
 
crowTrobot said:
Like ORLMA2 is constantly doing with evolution, you're asking questions that are beyond the scope of the theory.
Click to expand...

Then it's an incomplete and invalid theory. What exploded for the Big Bang? What existed prior to it? Why hasn't it happened again? Why can't it be proven in a controlled environment?
 
Denny Crane said:
Evolution doesn't claim to account for how life actually started. Do you have a point to make, or do you want to ascribe to the theory something that it isn't about and argue against that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top