• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution, Religion, and Introspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
RAMOSS said:
Oh no, another web site with the word 'True' in it. It then goes on to build a straw man, and change definitions, and move goal posts.
Click to expand...

Of course, relativists don't believe in the word, "true."

Truth is what they want it to be.
 
There's nothing to support macro-evolution. NONE! Everything about it is just plain supposition.
 
faithful_servant said:
If it's not beneficial, then it will eventually get filtered out. Again, look at red-heads. No genetic benefit, so within a few centuries, there will be no more red-heads. A trait that gets passed on is one that is of benefit, not one that is neutral. A neutral trait slowly but surely fades away.
Click to expand...

No, if it neutral , it might or might not be filtered out. The whole 'red heads are going extinct' has been shown to be utter garbage, but, in this day and age of 'urban legend' emails going around, that story remains.
 
ludin said:
which is why evolution and natural selection is full of crap.
otherwise I wouldn't have to wear glasses. if what you said is true then natural selection would have weeded out the need for me to wear glasses.
evidently evolution didn't get your memo that it only passes on the best traits. it doesn't. natural selection is bs.
Click to expand...
'You' haven't needed perfect vision for scores/or hundreds of generations. Caucasians generally lived in cities/on ag settlements, villages, etc for thousands of years and were not hunters.
And virtually No one has needed it for 3 generations or more.
ie
Australian Aboriginals, isolated hunters til a hundred+ years ago, have much better vision than Australian Anglos
Racial variations in vision. - PubMed - NCBI

Wisdom Teeth (UseLess Anatomical Remnants of our more herbivorous ancestors AND More PROOF of evolution) and those who had them, were on their way out before modern denstistry.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted.
These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death...​

Same with the useless Coccyx where 'our' Tails used to be.
Anatomical Remnants speak for trial and error mutation/Continuous Clumsy process, not an Immaculate creation events.
The 'Junkyard Tornado' left alotta uselesss parts on the 747.... Like a Yolk for the Oxen.

Ludin said:
you don't get to pick and choose your gene's.
it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in God.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't understand Evo or choose to Block out Evo for reason of earlier indoctrinatrion.
Tho many Christians believe in Evolution. ±Half?


Ludin said:
the theory of evolution is basically this.
a tornado hits a junk yard and puts together a fully working plane.
that is about the extent of evolution.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. :^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
Again, Evo is trial and error, an infinite amount of failed/extinct species/mutations before were left with.. what's left: Species with remnant parts of our evolutionary predecessors.


Ludin said:
multiple complimentary mutation happening in exact sequence at the exact timing possible is scientifically impossible.
and it isn't me that says it is impossible it is science that says it is impossible.
ol yea it doesn't grow feathers unless it has the dna capable to grow feathers. it can't just make up a gene to grow feathers without it already being there.
that is not how genetics works.
Click to expand...
No one claims "Exact sequence". On the contrary. Evo is trial and error, then survival of the fittest/best adapted.
Today's 'bad' mutation is tomorrow's good one if Climate or other environment factors have changed. So you always want to have mutations.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
no worse than this post. that is what is sad. can't actually address the topic.
tell me how does a frog evolve into a bird.

how does a cat evolve into a dog.

better yet how does a single cell bacteria become a multi-cell organism even though it has never been observed it to that?
actually it does none of that at all. but your ad-hominem is noted.
Click to expand...

Your words here show to all that you have failed to read a single high-school level biology textbook.
 
Somerville said:
Your words here show to all that you have failed to read a single high-school level biology textbook.
Click to expand...

no it is called common sense in the fact that it can't happen.
 
mbig said:
'You' haven't needed perfect vision for scores/or hundreds of generations. Caucasians generally lived in cities/on ag settlements, villages, etc for thousands of years and were not hunters.
And virtually No one has needed it for 3 generations or more.
Click to expand...

not having to wear glasses is the best trait. having to wear glasses is a sever impairment. so evolution didn't get your memo to pass on the best traits.
in a single example I proved it wrong.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted.
These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death...​
Click to expand...

and yet some people have no issue with them. funny I guess evolution didn't get the memo. yet more proof you don't get the best gene's
that isn't macro evolution. lol so people that have wisdom teeth are something other than human? lol


Same with the useless Coccyx where 'our' Tails used to be.
Anatomical Remnants speak for trial and error mutation/Continuous Clumsy process, not an Immaculate creation events.
The 'Junkyard Tornado' left alotta uselesss parts on the 747.... Like a Yolk for the Oxen.
Click to expand...

:lamo tails. actually it is important and it really isn't useless. it serves specific functions.
The tailbone is small, but it does have a few important jobs. It helps to stabilize you when you sit, and many tendons, muscles, and ligaments run through the area.

Only if you don't understand Evo or choose to Block out Evo for reason of earlier indoctrinatrion.
Tho many Christians believe in Evolution. ±Half?
Click to expand...

yep I certainly believe in micro-evolution. it is why I wear glasses. because I have a genetic link in my gene's passed from my parents that
my eyes will go near sighted. it the dominant gene between my parents both wear glasses. so I technically had a 1 in 4 chance of not wearing glasses.
evolution missed the memo.

No it isn't. :^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
Again, Evo is trial and error, an infinite amount of failed/extinct species/mutations before were left with.. what's left: Species with remnant parts of our evolutionary predecessors.
Click to expand...

genetics doesn't give you infinite try's you get 1 try if it doesn't work you are deformed or dead.
if that was the case we would have millions and millions of these failed fossils and we don't.

No one claims "Exact sequence". On the contrary. Evo is trial and error, then survival of the fittest/best adapted.
Today's 'bad' mutation is tomorrow's good one if Climate or other environment factors have changed. So you always want to have mutations.
Click to expand...

genetics requires exact sequences for macro-evolution.
 
Somerville said:
Your words here show to all that you have failed to read a single high-school level biology textbook.
Click to expand...

So, you're way above practically everyone in the National Academy of Sciences. You understand macro-evolution when no scientists actually understand it! Bravo! The proponents of macro-evolution are merely posturing!

You should phone James Tour and explain macro-evolution to him. He'll buy you lunch!


From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.

Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”� Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”�? And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology”� lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.”� It is not a matter of politics.

Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation





Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents.



… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
So, you're way above practically everyone in the National Academy of Sciences. You understand macro-evolution when no scientists actually understand it! Bravo! The proponents of macro-evolution are merely posturing!

You should phone James Tour and explain macro-evolution to him. He'll buy you lunch!


From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.

Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”� Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”�? And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology”� lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.”� It is not a matter of politics.

Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either.

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation





Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents.



… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...

Great, a few hundred scientists are creationists.
12.gif

Well only, 2% of scientists are creationists. 97% are evolutionists.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. We even have neanderthal DNA:
31.jpg
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
 
tosca1 said:
So, you're way above practically everyone in the National Academy of Sciences. You understand macro-evolution when no scientists actually understand it!...............
Click to expand...
James M. Tour is not a witness to "no scientist" understanding. Actually he doesn't want to be either.

To wit:
Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately his "humility" in professing own ignorance does not subsequently extend to keeping silent on what one knows not and should thus not speak upon.
 
ludin said:
yea I know right. questioning what is arguably a far fetch theory is down right abhorrent.
the fact is that the only reason that evolution even exists as a theory is to try and justify an existence without a creator.

however evolution in an of itself has many many flaws.

TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Micro vs. Macro Evolution
Click to expand...

Darwin was a ****ing nutjob and loon.

Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health | The Institute for Creation Research
 
Chagos said:
James M. Tour is not a witness to "no scientist" understanding. Actually he doesn't want to be either.

To wit: Unfortunately his "humility" in professing own ignorance does not subsequently extend to keeping silent on what one knows not and should thus not speak upon.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant!


Deal with what he's saying: no scientists really understand macro-evolution!
 
tosca1 said:
Irrelevant!


Deal with what he's saying: no scientists really understand macro-evolution!
Click to expand...
The relevance lies in his opinion spout not constituting anymore than just that.

HE doesn't understand it, that's all. Maybe others don't either but that doesn't amount to "no scientist".

Try to pay attention.
 
There's no evidence to macro-evolution!



Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation


Gross extrapolation. That's all it has. WOW.
 
American said:
Darwin was a ****ing nutjob and loon.

Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health | The Institute for Creation Research
Click to expand...

Darwin's books are articulate and well reasoned. Definitely not the ravings of a crazy person. Even if Darwin had physical and mental problems, that does not make him crazy or psychotic. Many highly brilliant people had their problems like Einstein and Newton just to name a few.

Also, your source spends very little time trying to show that Darwin is psychotic even though it spends so much time going over his physical condition and mental health even though the title says that he is psychotic.

Its only evidences that Darwin is psychotic is that once Darwin trembled with excitement after he killed a bird and that he has a hunting enthusiast. That is it. Literally. I know many people who are hunters and they are good people. The instinct and excitement of the hunt we see in many men is natural and not psychotic and comes from our evolutionary roots as hunters. I have hunted myself and can tell you that when you are good at it, it is very exciting. So, are all hunting enthusiasts psychotic according to this article?

Are people who love violent movies all psychotic too because they are excited by violence?

The bias is literally dripping from this articles. The authors need to address the vast evidence for evolution and stop attacking Darwin as a person.

This article is one big Ad Hominem fallacy. Epic fail.
 
tosca1 said:
Where are these so-called evidence? Name them specifically.


No evidence! They're merely suppositions!
Click to expand...

I just named one. Neanderthal DNA.
 
deleted
 
tosca1 said:
There's no evidence to macro-evolution!



Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation


Gross extrapolation. That's all it has. WOW.
Click to expand...

That's because macro-evolution doesn't exist. There's only evolution. Fact and theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom