Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 37 of 98 (486601)
10-23-2008 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by chemscience
10-23-2008 12:22 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
chemscience writes:
Endlessly repeating: “evolution is science” doesn’t make it so, but only ignores the impossibilities of the theory and a mindset rejecting evidence, or unexposed thereto.
Nor does endlessly repeating "evolution's NOT science" make it so
But let's have a look at your points shall we:
1. Every effect must have an equal cause
2. 100 billion galaxies were compressed into a point smaller than an atom
3. Came now the Big Bang
4. Don’t ask what made the BB, it was a Singularity. O ye weak of faith!
5. The universe has less than 10% of the matter required for the BB
6. So there must be Dark Matter, it’s never been found, but believe!
7. There’s also Dark Energy, ditto
8. The early non-oxygenic atmosphere was poisonous methane, ammonia, etc.
9. Lightning created oceans full of an amino-acid “prebiotic soup”
10. 100s of AAs accidentally became proteins, Just levo, left handed ones
11. Amino acid links, a dehydrating process, can't happen in H2O but did!
12. Without ozone/oxygen, solar radiation is lethal to life, but the AAs
and proteins survived
13. Suddenly the atmosphere converted to Nitrogen & Oxygen, No one knows
how.
14. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated, but it made everything alive.
These have NOTHING to do with evolution, moving on.
15. All living things are accidents, without design or purpose
They aren't "accidents" they came about by mutation and natural selection, the latter is not a random process, thus not accidental.
16. Accidentalism (“evolution”) took 2 billion years to produce all life
Don't know if this is exactly right, but I don't see what the problem is here.
17. Yet the first metazoan fossils, trilobites, etc are only 543 million
years old and had no daddys & mommys
Of course they have mommy's and daddy's, they couldn't get born otherwise, now could they. I think you mean we haven't found fossils of their "mommy's and daddy's". I'm no palaeontologist, so I don't know a lot about fossils, but I might think that's because they didn't have any "hard" parts to get fossilised.
18. There were at least 9 extinctions, five major, the Permian event
killed 99% of species (By recent estimates)
I'm pretty sure you got that number wrong, it IS true however that 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct, I don't think that happened all in the permian though. And even if it did, what's your point?
19. A Montana T-Rex with elastic odiferous tissue is nevertheless
70,000,000 years old
Going to leave this one open, as I don't know what you're talking about here. Further, I don't see this tying into evolution.
20. The Lewis Overthrust, 800 Trillion tons/rock slid 50 miles sideways,
left no trace of abrasion & ground rock between layers
Has NOTHING to do with evolution
Well, seems your points are either wrong, or have NOTHING to do with evolution. Nice try though

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by chemscience, posted 10-23-2008 12:22 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 98 (487365)
10-30-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by chemscience
10-29-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Should I answer Huntard?
Also, I'd be willing to start that thread myself if you can't come round to it. I'll include your post and my response to it in the opening post, and we can take it from there. Just give the word and I'll make the thread.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by chemscience, posted 10-29-2008 12:02 AM chemscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 10-30-2008 1:20 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 50 of 98 (487509)
11-01-2008 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by chemscience
11-01-2008 2:10 AM


Re: Onifre Hello Again!
Hello Chemscience. Just to let you know, I started the thread you wanted, it's over at: http://EvC Forum: Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)? -->EvC Forum: Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?
Perhaps you can take your answer to Onifre there, and he can answer you in that thread.
If you do so, I'll also react to the things you pointed out to Onifre.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by chemscience, posted 11-01-2008 2:10 AM chemscience has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024