Evolutionists' theory in detail

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"It just happened."

Translation: does not understand anything about the theory of evolution, starts exact same thread every few months

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one knows for sure where we come from, or how.

Some claim to, but they're just guessing.

All guesses are not equal though, are they?

We came from here. How? Abiogenesis.

 

[jwoodie]

"It just happened."

Translation: does not understand anything about the theory of evolution, starts exact same thread every few months

Translation: If you question my beliefs, I will attack you personally.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"It just happened."

Translation: does not understand anything about the theory of evolution, starts exact same thread every few months

Translation: If you question MY beliefs, I will attack YOU personally.

Wrong, whiner. You have started this thread many times. And many tines i have explained evolution to you like you are 5 years old. And you STILL dont understand it. So you start the same dumb troll thread. Again.

 

[Hollie]

"It just happened."

“The gawds did it.” That answers everything you need to know.

Same thing.

Not at all. There’s nothing supernatural about chemistry or biology. All the building blocks for life are abundant in the universe. While the exact mechanisms that sparked life on the planet are not fully understood, there is no evidence that any of the gods magically snapped their fingers and *poofed* all life as we know it 6,000 years ago.

If the above is wrong, please post evidence for the existence of your particular gods and evidence that your particular gods are responsible for life as we know it.

 

[jwoodie]

"It just happened."

Translation: does not understand anything about the theory of evolution, starts exact same thread every few months

Translation: If you question MY beliefs, I will attack YOU personally.

Wrong, whiner. You have started this thread many times. And many tines i have explained evolution to you like you are 5 years old. And you STILL dont understand it. So you start the same dumb troll thread. Again.

1. YOU are the one who continually resorts to name calling (e.g., "whiner) to defend your beliefs.

2. Explaining evolution at a 5 year old level says more about you than it does about me.

3. So does your compulsion to reply to my "dumb troll" threads.

 

[jwoodie]

While the exact mechanisms that sparked life on the planet are not fully understood, there is no evidence that any of the gods magically snapped their fingers and *poofed* all life as we know it 6,000 years ago.

Perfect example of what I previously posted:

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

This is really getting too easy.

 

[Hollie]

While the exact mechanisms that sparked life on the planet are not fully understood, there is no evidence that any of the gods magically snapped their fingers and *poofed* all life as we know it 6,000 years ago.

Perfect example of what I previously posted:

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

This is really getting too easy.

If you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment, don’t post in these threads.

There is no coherent “Theory of Creation”. I ask all the time for any of the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists to post their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

Until now, no one has posted that. How refreshing that you will be that courageous soul here to trailblaze that watery path across the sea of empty creationist rhetoric.

I’m tingling with excitement that finally, finally, someone will post the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists explanation for how the gods perform magic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Explaining evolution at a 5 year old level says more about you than it does about me.

Yes, it says i understand it well enough to explain it to a 5 year old. And your inability to grasp that explanation shows that you are lazy, intransigent, and deluded by religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While the exact mechanisms that sparked life on the planet are not fully understood, there is no evidence that any of the gods magically snapped their fingers and *poofed* all life as we know it 6,000 years ago.

Perfect example of what I previously posted:

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

This is really getting too easy.

Ask a legitimate question about the theory, then. Just one will do. I bet you cant. I know you cant.

 

[BreezeWood]

While the exact mechanisms that sparked life on the planet are not fully understood, there is no evidence that any of the gods magically snapped their fingers and *poofed* all life as we know it 6,000 years ago.

Perfect example of what I previously posted:

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

This is really getting too easy.

If you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment, don’t post in these threads.

There is no coherent “Theory of Creation”. I ask all the time for any of the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists to post their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

Until now, no one has posted that. How refreshing that you will be that courageous soul here to trailblaze that watery path across the sea of empty creationist rhetoric.

I’m tingling with excitement that finally, finally, someone will post the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists explanation for how the gods perform magic.

“General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

... someone will post the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists explanation for how the gods perform magic.

nothing magic about it - earned through reward, trial and error no sinners need apply. why there are god's and the Almighty, the requirement for purity.

the general theory of supernatural creation - is based primarily on the fact physiological life is not native to planet Earth, physiology is a metaphysical substance that dissolves when its spiritual content is removed and that physiological life is progressive from simple to complex for the disparity in examples with few exceptions of regression not including extinction - indicating a metaphysical link between the supernatural and physical characteristics life exhibits by the duality itself of physiology and its inseparable spiritual content.

 

[jwoodie]

If you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment, don’t post in these threads.

There is no coherent “Theory of Creation”. I ask all the time for any of the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists to post their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Will you ever learn that your incoherent theory of evolution is in no way supported by your straw man arguments against some "Theory of Creation?"

But let me give you a couple of my thoughts for you to attempt to grasp:
1. There seems to be some acceptance of a "God Particle" at the beginning of the universe. Do you have a better explanation?
2. The Big Bang Theory suggests that cataclysmic events are primarily responsible for the current universe. Do you disagree?
3. Life on Earth has not developed in an orderly fashion, as would be expected from random probability calculations.
4. Instead, new life forms have arrived and departed with astonishing rapidity.
5. The search for "transitional species" has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The paucity of alleged examples virtually proves the non-validity of these hypothetical creatures.
NOW FOR THE GOOD STUFF:
6. There is no "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" any more than there is a General Theory of Gradual Evolution. Did you confuse it with Relativity?
7. We will never completely understand our own existence because it would be impossible for us to duplicate our formative conditions.
8. The only entity that might know these answers would be a "god" in terms of intelligence beyond the capabilities of human beings.
9. The nature of such a "god" is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. The distinct nature of human beings, as opposed to all other life forms on Earth, raises rebuttable presumptions from all sides.

Take your time.

 

[alang1216]

5. The search for "transitional species" has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The paucity of alleged examples virtually proves the non-validity of these hypothetical creatures.

Incorrect:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

3. Life on Earth has not developed in an orderly fashion, as would be expected from random probability calculations.

Total crap

 

[Hollie]

If you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment, don’t post in these threads.

There is no coherent “Theory of Creation”. I ask all the time for any of the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists to post their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Will you ever learn that your incoherent theory of evolution is in no way supported by your straw man arguments against some "Theory of Creation?"

But let me give you a couple of my thoughts for you to attempt to grasp:
1. There seems to be some acceptance of a "God Particle" at the beginning of the universe. Do you have a better explanation?
2. The Big Bang Theory suggests that cataclysmic events are primarily responsible for the current universe. Do you disagree?
3. Life on Earth has not developed in an orderly fashion, as would be expected from random probability calculations.
4. Instead, new life forms have arrived and departed with astonishing rapidity.
5. The search for "transitional species" has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The paucity of alleged examples virtually proves the non-validity of these hypothetical creatures.
NOW FOR THE GOOD STUFF:
6. There is no "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" any more than there is a General Theory of Gradual Evolution. Did you confuse it with Relativity?
7. We will never completely understand our own existence because it would be impossible for us to duplicate our formative conditions.
8. The only entity that might know these answers would be a "god" in terms of intelligence beyond the capabilities of human beings.
9. The nature of such a "god" is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. The distinct nature of human beings, as opposed to all other life forms on Earth, raises rebuttable presumptions from all sides.

Take your time.

1. There is no acceptance of a "God Particle". The term is a euphanism for a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. I have a better explanation than “thegodsdidit”.
2. You need to brush up on the Big Bang theory. But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for arbitrarily concluding that beyond the big bang there is only one option, and that option is "the gods."
3. Random probability calculations do not suggest life would form in an orderly fashion. You employ stereotypical creationist slogans to characterize the scientific view of evolution. In fact, evolution proceeds by “unblind chance,” and it was the great contribution of Darwin’s original theory that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise from the interaction between organisms and their environment.
4. Yes. That would suggest the gods are rather incompetent designers. What we see in nature is not design but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes utter dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact horrible in that systems collapse easily, they can go extinct easily in numerous cases if one element a species relies on is destroyed, they are woefully susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- a round of thanks for the smallpox and AIDS blueprints!) and the general amount of waste is magnificent in its scope.
   
   The point is that it's inefficient because nature isn't intellectually directed. It's happenstance, using the best possible way available. Evolution also sometimes retains things it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
   
   The whole point is, an Intelligent Designer would eschew such things as unneccessary, yet there they are. Either god sucks as an engineer, or he purposely makes things look like they are not designed, which of course creates conflicts in interpretation. Why? Why purposely make it look like evolution, when you want everyone to believe in Creation?
   
   
5. Actually, the search for "transitional species" has been quite successful.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/transitional-sp.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/dmanisi-postcranial.html





6. You may have missed it but the Theory of Evolution is among the most well supported and documented theories in science. Genesis is not about to change into anything more concrete. so we know what it says, and if we are going to approach this in a way that humans approach the attainment on knowledge (i.e., support and falsify, test and verify), Genesis is not going to be fleshed out in more detail. There it sits, creationism in 2 short chapters, and all indications are that as more fossils are found, as scientific tools become more sophisticated and exacting, evolution is going to be more and more supported and defined. That’s precisely what we see with new fossil discoveries. As long as you are willing the embrace “thegodsditit” as an answer, the Bibles hold all the knowledge you will ever need to know. Creationists demand that every dynamic and every engine of evolution immediately be understood, wholly and complete, bursting forth in one unified creation solution. Well, not only is that an unrealistic and unreasonable demand, they can't even apply it to their own assertion, even though it's ridiculously simple, contained in these three words: "God did it." Okay, but what does that tell you?

In the end it tells you nothing.
7. Yes. The all-seeing, all-knowing crystal ball reader has spoken. I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong.
It’s actually pretty self-explanatory. The gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe, knowledge of the universe, a “search for meaning” is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

This is why the “gods” model invariably dead-ends with religionists throwing their hands in the air and responding with ”The Gods Did It” when their religions fall short of providing rational explanations.
8. Other than appending “…because I say so” to your comment, embrace your fears and superstitions. Just don’t presume others will necessarily do the same.
9. The nature of such a "god" The Easter Bunny is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. What distinct nature would that be?

 

[Crepitus]

"It just happened."

Lol, not even close.


Back to school with you!

 

[cnm]

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

I wonder how many acres of hay were sacrificed to build that straw man.

 

[jwoodie]

If you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment, don’t post in these threads.

There is no coherent “Theory of Creation”. I ask all the time for any of the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists to post their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Will you ever learn that your incoherent theory of evolution is in no way supported by your straw man arguments against some "Theory of Creation?"

But let me give you a couple of my thoughts for you to attempt to grasp:
1. There seems to be some acceptance of a "God Particle" at the beginning of the universe. Do you have a better explanation?
2. The Big Bang Theory suggests that cataclysmic events are primarily responsible for the current universe. Do you disagree?
3. Life on Earth has not developed in an orderly fashion, as would be expected from random probability calculations.
4. Instead, new life forms have arrived and departed with astonishing rapidity.
5. The search for "transitional species" has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The paucity of alleged examples virtually proves the non-validity of these hypothetical creatures.
NOW FOR THE GOOD STUFF:
6. There is no "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" any more than there is a General Theory of Gradual Evolution. Did you confuse it with Relativity?
7. We will never completely understand our own existence because it would be impossible for us to duplicate our formative conditions.
8. The only entity that might know these answers would be a "god" in terms of intelligence beyond the capabilities of human beings.
9. The nature of such a "god" is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. The distinct nature of human beings, as opposed to all other life forms on Earth, raises rebuttable presumptions from all sides.

Take your time.

1. There is no acceptance of a "God Particle". The term is a euphanism for a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. I have a better explanation than “thegodsdidit”.
2. You need to brush up on the Big Bang theory. But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for arbitrarily concluding that beyond the big bang there is only one option, and that option is "the gods."
3. Random probability calculations do not suggest life would form in an orderly fashion. You employ stereotypical creationist slogans to characterize the scientific view of evolution. In fact, evolution proceeds by “unblind chance,” and it was the great contribution of Darwin’s original theory that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise from the interaction between organisms and their environment.
4. Yes. That would suggest the gods are rather incompetent designers. What we see in nature is not design but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes utter dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact horrible in that systems collapse easily, they can go extinct easily in numerous cases if one element a species relies on is destroyed, they are woefully susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- a round of thanks for the smallpox and AIDS blueprints!) and the general amount of waste is magnificent in its scope.
   
   The point is that it's inefficient because nature isn't intellectually directed. It's happenstance, using the best possible way available. Evolution also sometimes retains things it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
   
   The whole point is, an Intelligent Designer would eschew such things as unneccessary, yet there they are. Either god sucks as an engineer, or he purposely makes things look like they are not designed, which of course creates conflicts in interpretation. Why? Why purposely make it look like evolution, when you want everyone to believe in Creation?
   
   
5. Actually, the search for "transitional species" has been quite successful.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/transitional-sp.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/dmanisi-postcranial.html





6. You may have missed it but the Theory of Evolution is among the most well supported and documented theories in science. Genesis is not about to change into anything more concrete. so we know what it says, and if we are going to approach this in a way that humans approach the attainment on knowledge (i.e., support and falsify, test and verify), Genesis is not going to be fleshed out in more detail. There it sits, creationism in 2 short chapters, and all indications are that as more fossils are found, as scientific tools become more sophisticated and exacting, evolution is going to be more and more supported and defined. That’s precisely what we see with new fossil discoveries. As long as you are willing the embrace “thegodsditit” as an answer, the Bibles hold all the knowledge you will ever need to know. Creationists demand that every dynamic and every engine of evolution immediately be understood, wholly and complete, bursting forth in one unified creation solution. Well, not only is that an unrealistic and unreasonable demand, they can't even apply it to their own assertion, even though it's ridiculously simple, contained in these three words: "God did it." Okay, but what does that tell you?

In the end it tells you nothing.
7. Yes. The all-seeing, all-knowing crystal ball reader has spoken. I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong.
It’s actually pretty self-explanatory. The gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe, knowledge of the universe, a “search for meaning” is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

This is why the “gods” model invariably dead-ends with religionists throwing their hands in the air and responding with ”The Gods Did It” when their religions fall short of providing rational explanations.
8. Other than appending “…because I say so” to your comment, embrace your fears and superstitions. Just don’t presume others will necessarily do the same.
9. The nature of such a "god" The Easter Bunny is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. What distinct nature would that be?

Good try, Straw Man.

 

[Hollie]

If you’re unable to respond with a coherent comment, don’t post in these threads.

There is no coherent “Theory of Creation”. I ask all the time for any of the goddidit’ists/supernaturalists/creationists to post their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Will you ever learn that your incoherent theory of evolution is in no way supported by your straw man arguments against some "Theory of Creation?"

But let me give you a couple of my thoughts for you to attempt to grasp:
1. There seems to be some acceptance of a "God Particle" at the beginning of the universe. Do you have a better explanation?
2. The Big Bang Theory suggests that cataclysmic events are primarily responsible for the current universe. Do you disagree?
3. Life on Earth has not developed in an orderly fashion, as would be expected from random probability calculations.
4. Instead, new life forms have arrived and departed with astonishing rapidity.
5. The search for "transitional species" has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The paucity of alleged examples virtually proves the non-validity of these hypothetical creatures.
NOW FOR THE GOOD STUFF:
6. There is no "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" any more than there is a General Theory of Gradual Evolution. Did you confuse it with Relativity?
7. We will never completely understand our own existence because it would be impossible for us to duplicate our formative conditions.
8. The only entity that might know these answers would be a "god" in terms of intelligence beyond the capabilities of human beings.
9. The nature of such a "god" is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. The distinct nature of human beings, as opposed to all other life forms on Earth, raises rebuttable presumptions from all sides.

Take your time.

1. There is no acceptance of a "God Particle". The term is a euphanism for a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. I have a better explanation than “thegodsdidit”.
2. You need to brush up on the Big Bang theory. But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for arbitrarily concluding that beyond the big bang there is only one option, and that option is "the gods."
3. Random probability calculations do not suggest life would form in an orderly fashion. You employ stereotypical creationist slogans to characterize the scientific view of evolution. In fact, evolution proceeds by “unblind chance,” and it was the great contribution of Darwin’s original theory that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise from the interaction between organisms and their environment.
4. Yes. That would suggest the gods are rather incompetent designers. What we see in nature is not design but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes utter dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact horrible in that systems collapse easily, they can go extinct easily in numerous cases if one element a species relies on is destroyed, they are woefully susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- a round of thanks for the smallpox and AIDS blueprints!) and the general amount of waste is magnificent in its scope.
   
   The point is that it's inefficient because nature isn't intellectually directed. It's happenstance, using the best possible way available. Evolution also sometimes retains things it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
   
   The whole point is, an Intelligent Designer would eschew such things as unneccessary, yet there they are. Either god sucks as an engineer, or he purposely makes things look like they are not designed, which of course creates conflicts in interpretation. Why? Why purposely make it look like evolution, when you want everyone to believe in Creation?
   
   
5. Actually, the search for "transitional species" has been quite successful.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/transitional-sp.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/dmanisi-postcranial.html





6. You may have missed it but the Theory of Evolution is among the most well supported and documented theories in science. Genesis is not about to change into anything more concrete. so we know what it says, and if we are going to approach this in a way that humans approach the attainment on knowledge (i.e., support and falsify, test and verify), Genesis is not going to be fleshed out in more detail. There it sits, creationism in 2 short chapters, and all indications are that as more fossils are found, as scientific tools become more sophisticated and exacting, evolution is going to be more and more supported and defined. That’s precisely what we see with new fossil discoveries. As long as you are willing the embrace “thegodsditit” as an answer, the Bibles hold all the knowledge you will ever need to know. Creationists demand that every dynamic and every engine of evolution immediately be understood, wholly and complete, bursting forth in one unified creation solution. Well, not only is that an unrealistic and unreasonable demand, they can't even apply it to their own assertion, even though it's ridiculously simple, contained in these three words: "God did it." Okay, but what does that tell you?

In the end it tells you nothing.
7. Yes. The all-seeing, all-knowing crystal ball reader has spoken. I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong.
It’s actually pretty self-explanatory. The gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe, knowledge of the universe, a “search for meaning” is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

This is why the “gods” model invariably dead-ends with religionists throwing their hands in the air and responding with ”The Gods Did It” when their religions fall short of providing rational explanations.
8. Other than appending “…because I say so” to your comment, embrace your fears and superstitions. Just don’t presume others will necessarily do the same.
9. The nature of such a "god" The Easter Bunny is incomprehensible to us, but not impossible.
10. What distinct nature would that be?

Good try, Straw Man.

Your response was one world class skedaddle.

 

[Aletheia4u]