Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[Mad_Cabbie]

You can't answer the questions can you?

I'll answer it - yes, I lie all the time.

"Honey, that was great!"

"No, you DON'T look fat."

Etc.

So, you DON'T lie? Never???

How flipping rude!

There you go - lying is part of everyone's social repertoire, or should be.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Is it being studied?
"Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".

Or I don't know "evolution did it".

 

[idb]

Is it being studied?
"Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".

Or I don't know "evolution did it".

No-one says that.
That's the point.

Evolutionary theory doesn't rely on simple binary statements like religion.
It's a study of processes.

Your butterfly example could, for example, be a result of climate change.
Maybe the butterflies used to breed in a place that was very near their main source of food but, as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.
The distance has increased slowly over the years and they've just continued to fly the extra few metres each time.
Maybe.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all? There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.

But there weren't humans around millions of years ago to cause climate change.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Is it being studied?
"Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".

Or I don't know "evolution did it".

No-one says that.
That's the point.

Evolutionary theory doesn't rely on simple binary statements like religion.
It's a study of processes.

Your butterfly example could, for example, be a result of climate change.
Maybe the butterflies used to breed in a place that was very near their main source of food but, as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.
The distance has increased slowly over the years and they've just continued to fly the extra few metres each time.
Maybe.

What do you mean no one says that? You just did.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I understand you're angry which is why you're lashing out.

I've called out your falsehoods and you can only respond with pith and vinegar. As your latest false comment claims I've been "owned", where and by who? You won't answer because that would leave you with having to support your claim or admit you don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're left to lash out like a scolded child and you have no ability to substantiate your false claims.

As your latest post demonstrates, you can't debate a topic as your limited knowledge leaves you at a permanent disadvantage. So, you're left to personal attacks and whine about those horrible disbelievers who don't accept your slogans and cliches.

Oh the irony!

 

[konradv]

Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all? There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.

But there weren't humans around millions of years ago to cause climate change.

Their ancestors were. Other than that the comment is irrelevant and just an attempt to distract from an argument that you're losing.

 

[konradv]

Is it being studied?
"Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".

Or I don't know "evolution did it".

No-one says that.
That's the point.

Evolutionary theory doesn't rely on simple binary statements like religion.
It's a study of processes.

Your butterfly example could, for example, be a result of climate change.
Maybe the butterflies used to breed in a place that was very near their main source of food but, as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.
The distance has increased slowly over the years and they've just continued to fly the extra few metres each time.
Maybe.

What do you mean no one says that? You just did.

No he didn't. He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.

 

[idb]

Is it being studied?
"Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".

Or I don't know "evolution did it".

No-one says that.
That's the point.

Evolutionary theory doesn't rely on simple binary statements like religion.
It's a study of processes.

Your butterfly example could, for example, be a result of climate change.
Maybe the butterflies used to breed in a place that was very near their main source of food but, as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.
The distance has increased slowly over the years and they've just continued to fly the extra few metres each time.
Maybe.

What do you mean no one says that? You just did.

Please quote the part where I said "evolution did that".

Are you referring to my possible scenario as an alternative to "God did it" perhaps?

 

[THE LIGHT]

I'll answer it - yes, I lie all the time.

"Honey, that was great!"

"No, you DON'T look fat."

Etc.

So, you DON'T lie? Never???

How flipping rude!

There you go - lying is part of everyone's social repertoire, or should be.

I wasn't asking you that question. But thanks for being honest. I don't know a person in the world that hasn't lied. That is my point. Hollie was making the point that she is a "good" person which can only hold true if she is the god of her own universe and determines what is "good" and what is "bad".

Evolutionists don't believe in moral absolutes and therefore believe lying is okay which is why it is impossible to have an honest debate with them.

Once again as I asked before...

There is a brightness across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better tomorrow.

What is better? Who thinks it is better? Who determines if it is better? Better than what? How do you know it is better?

Please explain your enlightened logic.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Their ancestors were.

And they drove cars that caused big carbon footprints?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Please quote the part where I said "evolution did that".

Are you referring to my possible scenario as an alternative to "God did it" perhaps?

I am referring to your explanation of the butterfly question in which you invoke evolution as the reason. No, you didn't specifically say the words "evolution did that" but neither do Creationists many times say the exact words "God did it." The point is evolutionist believe that everything is a result of evolution while creationists believe that everything was created by God with a purpose and was skillfully designed so that it could change and adapt (micro-evolution) to its surroundings.

However, I have heard people say the exact words "evolution did it."

Please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your explanation of the butterfly since it is seems to be one of micro evolution. I haven't studied that particular example much myself to be able to opine.

 

[THE LIGHT]

No he didn't. He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.

All of which are examples of saying "evolution did it", in principle. If the climate changes, something will adapt (micro-evolution). If the food availability changes it will have to adapt (micro-evolution). Therefore all three cases offer evolution as the explanation.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Already did.

Could you help me find it?

 

[idb]

Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all? There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.

But there weren't humans around millions of years ago to cause climate change.

No, you're right!

Please quote the part where I said "evolution did that".

Are you referring to my possible scenario as an alternative to "God did it" perhaps?

I am referring to your explanation of the butterfly question in which you invoke evolution as the reason. No, you didn't specifically say the words "evolution did that" but neither do Creationists many times say the exact words "God did it." The point is evolutionist believe that everything is a result of evolution while creationists believe that everything was created by God with a purpose and was skillfully designed so that it could change and adapt (micro-evolution) to its surroundings.

However, I have heard people say the exact words "evolution did it."

Please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your explanation of the butterfly since it is seems to be one of micro evolution. I haven't studied that particular example much myself to be able to opine.

I didn't put it forward as an explanation, or even a theory.
It's a possible scenario.
I wouldn't even call it 'evolution' because it's more of a behavioural development than a physical one.

 

[idb]

No he didn't. He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.

All of which are examples of saying "evolution did it", in principle. If the climate changes, something will adapt (micro-evolution). If the food availability changes it will have to adapt (micro-evolution). Therefore all three cases offer evolution as the explanation.

No, they aren't necessarily examples of 'evolution did it'.
As I've just posted, they could be merely behavioural changes to meet changing environments.

 

[THE LIGHT]

No he didn't. He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.

All of which are examples of saying "evolution did it", in principle. If the climate changes, something will adapt (micro-evolution). If the food availability changes it will have to adapt (micro-evolution). Therefore all three cases offer evolution as the explanation.

No, they aren't necessarily examples of 'evolution did it'.
As I've just posted, they could be merely behavioural changes to meet changing environments.

I see your point.

 

[PostmodernProph]

, as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.

you realize that they cross the equator, right?.....one temperate zone in SA to another temperate zone in NA.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

No he didn't. He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.

All of which are examples of saying "evolution did it", in principle. If the climate changes, something will adapt (micro-evolution). If the food availability changes it will have to adapt (micro-evolution). Therefore all three cases offer evolution as the explanation.

No, they aren't necessarily examples of 'evolution did it'.
As I've just posted, they could be merely behavioural changes to meet changing environments.

behavioral changes which become an hereditary trait ARE evolution.......

 

[BillyP]

Wow! you guys are still at it.

This thread hasn't evolved much.

But it doesn't mean that evolution isn't right now the accepted theory until proven otherwise.