Questions For Darwinists

[zaangalewa]

I've heard your anti-evolution arguments before and they have been, IMHO, debunked. Seems to me, it is your side that intentionally ignore the points made. Many different sciences point to evolution and NOTHING points to creationism.

Only something what's created is able to evolve. This are two totally different things. I am for example 13.8 billion years old but no one was 200 years ago - or 13.8 billion years ago - able to say where I was.

So why was I 200 years ago and why was I not 200 years ago? The second question is easily able to be answered. No human being is 200 years old. I was just simple not born 200 years ago.

But why was I 200 years ago? Today I am. And I will be here until I will die. But what if I had died yesterday? Then I would not be here. So something was what is "I" today also yesterday existing. And that's the same the day before yesterday and ever day of my life since I was born. But what was 1 year before I was born? What if my mother or father had had a car accident 1 year before I was born? Then I would not be here. What if a super-nova explosion not had made many of the atoms of the solar system? But this all had happened - and so I am here.

I am an answer which exists since about 13.8 billion years ago if this is the correct date of the so called "big bang". I am a part of exactly this concrete unique universe here with exacrly this history of the universe. So what is now my creation and what is now my evolution? How to seprate this?

And what are you on your own? Creation? Evolution? Nothing of this two things? Both of this two things? And who are you? Earthling or universe? "evolution" or "creation"? Or make perhaps all this discussions "creation vs evolution" just simple not a big sense? What could my and your animalic sisters and brothers say in this context if they could really discuss with us? ¿"Live and let live - and specially: Love me, brother!"?

Creationists begin with the answer and work to fit the evidence to it.


No, that is your strawman and carries no weight.

 

[Dagosa]

That was in response to my post, viz.,
ChemEngineer said:
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

--------------------

"Simple" Dagosa said. Spelling is simple and yet Dagosa screwed that up worse than a sixth grader.

He and his ilk attack anything questioning Darwinism by the ad hominem attack. "You're stupid so shut up."
I am no science illiterate, nor are the many scientists, statisticians, and information experts I have cited in my website. We are not politically motivated. The attempt to maintain archaic nonsense first propounded over 150 years ago is ill-conceived and illogical because they intentionally ignore the points made or simply try to lie their way out of them, quite unsuccessfully.

The statistics of original polypeptide synthesis are insuperable. End of Darwinian extrapolation.

View attachment 687721

Gee, are you still claiming you know what the periodic table represents ?
You ‘re a fraud. Now that we know you’re science illiterate, you’re all a sudden, an expert in the English language. Nope, still a fraud.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

You disagree? ... Strange ... And what exactly is your problem? Ideology? Politics? Science? Religion? Philosophy? Something else? Or do you just simple think to think is not thinkable because everyone has to be the same idiot like you?

 

[ChemEngineer]

I believe in God. But I need to explain facts, too. We have the facts of evolution, and we have to explain them. The Theory of evolution is the simplest and best explanation of the observed facts.

"Simplest" is an overstatement, but it does not suggest that the simplest is correct.
IF it were the "best," there would not be hundreds of quotations by biologists, biochemists, mathematicians and statisticians contradicting it. There would not be scores of books refuting the nonsense it presents, "mutation and selection"..... "survival of the fittest"....

Atheist Richard Dawkins says that "every living thing's only reason for being here is to make copies of itself." This proves what a dismal failure atheists are since they reproduce less than almost any other group. Nor is there any "higher" calling for evolution, since making copies of ourselves is "our only reason for being here." Truth and science are meaningless to the evolutionary tautology.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Simplest" is an overstatement, but it does not suggest that the simplest is correct.
IF it were the "best," there would not be hundreds of quotations by biologists, biochemists, mathematicians and statisticians contradicting it. There would not be scores of books refuting the nonsense it presents, "mutation and selection"..... "survival of the fittest"....

Atheist Richard Dawkins says that "every living thing's only reason for being here is to make copies of itself." This proves what a dismal failure atheists are since they reproduce less than almost any other group. Nor is there any "higher" calling for evolution, since making copies of ourselves is "our only reason for being here." Truth and science are meaningless to the evolutionary tautology.

There would not be scores of books refuting the nonsense it presents, "mutation and selection"..... "survival of the fittest"....

Scores? How about naming one?

 

[Hollie]

"Simplest" is an overstatement, but it does not suggest that the simplest is correct.
IF it were the "best," there would not be hundreds of quotations by biologists, biochemists, mathematicians and statisticians contradicting it. There would not be scores of books refuting the nonsense it presents, "mutation and selection"..... "survival of the fittest"....

Atheist Richard Dawkins says that "every living thing's only reason for being here is to make copies of itself." This proves what a dismal failure atheists are since they reproduce less than almost any other group. Nor is there any "higher" calling for evolution, since making copies of ourselves is "our only reason for being here." Truth and science are meaningless to the evolutionary tautology.

When I think of "simplest", I think of the limited abilities of religious extremists.

 

[alang1216]

"Simplest" is an overstatement, but it does not suggest that the simplest is correct.
IF it were the "best," there would not be hundreds of quotations by biologists, biochemists, mathematicians and statisticians contradicting it. There would not be scores of books refuting the nonsense it presents, "mutation and selection"..... "survival of the fittest"....

Atheist Richard Dawkins says that "every living thing's only reason for being here is to make copies of itself." This proves what a dismal failure atheists are since they reproduce less than almost any other group. Nor is there any "higher" calling for evolution, since making copies of ourselves is "our only reason for being here." Truth and science are meaningless to the evolutionary tautology.

I'm always amazed when theists refuse to look at the world they believe their God has created and instead have the audacity to tell Him how he should have done it

 

[zaangalewa]

"Simplest" is an overstatement, but it does not suggest that the simplest is correct.

The tree "John" - a very concrete tree - and the Siberian Tiger "Mary" - also a very concrete tiger - have very concrete common ancestors. Let me call the last common answer between both human imaginations - which are also naturally real entities - "Helga". Indeed everything hat lives on planet Earth is part of the natural history of planet Earth and we = everyone who (or everything what) lives here - are all sisters and brothers. Very simple, isn't it? Dust we are. Dust of the stars. Particles. And we will give this particles back to the universe with our death. But what from us was forever and what from us possibly will stay forever? God knows.

IF it were the "best," there would not be hundreds of quotations by biologists, biochemists, mathematicians and statisticians contradicting it.

Contradicting what? And what is not "contradicted" from someone else?

There would not be scores of books refuting the nonsense it presents, "mutation and selection"..... "survival of the fittest"....

Atheist Richard Dawkins says that "every living thing's only reason for being here is to make copies of itself."

"Copies of itself" means in this case copies of the own body. But this is a very old concept. More "modern" biological entities prefer to make 50% copies of the own body. Richard Dawkins is from my point of view by the way a very bad philosopher and a man who is specially not able to see the spiritual conceptiom of his own belief in atheism. I was very upset for ex,aple when he supported to write pn busses "Be happy. God is not existing". Sure everyone has the right to say what he thinks - but I imagined in this moment a suffering man who lost his beloeved wife in a clinic waiting for this bus to bring him home into his new - and much more empty - life. A tereriherl message. Sure he can be frustrated to read "God loves you" instead - perhaps he will even hate god in this moment of life - but nevertheless this message is a million times better.

This proves what a dismal failure atheists are since they reproduce less than almost any other group.

Extreme thoughts are a method to clear problems - not a method to live the own life.

Nor is there any "higher" calling for evolution,

That's true. A [type of organism] survives - or dies out. That's all. But nevertheless the complexity of life grows. The pope for example said "With every species which dies out we will lose a voice of god." A very nice way to remember us to our responsibility - also for all other life forms.

since making copies of ourselves is "our only reason for being here." Truth and science are meaningless to the evolutionary tautology.

The problem is that Darwinism is also a form of racism and many people - specially in context economy which they compare war - use totally wrong pictures; like for example "Human beings are the wolve of other human beings" - but this sentence was also said in the 6th century BC. Much more worse is it that we are the wolves of the wolves and wolvers are often much more human beings for themselves than many of us are human beings for other human beings, isn't it? Biology is not responsible for our deeds. We are responsible. Normal human beings love our sisters and brothers - animals and plants. We love life. That's what we are: love and life. But we are often doing things which are not compatible with the universal love of god, which hopefully everyone will find inborn into the own deepest soul.