Questions For Evolutionists.

[SaxonJackson]

So why do you believe such a crazy thing?

No one else here suggested such insanity, so it's clearly something that came entirely out of your mind. Why did you create such a deranged story?

You're not being intellectually honest. You constantly assign beliefs to others that they don't hold. You make up dumb strawmen, because you can't argue against what people actually say. The Lord of Lies gives big a thumbs-up to your technique.

The whole world of evolutionary biology is at your fingertips on the internet, and you refuse to look at it. You ask dumb questions that you could easily find the answers for yourself, if you didn't deliberately refuse to look at anything that contradicts your weird version of scripture.

Since you're not debating in good faith, why should honest people waste time on you?

(And unlike you, we're very familiar with the other side's arguments. We know what cranks like Behe say, and why their stupid arguments are wrong. Not being in a cult, we're not afraid to read what the other side says.)

Instead of wasting time telling me what you believe I said that was incorrect, why don't you do something more productive by telling us why an organism that did fine without sexual organs all of a sudden needed to "evolve" them.

Mitosis is a MUCH more efficient way to reproduce. Explain in your own words (since I don't want to assign the wrong words to you) why asexual beings found it necessary to evolve sex organs.

If possible, provide proof and avoid conjecture. Thank you.

 

[SaxonJackson]

You make this mistake a lot, thinking that evolution theory says organisms "need" to evolve in a certain direction. It's not a mistake that anyone in biology makes.

There is no "need". There's random mutation shaped by natural selection, sometimes leading to a path that's more successful at staying alive and reproducing.

So all of these thousands of various species "randomly" evolved male/female sexual organs? What are the odds? Your faith is great, Obi-Wan.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Instead of wasting time telling me what you believe I said that was incorrect, why don't you do something more productive by telling us why an organism that did fine without sexual organs all of a sudden needed to "evolve" them.

No.

Why don't YOU go look it up yourself?

And if you have a problem with the explanation you find, post the problem here. Like a big boy.

 

[SaxonJackson]

But you didn't read and don't understand the article.

Apparently "the joke" was assuming you would engage in honest discussion.

It doesn't answer the question. Devolving the ability to fly doesn't benefit the penguin. Or, the alternative to your official narrative, is that penguins were never able to fly in the first place.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It doesn't answer the question.

It adds very useful information and helps you understand the question you are asking. Which you clearly don't.

As such, you wouldn't know the correct answer if you saw it.

See the problem?

 

[SaxonJackson]

It adds very useful information and helps you understand the question you are asking. Which you clearly don't.

As such, you wouldn't know the correct answer if you saw it.

See the problem?

I'm dealing with a bunch of well-intentioned (imperfect) men trying to explain things based on ideological conjecture and wishful thinking. They see things from a flawed and imperfect perspective. They've decided that ANYTHING is possible as long as it has nothing to do with God. They'll buy the first thing some man in a white coat tells them, as long as they don't have to accept the idea of an Intelligent Designer. That's prospect is OFF THE TABLE, period!

The bottom line is that folks who believe all of these theories and accept them as fact are faithful followers of the Religion of Evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm dealing with a bunch of well-intentioned (imperfect) men trying to explain things based on ideological conjecture and wishful thinking.

That's your prescribed fantasy.

In reality, you are dealing with your own ignorance and misunderstanding of a scientific topic.

So you are on a message board begging nonscientists for information, hoping you can skate by in such a discussion.

 

[Robert W]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.

Yes he definitely did say that.
Where was cyanobacteria first found?

Western Australia

Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, started out on Earth quite a while ago. Possible fossil examples have been found in rocks that are around 3500 million years old, in Western Australia.Nov 23, 2018

The origins of life on Earth - Curious - Australian Academy of Science​

 

[Robert W]

I'm dealing with a bunch of well-intentioned (imperfect) men trying to explain things based on ideological conjecture and wishful thinking. They see things from a flawed and imperfect perspective. They've decided that ANYTHING is possible as long as it has nothing to do with God. They'll buy the first thing some man in a white coat tells them, as long as they don't have to accept the idea of an Intelligent Designer. That's prospect is OFF THE TABLE, period!

The bottom line is that folks who believe all of these theories and accept them as fact are faithful followers of the Religion of Evolution.

I have read intently around a dozen books on evolution but find as you do, the democrats who do not study this, shout opinions galore that they can't prove.

 

[SaxonJackson]

That's your prescribed fantasy.

In reality, you are dealing with your own ignorance and misunderstanding of a scientific topic.

So you are on a message board begging nonscientists for information, hoping you can skate by in such a discussion.

You speak of "scientists" as if they're infallible priests of some sort. They go to a University and are indoctrinated by a bunch of club members who share similar delusions or fantasies. They graduate with honors and pass their fanciful ideology onto the next impressionable generation as if their hypotheses are actual facts. None take the time to step outside the box and actually ask themselves the same questions I'm asking.

Nobody in this thread has even come close to adequately explaining why a void of absolute nothingness created the universe and all things in it. Nobody can show in a lab setting how the right mixture of chemicals, materials, and heat can create life where previously there was none. Nobody seems to have access to those billions of fossils showing the transition from one life form to a new life form. The official narratives have changed over the years, but nobody has any real answers. They do, however, have faith in the inadequate conclusions they've reached.

Evolution is just as faith-based as Christianity is. Perhaps more so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's your prescribed fantasy.

In reality, you are dealing with your own ignorance and misunderstanding of a scientific topic.

So you are on a message board begging nonscientists for information, hoping you can skate by in such a discussion.

well except science isn't infallible and doesn't work on consensus as you lot keep trying to claim. Further the one fact is that there is no actual hard evidence that a single mammal species EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species, Further the evidence claiming man evolved from an ape like creature has so many massive holes in it that it is laughable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes he definitely did say that.

Nah, no he didn't. You definitely made it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You speak of "scientists" as if they're infallible priests of some sort.

No, I defer to the evidence. You once again confuse our own authoritative "because I said so" religious culture with the rest of the rational world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

well except science isn't infallible and doesn't work on consensus as you lot keep trying to claim

That's a lie and a strawman. Your ad hominem won't help you. You will fail the 7th grade science quiz.

And considering you know less than nothing about evolution, yes, the scientific consensus is more valuable than your uninformed opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's a lie and a strawman. Your ad hominem won't help you. You will fail the 7th grade science quiz.

And considering you know less than nothing about evolution, yes, the scientific consensus is more valuable than your uninformed opinion.

so you think science is not fallible and that science works on consensus. Thanks for admitting it so openly.

 

[SaxonJackson]

No, I defer to the evidence. You once again confuse our own authoritative "because I said so" religious culture with the rest of the rational world.

You don't have any actual evidence. You're using the old tactics used by evolutionists of the early 1900s. You find a bone fragment, which is then used as "proof" that Piltdown Man existed. It turned out to be a complete hoax, just like modern "findings" are. They wanted so badly for evolution to be a viable answer to modern man's existence that they (the science community) had to fabricate a story as "proof."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so you think science is not fallible and that science works on consensus. Thanks for admitting it so openly.

No, I don't think either of those things. Please save this childish trolling for other sections of the board.

Consensus is a symptom of the evidence. An indicator. Evidence drives science and consensus.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't have any actual evidence.

A freakish lie. If you think this compels me to look it up for you and spoonfeed it to you, you are mistaken.

 

[SaxonJackson]

A freakish lie. If you think this compels me to look it up for you and spoonfeed it to you, you are mistaken.

Spoon-feeding B.S. doesn't sound that appetizing anyway. So save your "food" for yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Spoon-feeding B.S. doesn't sound that appetizing anyway. So save your "food" for yourself.

Yet here you are with your dishonest thread, asking dishonest questions, begging people to spoonfeed you information.