• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

temporalillusion said:
Unanswered questions are not evidence of something else. I have many questions that are unanswered by the Bible but I don't believe in Allah just because they are unanswered.
Click to expand...

They are evidence that you don't have the answer and this is the fifth page of responses I am reading. No answer. No attempt to answer. Now there is 10 pages in between the one this post was on and the one this response will fall upon but the two simple points I made should have been address on the 1st one.

If you were to remove all the responses that simply state, at times over and over again by the same poster, that my two points are not worth serious consideration probably more than half of this thread would disappear.

Ridiculous!

temporalillusion said:
Plus that's a grade school level misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory... BBT isn't an explosion, BBT is the history of the universe from when it was very dense and hot to now. There was no "explosion" in the sense most people use the word.
Click to expand...

Was there a Bang?

temporalillusion said:
"I don't know yet" is a perfectly good answer you know...
Click to expand...

Yeah, and yet that hasn't been given.
 
What relevance does Big Bang Theory have to evolution?

NONE

Now stop yammering on about how nobody has answered your question about BBT, even though people HAVE and you're just ignoring them because you don't believe the answer. Any way you look at it, it's still irrelevant.

It's like you asking me a question about evolution, and me refusing to answer because I asked you what the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is. It's ridiculous.

Move on to a relevant topic.
 
Last edited:
You question has been answered.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zooterkin said:
A chicken doesn't change into something else, but the offspring of a chicken is not a clone of its parents, so it differs. The accumulated differences over many generations mean that what you have at the end of the time can be very different from the chicken you started with. With enough generations, and enough selection (natural or artificial) what you end up with is no longer a chicken.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate this or show me where it has been demonstrated. Specifically regarding a chicken.
 
David Henson said:
They are evidence that you don't have the answer and this is the fifth page of responses I am reading. No answer. No attempt to answer.
Click to expand...

The post you are quoting has an answer.

David Henson said:
Now there is 10 pages in between the one this post was on and the one this response will fall upon but the two simple points I made should have been address on the 1st one.
Click to expand...

Just like all the questions asked of you in the past have been answered on the very next one right? :rolleyes:

Let he who has not abandoned entire threads cast the first stone.

David Henson said:
Was there a Bang?
Click to expand...

Define bang.

The answer has already been posted in the thread many times, by a layman's definition of a "bang" or "explosion" no there was not.

Is there bang when you inflate a balloon?

David Henson said:
Yeah, and yet that hasn't been given.
Click to expand...

The post you are quoting gives it.

temporalillusion said:
If you (or he) has such a basic misunderstanding of something, how can one expect the questions asked about it to be good questions?

There was no explosion. And as to how the universe was in a hot dense state that's still an open question with active research and lots of hypothesis.

"I don't know yet" is a perfectly good answer you know... when people didn't know why the rivers flooded or where lightning came from rather than just saying "I don't know yet" they attributed those things to god too.

You know the net energy of the universe is very close to if not exactly zero right?
Click to expand...
 
excaza said:
It's like you asking me a question about evolution, and me refusing to answer because I asked you what the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ha! You didn't specify whether the unladen swallow was African or European!

Q.E.D. Evolution is false! ;)
 
David Henson said:
Demonstrate this or show me where it has been demonstrated. Specifically regarding a chicken.
Click to expand...

F
o
s
s
i
l

R
e
c
o
r
d
s

and

G
e
n
e
t
i
c
s

Maybe the alternative formatting will force you to read it.

Unless you've got a time machine and can hop ahead a hundred thousand years or so.
 
Last edited:
I wish there was a smiley face where it's sticking its fingers in its ears and screaming
 
David Henson said:
Demonstrate this or show me where it has been demonstrated. Specifically regarding a chicken.
Click to expand...

Interesting, interesting. It's like he accepts that we have observed "macro"-evolution but now moves the goal posts to specifically chickens because we haven't directly observed that. It's very dishonest. I wonder what, if we had direct, observational evidence of chickens evolving into a new species, he'd demand next to meet his ever changing criteria.

Overwhelming evidence can never be good enough when one's head is so buried in the ground to never see it.
 
Marduk said:
not in the example you just delivered where apparently dogs and wolves make dogs

perhaps you can now explain why it is that you think dogs and wolves make dogs and not wolves
Click to expand...

What is the differance between a dog and a wolf, coyote, fox, dingo and jackal?
 
excaza said:
F
o
s
s
i
l

R
e
c
o
r
d
s

and

G
e
n
e
t
i
c
s
Click to expand...

Don't forget:

b
i
o
d
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

Which is what Darwin mostly based his conclusions on. You know, those critters in the Galapagos.

So that's three independent sources of evidence each of which is sufficient to prove evolution.

Then again, the other side has poorly translated bronze age fairy tales...
 
dasmiller said:
So . . . was that a yes or a no? Do you believe that an isolated pack of dogs might eventually diverge far enough that they couldn't reproduce with dogs from the mainland?
Click to expand...

When I ask what exploded in the big bang and point out how the big bang has changed completely in under 50 years, which you didn't answer or address, how is it we are talking about dogs.

Here is what I say. Dogs produce dogs. Nothing else.

I don't know the answer to your question. Consider the mule. Hybrid. Sterile. So your question is irrelevant.
 
David Henson said:
When I ask what exploded in the big bang and point out how the big bang has changed completely in under 50 years, which you didn't answer or address
Click to expand...
:covereyes

It was answered and addressed.

AND IT'S STILL IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION OF EVOLUTION

If you want to discuss the Big Bang, start a new thread.

Move on already, damn.

Here is what I say. Dogs produce dogs. Nothing else.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Dogs produce slightly different dogs. Those differences, given enough time, have the possibility of creating an entirely different 'dog.' Chihuahuas and Siberian huskies are similar enough to suggest that they came from a similar origin at some point, but their environments (cold environment for huskies, annoying hot rat den for chihuahuas I guess) caused them to diverge significantly. They're still the same species, but still radically different. The wonders of biodiversity. That doesn't even get into the divergence of species, which is even more fascinating.

Consider the mule. Hybrid. Sterile. So your question is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The hell? How does that make the question irrelevant!?
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
Here is what I say. Dogs produce dogs. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

How about the thylacine, where did it come from?

Personally, I find evolution far more magnificent and awesome than "god made us". It makes me feel sorry for the sad, pitiful lives creationists must have.
 
David Henson said:
Honestly, I can't imagine a creationist fundamentalist Christian being so intellectually dishonest and arrogant in their faith as you are.
Click to expand...

Once again, it is not faith. It is science, and it's based on reproducible results. Anyone can take the time to follow them, though it may take some time, and equipment, to do so. The problem you have is that you assume it works the same as your faith, based purely on the say-so of a book or authority figure.
 
drkitten said:
Not at all. Humans are apes,...

Science says that an ape (let's say a gorilla for specificity) and a human cannot interbreed (they are different species) but that they come from a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing there was a reason you didn't choose human for specificity.

:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom