Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Originally posted by sonhouse
Intelligent design is only reputable within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist community. It seems to me just humans designing god, that is where the intelligent design comes from. You can stake out whatever claim you want on the man made god of your choice. There are less and less of you fundies left as time goes by so enjoy it while you can.

again, you make your classic mistake. you seem to believe the world is made up of atheists on one side and religious nuts like rjhinds on the other side. whereas there are many different shades of gray between.


i believe in intelligent design. the world makes more sense to me if at the origin there is a god who loves us.

do i believe intelligent design should be taught in schools? hell no. as a scientific theory, intelligent design fails all checks. it cannot be falsifiable, cannot be proved. intelligent design is a matter of personal choice. i cannot defend it from a logical point of view, just as i cannot explain why some people believe breaking a mirror means 7 years of bad luck. and just because i wish intelligent design was real, that doesn't mean i will ever accept "god did it by magic" as an answer to ANY question.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
again, you make your classic mistake. you seem to believe the world is made up of atheists on one side and religious nuts like rjhinds on the other side. whereas there are many different shades of gray between.


i believe in intelligent design. the world makes more sense to me if at the origin there is a god who loves us.

do i believe intelligent d ...[text shortened]... al, that doesn't mean i will ever accept "god did it by magic" as an answer to ANY question.

I find you to be a mystery; you appear to be BOTH a creationist AND NOT anti-science!
That is just so weird.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes they have. i said improve not find another theory.

modern evolutionism is different than darwinism, and better.

yes, good point. I agree.
But when he referred to “not improved on evolution”, I assumed he meant “not found an alternative to evolution”.

Originally posted by humy
I find you to be a mystery; you appear to be BOTH a creationist AND NOT anti-science!
That is just so weird.

they aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by humy
yes, good point. I agree.
But when he referred to “not improved on evolution”, I assumed he meant “not found an alternative to evolution”.

yeh, i know. i just wanted to stop him from going into that direction and perhaps make him understand that seeking for flaws in darwin's theory is as relevant as judging modern chemistry by what alchemists believed.

futile effort, i know. it becomes more and more obvious he cannot be reasoned with.
at this point the insanity of his views is only dwarfed by our own insanity: believing we will ever find an argument or form it in such a way that he might say "you have a point, my view of the world is slightly changed"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeh, i know. i just wanted to stop him from going into that direction and perhaps make him understand that seeking for flaws in darwin's theory is as relevant as judging modern chemistry by what alchemists believed.

futile effort, i know. it becomes more and more obvious he cannot be reasoned with.
at this point the insanity of his views is only dwarfe ...[text shortened]... in such a way that he might say "you have a point, my view of the world is slightly changed"

I have come to the same conclusion.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes they have. i said improve not find another theory.

modern evolutionism is different than darwinism, and better.

I think it is more wrong now, if thet is possible.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The conditions on the earth 3 billion years ago were very different from today, if you were transported back there you'd be dead very quickly. I believe the environment and the way life is 'shaped' are intrinsically linked, no doubt the conditions of the early earth played a role in forming the first life.

Worm to man took a billion years or two not a few million. Could it happen again? Who knows?

Your estimates of time is very low now. I think I know why that is. However, evolutonists still don't have enough time for their theory to work, if it were possible, which it is not.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
again, you make your classic mistake. you seem to believe the world is made up of atheists on one side and religious nuts like rjhinds on the other side. whereas there are many different shades of gray between.


i believe in intelligent design. the world makes more sense to me if at the origin there is a god who loves us.

do i believe intelligent d ...[text shortened]... al, that doesn't mean i will ever accept "god did it by magic" as an answer to ANY question.

For one brief instant I thought I was reading RJ🙂 Then I saw it was someone reasonable.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your estimates of time is very low now. I think I know why that is. However, evolutonists still don't have enough time for their theory to work, if it were possible, which it is not.

how do you know it is "not possible"?

if your answer to this is either that you see no evidence that it is possible or that it is not possible because the Bible says so, then I challenge you to go to my
“Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence"
thread and see if you can answer my first question that I highlighted for the topic of that thread.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
again, you make your classic mistake. you seem to believe the world is made up of atheists on one side and religious nuts like rjhinds on the other side. whereas there are many different shades of gray between.


i believe in intelligent design. the world makes more sense to me if at the origin there is a god who loves us.

do i believe intelligent d ...[text shortened]... al, that doesn't mean i will ever accept "god did it by magic" as an answer to ANY question.

You are confusing simple belief in the prospects of a Creator, which is not unreasonable, with the political and religious movement that calls itself Intelligent Design to conceal its agenda from those who found Creationism wanting. You have collapsed the specific into a general belief system. Due to this logical error, you have rendered yourself vulnerable to anti-scientific error.

Originally posted by humy

So are you saying the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today

don't you mean “Abiogenesis” and not “biogenesis”?
One thing I clearly implied is that conditions are NOT available for [b]Abiogenesis today.
I did NOT say/imply that the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today.

[quote] and there ...[text shortened]... 't understand why you keep referring to abiogenesis when you try and argue against evolution.[/b]

We can not assume that life always existed, unless we call on the supernatural, that is, God always existed. The law of cause and effect prevents any natural (physical) thing from always existing. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Biogenesis is a law. Yes, I was referring to biogenesis. I do not believe in the hypothesis of either abiogenesis or evolution, as you should know by now. We must consider but not violate the natural laws, according to scientific discipline. It is clear to me abiogenesis and evolution are not natural laws and should not even be considered in evaluating scientific experiments.

To solve the problem of the origin of the natural, we must appeal to something higher than the natural, the supernatural. The natural can not originate itself. The closest we see to that is the reproduction process of the natural; but that reguires the nature to be in existence before the reproduction process can take place. Therefore, the theory of evolution is circular reasoning and invalidates itself.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For one brief instant I thought I was reading RJ🙂 Then I saw it was someone reasonable.

His big mistake is in assuming I am a religious nut. I am far from being a religious nut.

Originally posted by humy
how do you know it is "not possible"?

if your answer to this is either that you see no evidence that it is possible or that it is not possible because the Bible says so, then I challenge you to go to my
“Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence"
thread and see if you can answer my first question that I highlighted for the topic of that thread.

Mathematicians, using probability calculations, say it is not possible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We can not assume that life always existed, unless we call on the supernatural, that is, God always existed. The law of cause and effect prevents any natural (physical) thing from always existing. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Biogenesis is a law. Yes, I was referring to biogenesis. I do not believe in the hypothesis of either abiogenesis or evolution, a ...[text shortened]... an take place. Therefore, the theory of evolution is circular reasoning and invalidates itself.

We can not assume that life always existed, unless we call on the supernatural, that is, God always existed.

No, we cannot assume that life always existed because we have EVIDENCE that it did not always exist.
Hypothetically, if we had no such evidence, then there is no reason to not assume that life must necessarily have always existed.

The law of cause and effect prevents any natural (physical) thing from always existing.

I assume you mean “....always existing in the past”? If so:
No, because we have EVIDENCE that everything began at the Big Bang ( assuming time began then ) and THAT is the reason why we may generally assume that nothing always existed in the past ( possibly apart from the whole universe ) . Hypothetically, if we had no such evidence of such a thing, there is no reason to not assume that, say, life, could not have always existed in the past and there would be no logical contradiction between that and “ The law of cause and effect”. If you deny this, then WHAT is the contradiction?

It is clear to me abiogenesis and evolution are not natural laws

they are processes and not “laws”.

and should not even be considered in evaluating scientific experiments.

REASON/LOGIC and OBSERVATION are used to evaluate scientific experiments.
Evolution and abiogenesis are not used to evaluate anything.

The closest we see to that is the reproduction process of the natural; but that reguires the nature to be in existence before the reproduction process can take place. THEREFORE, the theory of evolution is circular reasoning and invalidates itself. ( my emphasis)

what the hell does that supposed to mean? That makes no sense at all.
You yet again demonstrate that you do not know the meaning of the word “ THEREFORE”.
You cannot say “X therefore Y” when Y is not in anyway implied by X and is not even anything to do with X.