Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I asked a question regarding matter -- was it eternally pre-existent?

You replied.

I answered your reply and continued the discussion.

I've yet to see a reply from you to what I posted.

So, who are you saying doesn't answer?

real life wrote:

Do you think matter was eternally pre-existent?

The answer is not dependant on what we believe. Being that we have not ever been able to create matter nor witness it's natural creation or evidence there of, we are drawn to the conclusion that matter is pre-existant.

When we deal with the universe, we can say thin's like it expands indefinitely and in our universe, it seems to be accellerating. When looking at the the scale in which we are dealing with the semmingly intanglebe concepts of infinity become nothing more than the boudry parameters.

We must therefore draw a conclusion, knowing all the while that some degree of error exists.

The creationist will come define the answer to the challenge involved in the question. God (or some other being) intentionally created/designed the universe to be as it is. To the Creationist, ity closes off all unanswered questions. To them it holds water. Their evidence is that their contrived answer leaves nothing unaswered. The answer comes before the evidence.

The scientist will come to the conclusion that the rules of the universe that we experince now are not variant in time and that rules of the universe such as the conservation of mass and energy must have held true at it's beginning as it does now. The scientist understands that there are still unaswered questions but focuses more on the evidence leading to the answer as opposed to the alternative.

I'll admit that creationists have an answer for everything, but it's no more impressive than what I can generate in am tter of minutes. For all scientific purposes, I could even adapt every belief that the creationists have and edit only to the degree that says that instead of a being such as God creating everything, that a concept such as Love created everything. I'd certainly have an answer for everything, but NO evidence.

But my declaration of no evidence is better than any creationist will allow themselves to admit.

real life wrote:

I asked a question regarding matter -- was it eternally pre-existent?

You replied.

I answered your reply and continued the discussion.

I've yet to see a reply from you to what I posted.

So, who are you saying doesn't answer?

Unless I have a time machine, I believe I sked this the first time you asked it.

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Do you think matter was eternally pre-existent?

The answer is not dependant on what we believe. Being that we have not ever been able to create matter nor witness it's natural creation or evidence there of, we are drawn to the conclusion that matter is pre-existant.

When we deal with the universe, we can say thin's like it expands indefinitely and in our universe, it seems to be accellerating. When looking at the the scale in which we are dealing with the semmingly intanglebe concepts of infinity become nothing more than the boudry parameters.

We must therefore draw a conclusion, knowing all the while that some degree of error exists.

The creationist will come define the answer to the challenge involved in the question. God (or some other being) intentionally created/designed the universe to be as it is. To the Creationist, ity closes off all unanswered questions. To them it holds water. Their evidence is that their contrived answer leaves nothing unaswered. The answer comes before the evidence.

The scientist will come to the conclusion that the rules of the universe that we experince now are not variant in time and that rules of the universe such as the conservation of mass and energy must have held true at it's beginning as it does now. The scientist understands that there are still unaswered questions but focuses more on the evidence leading to the answer as opposed to the alternative.

I'll admit that creationists have an answer for everything, but it's no more impressive than what I can generate in am tter of minutes. For all scientific purposes, I could even adapt every belief that the creationists have and edit only to the degree that says that instead of a being such as God creating everything, that a concept such as Love created everything. I'd certainly have an answer for everything, but NO evidence.

But my declaration of no evidence is better than any creationist will allow themselves to admit.

Owned.

Why don't you simply admit that this is not a 'scientific conclusion'.

It's an argument from silence.

'We've never seen.........therefore it cannot be'

ridiculous.

If that's the case RL, I elect to edit my choice of words. Replace any instance of assume, assumption, etc with conclude.

To guess is to have no foundation; to be absolutely arbitrary.

Your scientific approach is laughable.

Reply to my post, real liff

Humans simply execute programs. Free will is an illusion.

Open your eyes people! Cast aside your views, your opinions and beliefs. Look at everything from a point of total neutrality. Only then can you see the light.

Does evolution believe that...

Abid wrote:

Doesn't mutation cause degradation of DNA?

None of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Where did you get this stuff?

Does evolution believe that

Reptiles hatched an egg that a bird flew out of?
Aquatic animals jumped onto land because they thought they could?

Doesn't mutation cause degradation of DNA?

Haven't scientist tried to mutate house flies (which have remained unchanged for million of years) without on one occasion creating anything that is remotely similar, let alone better than the original?

rosborne979 wrote:

Abid wrote:

Doesn't mutation cause degradation of DNA?

None of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Where did you get this stuff?

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are detrimental, not beneficial, to the organism?

rosborne979 wrote:

Abid wrote:

Doesn't mutation cause degradation of DNA?

None of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Where did you get this stuff?

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are detrimental, not beneficial, to the organism?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Abid wrote:

Doesn't mutation cause degradation of DNA?

None of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Where did you get this stuff?

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are detrimental, not beneficial, to the organism?

No. The overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral in a single instance. However, they do increase the potential for variety in the long term.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Abid wrote:

Doesn't mutation cause degradation of DNA?

None of what you wrote has anything to do with Evolution. Where did you get this stuff?

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are detrimental, not beneficial, to the organism?

No. The overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral in a single instance. However, they do increase the potential for variety in the long term.