Quote:
Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Again, wrong thread. Why don't you bump the thread where I had provided all of the necessary information? Information you hadn't addressed which is why I disregard you so easily.
They are malformed questions. Asking me how a fish became a bird or a horse becomes a squirrel aren't sensical within the context of which you ask your questions.
Let me give you an example. Would you think it silly of me if I were to ask a theologian to explain to me how the Virgin Mary saved us from our sins? It's a nonsensical question.
The thing is, I know exactly what you are trying to ask, but I also know your troll persona so unless you ask the question correctly I'm not going to answer you and invite you to play your little word games in an attempt to get me to clarify myself needlessly because by the time I get to it I'll be at work on my phone and at that point it's just not worth it.
A malformed question as well since there's no way (currently) to determine if existing matter in the universe came from anywhere.
A better question to ask that scientists might actually bother entertaining would be "is there a way to determine if matter had a starting point?"
This is also a question that no scientist would currently be able to answer because human understanding of science has not progressed enough to answer it. It may never get to that point. The key difference is that Scientists don't cop out and insert their magical answer to everything to fill the gap (god) just because. There's a reason that supernatural is synonymous with magical because both are fictitious.
You would of course only reach such a conclusion if you subscribe to logic. For all I know you think logic is some sort of hoax as well.
This is also a malformed question similar to the one above, the difference is that it insists upon some creative force. They laws did not 'come from' anywhere, they simply are.
As far as we can tell due to background radiation and a few other things that are way beyond me the laws have existed since the beginning of time. Before you say it, yes I'm taking Stephen Hawking's word for it, if you don't like it, spin on it.
This "where.... come from" stuff, if I keep having to modify your questions to make them logical and you don't realize why I have to do so it's going to get pointless fast so after this one I'm going to skip any other "where.... come from" questions. I hope you don't think that's unfair.
That said, the correct way to ask this question is to ask Where could the energy that was released during the big bang come from? Which would have a plethora of answers that honestly don't matter in the context of this discussion.
Explain... what exactly? How it works? Where it came from? Is it bunk? It's relation to gravity? The question is simply too open ended (and I'm not evading, I would be happy to address a more specific question though I'd have to do some research since theoretical physics is less than a passing fancy to me)
This is a bad word and you know it. You get a ruler to the knuckle for that one.
No. Stop with the random chance crap, the universe doesn't function that way. You just asked about cosmological constants and now you are talking about chance. Please understand how self-defeating this is.
Regardless, I don't touch abiogenesis, like I had asked before "what's stopping a creator from creating life forms that are capable of evolution in order to survive and flourish on an ever-changing world?". Only one other poster even responded to the point seriously, you simply went on another "evolution is bunk" rant.
This is another malformed question. Time is a measurement. Time causes evolution the same way speed causes driving.
First, "kinds" is not scientific jargon, it's creationist jargon which is unique to the bible. Animal biology deals with classifications and sub-categories (Fish, anphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals etc.. then jawed/jawless for fish, marsupials etc.. for mammals).
Secondly entropy is a law of thermodynamics, if you can give me a concise reason as to why you conflate thermodynamics with evolutionary biology I'll begin to entertain it, in the meantime the only honest reaction I can have to it is "wat".
You used those words yet again... This is becoming frustrating. You are also again asserting that time is a force. To add insult to injury you are now stating that complexity implies design. It does not. Malformed is an understatement for this one.
This is simply unnecessary ad-hominem with an implication that I don't want to be 'accountable' for actions, what actions? I have no idea.
Evolution is, simply put, the most plausible explanation for how life on Earth came to be the way it is today. It's not only the prevailing theory with the greatest amount of evidence to back it up, it's literally the only theory that has any evidence to back it up.
I realize that you and I have different definitions for the word "evidence", yours is simply incorrect. If that makes you angry, all the better, because at least there's some response that's been elicited so there's potential that for the first time, you may use logic to come to a conclusion.
|
Those arguments you just used showvthatbyou have no grasp on the doctrine of evolution.
Time is not a force?
Then resist it it should be easy. Phase out if time.
You don't know what time is, is it linear? Is it static? How can you say it's not a force.
You also do a piss poor job of trying to explain the difference between speciation and the actual evolution of a new category or class of animal.
The evolutionary concept of speciation happens all the time it's more simply called adaptation, this has never been observed to cause a new class of animals unable to procreate with the class that it came from.
But yet that is what evolution hinges upon.
Slow change over time, this causes speciation, this cause the emergence of a new class distinction of animals different than it's predecessor.
That is a much simpler way to put it for you.
I get the process it's not confusing, simply not observable , testable , and repeatable.