Five questions that evolutionists can't answer

[General Zod]

And yet, there are many many scientist who will state that evolution remains an unproven theory. It can not be stated that evolution is the way life came about. That is impossible to do now. I'm not saying that mutations don't happen, but I am saying that evolution is so far from being THE explanation for the origins of life that is is ridiculous to say evolution is the gospel of how life came about. Evolution is no more fact than the bible and vice versa. I understand that a belief in God is founded upon faith, and if only the evolutionists realized the same thing about their belief...

So basically if I'm reading this right, your only complaint is that evolution cannot be 100% correct, therefore it's not true? Somehow this doesn't shock me. It's only been used by every other creationist fuckwit since the evolution vs creation debate began. Here's a small newsflash imbecile, nobody has ever claimed evolution is 100% correct except creationist fuckwits.

[Vehrec]

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at his bullshit. His posting history starts in Arkansas, then moves to Ohio. We're talking about bastions of fundie stupidity here. What the fuck kind of town is "Ashtabula" anyway?

An itty bitty one about 1/3 of the way from Cleveland to Buffalo.

I live about 30 miles from Ashtabula, let me describe it. Ashtabula is pretty much a decaying industrial/shipping core with a slightly less rotten mall/wal-mart growing off it's eastern butt-cheek. In times past, ships came in from the upper great lakes loaded with Iron ore that was send south via train to Youngstown. Nowadays, they still do that, but there is a lot less of it goin on. In 1876, a bridge collapsed in winter while a train was crossing it just south of town as it passed over the Ashtabula river. 92 people were killed. Despite attempts to establish a winery and restraunt scene there is no denying the fact that everything around ashtabula, indeed the entire county, is horribly agricultural. Now some of these people are the salt of the earth. The Boggs family for instance once produced a fine US senator and the current generation has at least one genetisist. But there are many more hicks and trailer trash than there are Boggs. Families tend to be big and inter-related in potentially complex ways. I don't know of anyone who's married their cousin, but it's probably happened. This is the largest county in Ohio, and also the least populated and the poorest.
And I still come back here regularly. Man, I need to start supporting myself better.

[wishful]

Evolution has not been observed. Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on. To be sure, you can name many detrimental mutations. There is no proof of evolution. And scientists can't even form life in a laboratory. They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily. Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

[Surlethe]

Evolution has not been observed. Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on. To be sure, you can name many detrimental mutations. There is no proof of evolution.

The ability to digest nylon.

And scientists can't even form life in a laboratory. They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily. Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

What does this have to do with evolution? You don't seem to want to take the time to actually learn what evolution says.

[Singular Intellect]

Evolution has not been observed.

Lie.

Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on.

Resistance to anti biotics.

To be sure, you can name many detrimental mutations. There is no proof of evolution.

Yeah, right. And there's no proof of gravity either.

And scientists can't even form life in a laboratory.

Scientists cannot create stars in laboratories either. Guess that proves any theories on stars are invalid, right?

They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily. Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

We do. It's called 'probability', and you not liking it isn't our problem.

[Darth Wong]

Evolution has not been observed. Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on. To be sure, you can name many detrimental mutations. There is no proof of evolution. And scientists can't even form life in a laboratory. They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily. Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

As usual, you post claims that are easily refuted. And when you next post, you will ignore those rebuttals again and post some other cookie-cutter argument, just like you ignored the many rebuttals to the "second law of thermodynamics" bullshit that have been posted, along with everything else people have said.

Do you realize that you are simply proving us correct about how creationists are liars? If you were honest, you would either try to debate about prior points or you would concede them. Instead, you simply IGNORE points you can't answer, without ever questioning whether they represent a real flaw in your argument.

PS. I love the way you say that you have questions that "evolutionists can't answer", yet every single one of your points has been answered easily. And you have no response to those answers.

[General Zod]

Evolution has not been observed. Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on.

Blonde hair was a mutation developed by Europeans around 11,000 years ago as a means of sexual selection, giving preference to those who had it. Concession accepted hatfucker.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Many creationists seem to think that evolution takes place in the same manner that a mutation occurs in a science fiction movie. It's really quite amusing. I had one creationist ask me if we would ever develop super powers. LMAO.

[SirNitram]

Evolution has not been observed.

Liar.

Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on.

Sickle-cell anemia. Or do you think evolution counts a mutation as 'beneficiary' after you've passed mating age?

To be sure, you can name many detrimental mutations. There is no proof of evolution. And scientists can't even form life in a laboratory. They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily. Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

Get back to me when you have some education.

[Darth Wong]

It always comes down to this, doesn't it? After it becomes painfully obvious that they can't argue the particulars, they resort to the sort of generalized "you can't prove it to my personal satisfaction" attack that could be used against any scientific theory, from Pasteur's germ theory to electromagnetism and, yes, evolution. The fact that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt has no bearing on this kind of argument, because ultimately it boils down to an argument from personal incredulity. The creationist himself doesn't buy the evidence, therefore he dismisses it all.

This way, the intellectually lazy, uneducated creationist gets to declare victory without having to slog through all of the complicated details. Why bother learning what entropy really is, or what DNA is, or what a mutation really is, or how natural selection works, or what the difference is between evolution and abiogenesis? Just say that you don't buy it, and that there's no "proof" (by which you really mean "no proof that I personally recognize"), and shrug off any attempt to debate particulars.

[Patrick Degan]

Evolution is no more fact than the bible and vice versa. I understand that a belief in God is founded upon faith, and if only the evolutionists realized the same thing about their belief...

What we know is that the Invisible Cloud-Being has a foundation of exactly zero evidence to support the idea that it exists. Evolution has substantially more than that in the tank. Eat it.

[Lord Zentei]

And lo and behold, we have a tu quoque fallacy.

Evolution is no more fact than the bible and vice versa. I understand that a belief in God is founded upon faith, and if only the evolutionists realized the same thing about their belief...

So: you are saying that the Bible is not factually correct? That is something at least. Though you are mistaken about the "evolutionists": evolution has been observed to take place, hence it is a fact that it can occour. Wherein lies the difference between our worldview and yours.

Moreover, the theory of evolution is the best way to explain the observed facts regarding fossils and variation among living species. Hence it is the mainstream worldview in science. And note: a "scientific theory" does not mean the same thing as a "theory" in common parlance, it is a term that is applied to a well tested model.

So: scientific theory, fact and mainstream, and not based on faith. Unlike the Bible.

[Darth Wong]

Don't you love it when they state their position as a premise rather than a conclusion, hence eliminating the need to actually justify it?

[sketerpot]

Don't you love it when they state their position as a premise rather than a conclusion, hence eliminating the need to actually justify it?

... And then accuse you of being stubborn. This happened to me earlier today.

Actually, sometimes I do love it. You can occasionally kick almost every ass in a thread just by pointing out the circular logic again and again.

[Ritterin Sophia]

His screen name is most fitting. Oh well! Are we done with this moronic pile of creationist slime? He's been asked twice to show his evidence and refute the arguments presented to him and has failed to do so.

[Darth Servo]

I'm not sure why I'm responding when I know he'll just ignore this but here goes anyway...

Evolution has not been observed.

How would you know when you don't even know what evolution is.

Name one beneficial mutation that a population of a species took on.

Every trait, every gene in every species on the entire fucking planet, you imbecile.

To be sure, you can name many detrimental mutations.

Does it even cross your mind that a mutation that is detrimental in one environment can be extremely beneficial in another. Example: a mutation that causes a mammal to have less hair would be horrible in a cold climate but rather helpful in hot ones.

The most extreme case in point is sickle-cell anemia which causes death when present in both copies of one's hemoglobin gene but when present in only ONE of the two copies (heterozygote; I wonder if wishful even knows what that word means) it confers increased resistance to malaria.

There is no proof of evolution.

Yes there is. You simply ignore it all.

And scientists can't even form life in a laboratory.

Have you been listening to Kosh131? ARE you Kosh131?

They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily.

Where did you get the idea that it was only "temporary"? Besides, this is still infinitely more than YOUR side can do which amounts to "jack shit"

Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

Not proven to YOUR ridiculous standards. It IS proven to any REASONABLE standards of evidence. Notice the idiot completely ignoring the fact that "God did it" is not an explanation at all. This is just like Republitards complaining about the Democrats not having a plan for Iraq (that meets their standards for the opposition) while ignoring the fact that the Bush administration and GOP don't have a plan either.

I don't wish to play moderator but why hasn't this idiot at least been slapped with the FM title by now?

[Lord Zentei]

They can get complex amino acids to form, but only temporarily.

"Complex" amino acids? What are those, amino acids with relatively large side chains like tryptophan or arginine or lysine? Do you even know what an amino acid molecule looks like? They're really not that complex, you know.

"Temporarily"? Nonsense. Amino acids can easily be kept in a stable state. How the hell would living forms survive otherwise?

And actually, large proteins are routinely synthesised in the laboratory, as are complete genes worth of DNA and RNA strands. Just FYI.

Science has no proven explanation for the origin of life. Period. Admit it.

Yes, it does, actually. Abiogenesis is an explanation, as has been mentioned already.

[Darth Wong]

This is usually where the creationist failure to recognize the difference between science and history becomes apparent. To a scientist, one need only show that there is a mechanism which could have plausibly produced the first self-replicating molecule. To a creationist, you have to show exactly what this first self-replicating molecule looked like.

To take an analogy, a scientist could devise a plausible mechanism through which the first caveman might have produced the first human-initiated fire. But he wouldn't know exactly when this happened, or what that caveman looked like, nor would he be able to prove that this particular mechanism was used. Maybe the caveman used wood, maybe he used flint, maybe he found something else. To a scientist, it's not really that important as long as you show that it's possible. But to a creationist, that's an opportunity to say "AHA! YOU DON'T KNOW!!!!" And technically, you don't. You only have a plausible explanation, which the creationist views as totally inadequate because he does not recognize the distinction between science and history.

[Darth Servo]

Its also the creationist's habit of having double standards. The "evilutionists" need absolute proof of everything, every molecular step of amino acids into proteins into cells, into multi-celled organisms etc. and if even one step is missing, (or even when steps have been shown, its "not enough") they declare victory. Meanwhile they don't provide jack shit for their own side.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Anyway, bringing up how life started is something utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand. Evolution doesn't care if life on Earth was started by an abiotic process, or God, or an alien spitting on a rock while visiting the surface.

[Darth Servo]

Anyway, bringing up how life started is something utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand. Evolution doesn't care if life on Earth was started by an abiotic process, or God, or an alien spitting on a rock while visiting the surface.

Yes, but you must understand, to the fundy moron, that doesn't matter. To them, its all an attack on the existance of God in they're eyes. They aren't out to be logical. They're out to win converts.

[Darth Wong]

Its also the creationist's habit of having double standards. The "evilutionists" need absolute proof of everything, every molecular step of amino acids into proteins into cells, into multi-celled organisms etc. and if even one step is missing, (or even when steps have been shown, its "not enough") they declare victory. Meanwhile they don't provide jack shit for their own side.

It's not so much a conscious double-standard as an inability to see outside the confines of their belief system. You see, in the Bible it does not give you any mechanisms or explanations at all; instead, it merely tells a story, and tells us that there is absolute certainty through "faith", ie- "because I say so".

So they want science to tell a better story, and when the scientists come back at them with mechanisms and explanations, they think "Is that all you've got? Where's your story, and where's your absolute certainty?" They can't wrap their heads around the whole concept of what science is, and how it is possible to know things empirically rather than through faith. They want science to act like a religion, and when it does not do so, they pretend that it is trying and failing.

[wishful]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief. It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident. There is no proof of this. While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

[General Zod]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief. It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident. There is no proof of this. While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

The thing is you will not admit that you're repeating your arguments ad nauseum and have been proven wrong countless times. Fuck off troll.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief. It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident. There is no proof of this. While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

Oh shut the fuck up you whining little pathetic moron. I'm sick and tired of this conversation as it seems we have to go over this Evolution=|=Origin of Life, what you're looking for is abiogenesis, if you want abiogenesis, dumbass, I suggest you look at the Miller-Urey Experiments which showed more complex compounds can spontaneously emerge from simpler ones, have a nice day, now fuck off and shut up.