|
|
| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 12:47 |
 Conversation With an EvolutionistTE (Typical Evolutionist): The evidence is overwhelming. Me: What is it? TE: You’ve been told it many times. Me: Just give me one example. TE: Well, transitional fossils, for one. Me: How many transitional fossils are there? TE: I’m not going to count them for you! Me: You don’t know the number off the top of your head? TE: (Silence.) Me: Darwin said for his theory to be correct, the number of transitional fossils would have to be “truly enormous.” Is it? TE: Absolutely! Me: Well what do you consider to be a “truly enormous” number? TE: (Silence.) Me: Do you think the Cambrian explosion supports the theory of evolution? TE: It is an interesting development in evolutionary history. Me: Is there a scientific study that shows a link between increased levels of oxygen and an accelerated pace of evolution? Are scientists in agreement that oxygen levels were higher at the time of the Cambrian explosion? TE: (Silence.) Me: Where are the Precambrian fossils? I mean if evolution speeded up due to increased oxygen levels, that wouldn’t affect the presence of Precambrian fossils, would it? TE: This has been explained to you many times. Me: Actually, it hasn’t. TE: You don’t believe the theory of evolution because you’re a religious fanatic! Me: 🙄 |
|
coram_deo 27-Sep-21, 17:07 |
TE (Typical Evolutionist): We have discussed this many times. Me: Actually, we’ve never discussed this. TE: Perhaps you forgot? Me: Well, what was your answer when we discussed it before? TE: Whilst we cannot know for certain, to 100 percent, I think it is extremely likely intelligent life exists other than on planet earth. Me: Has intelligent life beyond earth been observed or shown by an experiment to exist? TE: This has been explained to you many times. Me: No, it hasn’t. But could you answer the question? TE: Whilst it has not been observed to exist or demonstrated by experimentation to exist, there are other factors to consider. Me: Such as? TE: Probability. Our sun is similar to other stars in the sky and literally billions upon billions, perhaps even a trillion, stars exist. Even if the average number of planets that revolve around a star were only one - and in the case of our star, the number is much more than one - that still leads to billions upon billions, and possibly a trillion planets. And the idea that none of those planets have conditions favorable for the emergence of life, and development of intelligent life, is ludicrous. Me: You’re assuming that life arose on another planet through purely naturalistic means? TE: Of course. Me: Has life emerging from non-life ever been observed or demonstrated by an experiment? TE: There are ongoing experiments in which scientists are attempting to create life. Me: But has it worked so far? TE: Not yet, but I am confident that it will. Me: And you’re assuming that intelligent life on another planet arose either through the theory of evolution or a similar unguided process? TE: Yes. Me: So let me get this straight… You believe the theory of evolution, when speciation has never been observed or demonstrated by an experiment. You believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe even though it’s never been observed or demonstrated by an experiment. I suppose you also believe, or at least think very possible, that multiple universes and extra dimensions exist, even though they’ve never been observed or demonstrated by an experiment. TE: The latter are both current and valid scientific hypotheses. Me: But you dismiss the Resurrection of Jesus Christ even though the Resurrected Christ was observed by multiple people and His body was not found and people went to their deaths rather than deny they saw Him alive after His scourging, crucifixion, stabbing and entombment. And you dismiss that a supernatural realm exists even though numerous observational reports and some rudimentary experiments have demonstrated paranormal activity - that is, activity that cannot be explained by naturalistic means. TE: You’re a religious fanatic! |
|
coram_deo 10-Oct-21, 19:12 |
TE (Typical Evolutionist) That’s a cop-out. If a hypothesis is presented, from a scientific standpoint, it must be based upon observation or experimentation. Otherwise, it is scientifically useless! Me: What observation did Darwin make before he proposed that one species could turn into another species through variation and natural selection? TE: He made quite a few observations, if memory serves, of finches in the Galápagos Islands. Me: That’s it?! He saw birds with different beaks and decided that meant a cow turned into a whale?! Are you serious? TE: His observation was later confirmed by the observation of moths whose colors adapted to the environment. Me: Those are variations *within* a species. Did Darwin - or anyone else - observe speciation before proposing that as an explanation for the complexity of life? TE: (Silence.) Me: Did Darwin conduct an experiment that demonstrated speciation occurs through variation and natural selection before he proposed his theory? TE: (Silence.) Me: By your own standard, Darwin’s theory is scientifically useless and it hasn’t gotten better in the 160 years since he proposed it. TE: I disagree! Me: Oh it has gotten better? Has speciation been demonstrated by observation or experimentation? Isn’t it true that evolutionists have been trying to demonstrate speciation for decades with bacteria and fruit flies but can’t do it? Haven’t scientists instead determined there are strict limits regarding species which cannot be crossed? TE: Well, how are you defining species? There are many species, for example, of wildflowers and horseflies. Me: Don’t be a cutie pie. Those are variations *within* a species. Here is a good working definition of speciation that I posted weeks ago from an article that ought to be accepted by advocates of the theory of evolution: “Genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.” As the author of the article stated, “Both ‘statistical significance’ and ‘functional information’ are defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on…” Can we agree that is a good definition of “macroevolution,” which is quite distinct from “microevolution,” which is variation within a species. TE: My dear sir, the length of time required for speciation prohibits observation of speciation. Me: So neither Darwin nor anyone else has observed speciation? TE: As I said, the length of time required for speciation prohibits confirmation by observation. Me: And experimentation? What about the bacteria and fruit flies that have such short generational spans? TE; That study is ongoing. Me: In other words, experimentation hasn’t confirmed speciation either. So by your definition, the theory of evolution is scientifically useless! TE: You’re a religious fanatic! Me: Do you deny that evidence of a supernatural realm exists - both historical and current? TE: I’m not aware of any. Me: You’re not aware of paranormal activity? While uncommon, don’t you think science ought to look into this to at least determine if there is a naturalistic explanation? Let me ask you this: Scientists entertain the possibility of multiple universes and extra dimensions even though neither can be observed or demonstrated by an experiment. And obviously neither multiple universes nor extra dimensions can be discerned by our five senses. Why this bias against a supernatural realm? What do you think exists in those extra dimensions? TE: I have no idea - and neither do you! Me: Are you aware that the *exact day* of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was predicted more than 500 years in advance by the prophet Daniel? What are the odds of that?! TE: Those prophecies can be interpreted a million different ways. Me: Have you read that prophecy in the book of Daniel? How can that be interpreted in more than a single way? TE: You’re Jim Jones and I am thankful no one listens to you. Otherwise we could have mass casualties on GK! |