Debate on evolution

[Harbringe]

Uh. No. It's because evolution is an explanation of how organisms develop advantageous adaptions to their environment.

 

Electromagnetism is to deal with...Well, electromagnetism.

 

It's a complete non sequitur.

 

Uh no Evolution is the theory of species and how they came to evolve from one to the other , it uses the theory of adaptation as a mechanism of validation for the Theory of Evolution . Scientific method states that for someone to reach an empirical conclusion they must have observable and repeatable data (facts) upon which to base those conclusions . We have lots of proof of adaptation , the classic example is Darwin's finches wherein each finch he studied had slightly variant beak design suited to different purposes ,evolutionists draw from this proof of evolution , when it in fact is just evidence of adaptation , after all at the end of the day they are still finches , they are still birds .

 

Now evolutionists will say it is not observable due to the fact it is a process that takes millions of years to accomplish and hence the probability of ever observing it at any given point of time within any given species is mathematically a nil probability , ok lets say I bite into that as a given , then the laws of probability also state that if your looking for one example of evolutionary change , you should be able to come up with one example by broadening your search and studying millions of species and observing at least one example within those millions of species and we have been doing that for decades now if not near 100 years and have yet to come up with one example in any species. For evolutionists who like to put forth evolution as an end all be all answer , this is a huge problem that they don't like to talk about.

 

As for Creationism the current form of creationism (literalism) is only a theory , why , because what we currently view as creationism was only postulated somewhere around the 1830's ? by (if I remember correctly) a Scottish Presbyterian Minister , it took over 50 years for this theory of creationism to begin to gain traction and didn't become mainstream among certain religious circles until the 1920's , prior to that (1830's) there is no empirical evidence within the creationist narrative going back thousands of years that anyone ever took the creationist story as anything but an allegorical understanding , as in not literally. Yet evolutionist/scientists will argue with creationist as if this was always the basis of understanding , yet empirical evidence says that is not so (not very scientific of them). And creationists have literally decided to ignore 5000 + ? years of narrative and in the last 100 + picked up a hitch hiker (Scottish Minister) on a 5000 year road trip who tells them they should have taken a different road of understanding 5000 years ago. Stunning turn of events.

 

So what do you end up with is an argument among dogmists who fail to address the failings of their own dogma and don't even correctly look at the basis of the other guys dogma . Which is why these arguments never go anywhere.

 

And yes the whole electromagnetism thing was a non sequitir

 

PS: Dear Moderators I have no idea what this thread is trying to accomplish and simply can't get my head around what i should or should not say , figured best i could do is just have people take a closer look at the basis of reasoning people employ in debates of this subject matter . Hope I didn't tread on something I shouldn't and if so , oh well kabluiee

Edited April 30, 2014 by Harbringe

[standalone09]

 

And yes the whole electromagnetism thing was a non sequitir

 

 

 

 

"Non sequitur"

 

does that mean something in the lines of " it can be true but must not be true " ? because that would be funny xD

[kvnchrist]

We are debating about science so practically this has nothing to do with religion its my right to question EVERYTHING xD even the evolution theory.

 

Now i fail to see how an electromagnetic field can become stronger then weaker then stronger again thats evolutionism fantasy. :smile:

 

i mean if you can build me an electromagnetic field that gets stronger then weaker and then again stronger without any socket or something else i would believe you of course though the point is you cant.

 

BTW: ty to the mods for reopening :smile:

You are as great at dodging questions as you are as providing links to these so-called discussion of magnetism.

 

FYI: Non sequitur is a logical fallacy meaning an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In other words, there is no connection between what you claim to be debating and what you are saying, which goes right along with what I stated above. I can only conclude that there is no debate, just and argument without substance.

[standalone09]

 

You are as great at dodging questions as you are as providing links to these so-called discussion of magnetism.

 

FYI: Non sequitur is a logical fallacy meaning an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In other words, there is no connection between what you claim to be debating and what you are saying, which goes right along with what I stated above. I can only conclude that there is no debate, just and argument without substance.

 

 

Instead of telling me how i avoid questions (we all do it so..^^) you should post some useful links yourself im just avoiding the fact that if you post something i will tell you like the site you got it from is as trustful as not trustful, Vice verca it goes so lets spare some time. :smile:

 

Again the earth´s magnetic field is not a friggin Fan it isn´t pluged in a socket or something so it can go up and down whenever it wants it can Only decay.

Edited April 30, 2014 by standalone09

[kvnchrist]

 

 

You are as great at dodging questions as you are as providing links to these so-called discussion of magnetism.

 

FYI: Non sequitur is a logical fallacy meaning an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In other words, there is no connection between what you claim to be debating and what you are saying, which goes right along with what I stated above. I can only conclude that there is no debate, just and argument without substance.

 

 

Instead of telling me how i avoid questions (we all do it so..^^) you should post some useful links yourself im just avoiding the fact that if you post something i will tell you like the site you got it from is as trustful as not trustful, Vice verca it goes so lets spare some time. :smile:

 

Again the earth´s magnetic field is not a friggin Fan it isn´t pluged in a socket or something so it can go up and down whenever it wants it can Only decay.

What exactly am I claiming that I should need to present to you it's links. It is you who are claiming that evolutionist are bringing up the magnetism of the planet and you are using that as straw man as something you can beat people over the head with.

 

No we all don't ignore direct questions on main points the other is using. If we all did there would be no discussion anywhere. Discussion is for the honest exchange and evaluation of information on both sides. Debate comes from an equal honest exchange of different ideals that promote understanding.

 

As for me providing links. what exactly am I claiming that I should need to provide links? You are the one bringing forth the allegations, not I. I need to read such links to analyze their credibility and their significance to the topic at hand.

 

If you can't or won't supply such things, I have no choice in but to label this entire post a phantasm of your own and move on.

 

P.S. please don't assume you know my level objectivity. I'm not an ideologue whose mind is set in stone. I take people as they come and know you only from what you've posted. You might be the best person I'll ever meet or the worst individual that has ever plagued my existence, but all that I do know is that in this thread you've avoided ever chance of adding credibility to the issue you espouse.

[Beriallord]

Look the strength of the electromagnetic field gets lower it doesnt stay the same i know the evolution theory tells us about a Magic Magnetic field that somehow goes skyrocket in terms of strength but then all of a sudden it magically drops... that isnt possible.

Earth's magnetic field is ever changing and fluxuating by small amounts. Also, its not magic. In the past there has also been what they call magnetic pole reversals, that can greatly weaken the Earth's magnetic field for a time:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

 

But I disagree with some of the others, and Earth being bombarded by higher amounts of solar radiation for a period of time during a magnetic pole reserval could absolutely impact the evolution of some species.

 

This is what Earth's magnetic field looks like:

 

Each of those lines can fluctuate and move somewhat.

 

http://www.hpc-ch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Earth_Magnetic_Field-300x225.png

 

What happens to Earth's magnetic field when it gets hammered by a solar flare:

 

http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/1f/i_screenimage_32799.jpg

 

When the above happens, this happens in the sky:

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/18/article-2509068-15D11765000005DC-724_634x387.jpg

 

Why the Earth's magnetic field has something to do with evolution?

 

Weaker magnetic field = more UV rays get to the Earth, and over time it can mutate DNA. One variable out of many that can cause evolution. But it with UV rays, it could be devolution instead. Evolution implies improvement, but that isn't guaranteed.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/433983main_dna-mutation-226.jpg

Edited April 30, 2014 by Beriallord

[Thor.]

I figured i would post this here.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/living-organism-artificial-dna_n_5283095.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

hail Science

 

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1782338/thumbs/o-ARTIFICIAL-DNA-570.jpg?2

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thor.

[Rennn]

I love how standalone can't even differentiate electromagnetism from evolution. Apparently he must think 'science' is all one field that studies the same thing.

[HeyYou]

I love how standalone can't even differentiate electromagnetism from evolution. Apparently he must think 'science' is all one field that studies the same thing.

Would that be a magnetic field? Or a corn field?

[kvnchrist]

I love how standalone can't even differentiate electromagnetism from evolution. Apparently he must think 'science' is all one field that studies the same thing.

From what I've read all he does is reference something he says some people who believe in evolution are claiming about the magnetic fields of the planet. He doesn't say what they said and who said it. When pressed he refuses to give any links so I'm fairly sure he's running off rummer and hearsay. I have no idea how he's putting this stuff together.