Comments on: The debate over Darwin 150 years on http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/ Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-9093 Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:18:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-9093 Alas, were it so simple, Paul.

The problem is that creationism is not based on any evidence. And reaches conclusions without evidence. And dismisses any evidence which contradicts it.

Hence, your experiment will mean nothing to most creationists. Because for them, actual evidence means very little to them.

I suppose it is impossible to debate with many creationists. Particularly those with poor english skills, and little understanding of logic or the scientific method.

All you can do is point out that as their argument breaks the rules of logic and evidence, they disqualify themselves from rational debate.

]]>
By: Paul Arkle http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-9084 Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:14:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-9084 I’ve just skimmed these posts as the non existence of god/gods is a given therefore the argument doesn’t have any validity.

What I did spot being repeatedly stated was that materials/elements do not change.

Sit long enough next to a radio active (naturally occuring) element and watch it decay to a different element with a lower atomic no.

As to how evolution works and the statement that no one has seen it, try this experiment (just a theory of course).

Make a pan of broth or several, leave them out for a few days and you may see patches of scum or mold develop.
Add a few drops of vinegar (I don’t know how much it would take). I would imagine that at some point the patches (colonies) of Bacteria or mold will decrease or disintegrate.

Scoop the surface where these are/were and put into a new broth, let it grow, start adding more vinegar and repeat ad nauseam.

Quite soon (relatively) you will have colonies of highly acid (vinegar) resistant bacteria/mold due to natural selection.

The ones that are resistant because of the normal variations in all organisms survive and breed, the non-resistant don’t.

I am still amazed at the sheer numbers of outwardly normal people who need a super being to look after them, I personally gave up on D.C comics when I was 10.

]]>
By: Defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-9057 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:47:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-9057 Your simple question is illogical.

Your question is “do you believe matter was created by someone, or did they create themselves”

You assume that the forms of matter have to be set up by a ‘someone’.

If all matter comes from somewhere, that means there must be a source. But there is no reason to think this source is a deity or a being.

We know that gravity and dust makes planets. We know that physics shows evidence that the universe started from the big bang.

But there is no evidence of a deity existing. No evidence that a deity created the planets. So believing in a deity is irrational.

Now your refusal of answering my questions is beginning to become rude. I asked them many days ago and many times over and over. And you still make excuses and refuse to answer them.

My patience is wearing thin.

-Show me some POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE showing that a deity exists.
-Tell me which actual RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

If you do not answer my question, I will simply not respond.

]]>
By: Str8 Talk http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-9038 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:11:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-9038 Again you failed or ignored to answer my simple question.
Well, matters come from somewhere….my question was whether the forms of matter that I listed in my previous post have been created and set up by somebody or not? If ‘Yes’ than that is the proof that somebody has created this material world in the universe and that somebody is called Creator/Deity/God.
If your answer is ‘No’ then it means, you agree that these matters are created and set up by themselves.
Which is your answer that you are agree with?

]]>
By: Defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-9002 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:40:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-9002 My answer and logic is this:

-Science explains the real world.
-Matter must come from somewhere.
-Just because matter comes from somewhere, doesn’t mean it needs to be created by magic.
-There is no positive scientific evidence that a deity exists.
-So concluding or assuming a deity exists is irrational and not logical.

Now YOU answer MY questions.

-Show me some positive scientific evidence showing that a deity exists.
-Tell me which actual RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

]]>
By: Str8 Talk http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-8999 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:34:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-8999 “We can observe and test the forces of the universe. Heat, light, gravity, magnatism and motion are all direct evidence. And we can see through those forces how planets can change through the natural forces of the universe. The conclusion for why planets change is physics, which once again falls within the logical boundaries of the universe.”
This means, you agreed that a clock is not manufactured by anyone as we can explain how a clock works by some physical laws???? Isn’t it funny?

You did not answer my simple question. Whether the planets are changed by physical laws or chemical laws that was not my question….my simple question was Earth, Jupiter, Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra are some material bodies in the space which are bound to some physical laws…….ARE THESE CREATED AND SET UP BY ANYONE OR NOT??????

I say yes. And my logic is…as matters can not created and set up by themselves these materiel bodies in the space must be created and set up by someone.
I just wanted to know what your answer is and what your logic behind your answer is.

]]>
By: Defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-8978 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:41:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-8978 Once again you provide no evidence for a deity, or say which rules of logic evolution breaks.

Living creatures are alive. They change by themselves, by their own actions. They are born, they breathe, they pass on genes to offspring.

We can see natural selection. We can see genetics and biology. We can investigate skeleton and organ structures of all life forms which are living and dead. These are all real things. And we can use them to reach a conclusion within the boundaries of reality on how life developed. That conclusion is evolution.

There is no evidence, not a single tiny scrap, which shows the existance of a deity or a deity’s influence on life. When you conclude a deity influences or designs life, you reach a conclusion outside the boundaries of reality, based on no positive evidence at all.

Planets are not living creatures. They are not born, they do not grow, breed or die. They do not change by themselves, they can only change through the forces of gravity and motion.

We can observe and test the forces of the universe. Heat, light, gravity, magnatism and motion are all direct evidence. And we can see through those forces how planets can change through the natural forces of the universe. The conclusion for why planets change is physics, which once again falls within the logical boundaries of the universe.

Yet once again, there is not a single scrap of evidence that a deity was responsible for these forces or how these forces work on planets. Once again, the conclusion of a deity is an explanation which is not within the natural world.

You are free to conclude that a magic deity is involved. But it isn’t based on any evidence, is not within the limitations of the natural universe, and is not rational or logical or scientific.

Evolution has evidence. The evidence may not explain everything and you may not think that evidence is conclusive. But compared to religion which is based on no evidence and magic, evolution is the scientific rational and logical conclusion.

Now I ask you, one final time:
-Provide positive scientific EVIDENCE proving the existance of a deity, and
-Tell me what RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

If you do not provide these things, I will simply not respond to your comment. If you are not going to answer polite and simple questions, then I will not waste my time debating you.

]]>
By: R.Rajesh http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-8977 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:28:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-8977 Sir,
Darwins theory is disputed and I personally believe in the fact that there can be no such thing as Evolution based on natural selection. It requires consious labours on the part of man and can never be mechanical as is propounded by certain popular theories which is incorrect, Thank You.

]]>
By: Str8Talk http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-8976 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:04:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-8976 I am not using any imaginary stories like ‘millions years ago some thing might be happened…..now we have to dig out the evidences….’. Rather I am using all tangible examples to prove my claim.
Genetics, fossils, natural selection and biology do exist, but that don’t prove evolution conclusively, that’s is my point.

When you said,
1. Clocks and watches are not alive
2. This means they do not change by themselves.

Did you mean clocks and watches are not made by some one rather they created and changed by some physical laws? Not bad, with the energy from battery or from mechanical sources the oscillator of a clock repeats the same motion over and over again, with a precisely constant time interval between each repetition. Attached to the oscillator is a controller device, which sustains the oscillator’s motion by replacing the energy it loses to friction, and converts its oscillations into a series of pulses. The pulses are then added up in a chain of some type of counters to express the time in convenient units, usually seconds, minutes, hours, etc. Then finally some kind of indicator displays the result in a human-readable form. EVERYTHING IS DONE BY THE CLOCK ITSELF. So due to these physical laws by which clocks work do you want to deny the existence of the manufacturer of the clock??????

You can deny but the truth is someone made the clock so that it can run maintaining with all that physical laws.

Same thing with other ‘not alive’ matters. Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra etc all are bound to some physical laws in the space. Does that mean these are not created and set by anyone????? This is my simple question.

]]>
By: defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/11/24/the-debate-over-darwin-150-years-on/comment-page-2/#comment-8970 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=4515#comment-8970 Once again you fail to provide any positive evidence showing the existance of a deity.

Once again you fail to point out a rule of logic that evolution breaks.

You try to state that a creator is not involved with religion. Even when it is obvious that the creator you propose is a supernatural one.

You use illogical stories instead of evidence. You think just because clocks cannot change by themselves, living things can’t either.

You follow creationism based on no evidence at all. You cannot show a single shred of positive proof to show a deity or any supernatural influence.

You say evolution is based on nothing but assumption. According to you, genetics, fossils, natural selection and biology simply doesn’t exist.

Your attack on my logic was weak. Under my logic planets cannot change by themselves because they are not alive. They requre some outside force which alters them, such as gravity or physics.

There is much evidence that the rules of physics change planets. But not a single piece of evidence that a deity was involved. Your logic is the flawed one.

You fail to address the fact that religion and creationism breach actual rules of logic. And you keep claiming evolution breaches rules of logic, but you refuse to say which one it breaks.

And then after all this, you go on to say that YOU are debating in a scientific and rational basis and that I am not?

There is no reason to continue this debate with you.

If you are going to pretend to argue with rules of logic and evidence, but not actually provide these things when asked, then you are not debating in good faith.

]]>