Evolution: The Deal Breaker (page 12)

cofty

Of course they do.

Please tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.

I predict the answer is none and that you will ignore the question.

The whole debate is predicated on the assumption that science has to prove how life started otherwise the only answer is god or intelligent life. Wrong. There is not a single reason to assume that our minds should ever be able to grasp how life starts or be able to design an experiment to show this. And sorry to revert to the age old argument, but if you struggle to think that simple life could just arise then why is it somehow easier to think a more complex being could have created it. We are back to who created the creator. The stock answer to this is 'but we were not created to understand how god was created'. Yet somehow this is meant to be more of an explanation than that we may not have a mind that has evolved to be able to understand how simple life emerged.

The reality is it makes jack all difference. We are here. The evidence all points to us evolving to get here. You want to find out how life started? Become a scientist. Can't do that? Read scientific literature. Cannot understand it or it is not giving an answer? Don't worry about it. Most of the life on this planet and probably in the universe does not waste a second thinking how their distant ancestor first formed. They are just experiencing what it is to be alive. I don't think my chihuahuas would give the smallest shit about any of this anymore then they spend the day worrying if the big chihuahua god in Mexico will be waiting for them when they die.

If we ever had an answer to how life started most of life would go "...". Some humans would just go 'oh, that is interesting' and then some would look for the next questions that would surely arise. The creationists amongst us would just try to find a place where god might still be needed in the whole shebang.

Esse quam videri

cofty Why do you hate science?

I love science.

I love formal science such as logic and mathematics.

I love social science. The humanities. The study of human behaviour, both in the individual and society absolutely fascinate me. The study of human psychology, which is somewhat what we do on this forum. Comments and responses. Response to stimuli etc. You give me stimuli, I give you a response. visa versa.

I love political science.

Applied sciences , engineering and medicine. etc.etc.etc.

cofty

The creationists amongst us would just try to find a place where god might still be needed in the whole shebang. - JamesMahon

When abiogenesis is resolved creationists will only want to talk about cosmic origins.

cofty

I love science.

Kent Hovind and Ken ham say that too.

You give me stimuli, I give you a response. - EQV

Except for when you don't.

Please tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.

I predict the answer is none and that you will ignore the question.

jamesmahon

When abiogenesis is resolved creationists will only want to talk about cosmic origins.

Some people don't want to let go of the comfort blanket even when it is threadbare and full of mites.

Esse quam videri

The evidence that life may have emerged in an Alkaline vent is basis for a hypothesis. Lots more work remains to be done before anybody can say anything with any confidence.

David Splane, " The evidence that Fred Franz is a pivotal link in the overlapping generation is basis for a hypothesis. Lots more work remains to be done before the faithful and discreet slave can say anything with any confidence."

cofty

EQV - If a JW contradicts the GB about their overlapping dogma they will be DFd and lose all their family and friends.

How is that anything like a scientific hypothesis?

Was my prediction correct?

Please tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.

I predict the answer is none and that you will ignore the question.

Esse quam videri

So I ask.

Why is it that with over 7 billion people on this earth, living in such varied degrees of temperatures, year after year, generation after generation, from the hottest countries in Africa to the coldest nations bordering the Arctic circle, why is it that all 7 billion, that's every one of them mind you, has a body temperature of about 98.6 degrees. [Granted a variation of 1 degree F is possible] Why is it that evolution has not kicked in to raise or lower the body temperatures of these varied nations. Why is it that someone with 3 or 4 degrees rise in temperature is viewed as sick and not looked at as a start of a beneficial evolutionary change.

Sure, evolution has worked to control the body temperature and maintained the balance with heat production mechanisms and heat loss mechanisms to keep a constant body temperature.

Why go to all that work? Why not just change to core temperature? And would you not think out of 7000 million people there were a few who were taking off toward a higher or lower body temperature?

And why not shift the positions of the kidneys and lungs etc in the body? Surely they must have had a wild ride to get where they are. Why stop now? Certainly out of 7000 million people there would be some who would be showing movement of organs, finding a better spot. A definite evolutionary improvement. Or has man reached perfection and evolution has gone on to other challenges?

cofty

Why is it that someone with 3 or 4 degrees rise in temperature is sick and not looked at as a start of an evolutionary change

How do you feel when your temperature is raised by 4 degrees?

What other physiological changes are going on in your body when you have a temperature?

Exactly how does the body regulate temperature and why? What are the advantages of maintaining a certain core temperature as contrasted with reptiles who don't?

Can you think of an evolutionary pressure that would favour a higher core temperature - one that could be counted in reproductive success?

All of these questions have good answers. I know the answers. What effort have you made to find answers? In what possible way does it challenge evolution.

For the fifth time,

Which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.

I predict the answer is none and that you will ignore the question.

Your bizarre questions strongly suggest you have never read a single word.

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

Share this