Evolution says

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by randyvs

 

We know the Evolution happens and as best as we can tell is responsible for all the bio-diversity we see.

"we" dont know any such thing. scientists have been studying this topic for a long time, but evolution is STILL nothing more than a wild unscientific theory that violates BOTH the 1st AND 2nd laws of thermodynamics. over 150 years ago Pasteur figured out that LIFE cannot, never, EVER come from NON-LIFE ... no matter how much time is allowed.

it looks like people still havent caught up with this reality.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by randyvs

 

you know the creation account is false.

We do know that its false. We know the Universe and Earth were not created in the same week. We know that animals cannot be summoned into existence instantaneously. We know the Evolution happens and as best as we can tell is responsible for all the bio-diversity we see. We know that humans cannot be formed from dirt and breathed into existence and we know that women are not molded from ribs.

Yes we can know that the Creation account is false at least if taken as a literal week and using divine magic as a way to form creatures.

We cannot know for sure whether there is a God or whether that God has guided Evolution. It is possible that there is a God that guided life into existence through natural processes although there is no evidence of this it cannot be ruled out 100%.

reply to post by upstateman


How does Evolution violate conservation of energy?

As for the second law, entropy, that only counts in a closed system, a system that receives no new energy. The Earth is an open system as it receives lot's of energy from the sun.

By the way Evolution has been observed in the form of speciation, the divergence of one species into another. You might want to type in Observed Speciation into the Google search bar or head on over to Talk Origin's page on the subject. Evolution is an observed reality. If that weren't enough we also have the genetic similarities between living animals and the morphological similarities in the fossil record all of which point to evolution and away from creation.

You talk about spontaneous generation being disproved but Abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous. Even if it were spontaneous abiogenesis is NOT necessary for Evolution to be true.

it looks like people still havent caught up with this reality.

Looks to me like reality has been escaping you. Do your research next time

reply to post by randyvs


I'm sorry you are appalled by the videos, but you can verify every single claim the guy makes in the video. He speaks the truth in terms of all the scientific facts he mentions, and the fact that he's clearly not fond of creationism isn't surprising given the amount of sometimes just plain stupid argumentation they come up with.

Fact is, you can verify the content of the videos and see that he's right. It clearly shows that there is no need for a god to create everything we see around us, and he proves that. If you wanna discredit him, go right ahead and criticize the scientific facts he presents...because saying "I'm appalled and can't watch this" just because it clearly shows that the creationist claims are wrong is a cop-out. Don't like what he says? Criticize the content, not the content provider. If you can't do that, I'll assume you're out of real arguments...

reply to post by MrXYZ

I'm sorry you are appalled by the videos, but you can verify every single claim the guy makes in the video. He speaks the truth in terms of all the scientific facts he mentions, and the fact that he's clearly not fond of creationism isn't surprising given the amount of sometimes just plain stupid argumentation they come up with.

Mr.X, is that cool for short? I don't know why the hell, I have to shorten
everyones name. Even the short ones . I dunno. I believe what you say
that the vids are spot on. Just by your enthusiasm for them. I can feel you see my pioint though. I meant no offense to you. I only have the one bitch about'em. No big deal though, it's not like you were going to shatter my beliefs ya know. There was no debate going on at all. That was the beginning of this thread . Just pointing that (for me) uncalled for, bitterness out.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


Whatever short form works for me

Don't get me wrong, I really believe everyone's entitled to believe whatever he/she wants...as long as it doesn't impact negatively on others. But you started the thread after all, so you had to expect a rebuttal

Scientifically speaking, evolution is a fact. It's as simple as that. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit ironic and hypocritical to criticize evolution while believing in creationism that has no proof. Just look at all the info people give you about evolution, it's all there, you just have to look at it. You can even verify things for yourself.

The religious "proof" is a bit different and just isn't scientific. Just because there was a burning city because of sulfur doesn't mean it was god who caused it. There's a many other reasons why sulfur could get there. Like, you don't go point at every burning bush you see and say "god did that" just because they mention a burning bush in the bible.

I guess it's all a matter of different philosophies. I need to be able to verify things in order to believe in them, I need back up and facts. You seem to be happy believing in scriptures just like Hindus believe in theirs, or Muslims believe in the Koran. As long as it makes you happy it's all good...but I will continue to correct you scientifically if you attack scientific concepts that are facts, sry

Originally posted by upstateman
over 150 years ago Pasteur figured out that LIFE cannot, never, EVER come from NON-LIFE ... no matter how much time is allowed.

I wish we had a facepalm smiley here. Also how does Pasteur's experiment prove that abiogenesis isn't possible under different circumstances? (protip: IT DOESN'T) And just so you know, Pasteur was proving that flies/maggots/etc. macro creatures don't generate spontaneously. His experiment had nothing to do with autocatalytic RNA-molecules.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by MrXYZ

I guess it's all a matter of different philosophies. I need to be able to verify things in order to believe in them, I need back up and facts. You seem to be happy believing in scriptures just like Hindus believe in theirs, or Muslims believe in the Koran. As long as it makes you happy it's all good...but I will continue to correct you scientifically if you attack scientific concepts that are facts, sry

I have to wonder, if you honestly believe you can ever identify, what it is that animates? I would love to see that ever done in a lab. It will never happen. You know it as well as I. Frankenstien, will never be the truth.

reply to post by randyvs


Not sure what you mean by animate. Do you mean "reproduction" and the fact that babies (animal/humans) come alive? We know how that works, story of bees and flowers

If you're talking about consciousness, not sure, we don't have the answer. But that doesn't mean you can just pick an option and claim "God gave us consciousness". Oh, and just fyi, dolphins are conscious as well because they give eachother names. Some other animals show similar signs of consciousness. So it's not as if us humans are anything that special. Yes, we are currently the most intelligent species on the planet...but that took years of...wait for it...EVOLUTION! It didn't just happen overnight...or in 7 days

If you're talking about consciousness, not sure, we don't have the answer. But that doesn't mean you can just pick an option and claim "God gave us consciousness". Oh, and just fyi,

reply to post by MrXYZ


I really have only one thing to say to that. Dead wrong. I can do what ever I want no matter guy. I'm sure you realise that with out me elaborating. Consider the tiger backed into a corner for a moment.

reply to post by randyvs


Randy, I won't rest until you post "I am a dirty agnostic atheist like you MrXYZ"

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ya know, That does seem to be your mark. What is it they say? Good luck with that! Right on.

As far as evolution being defined as change over time, I agree with that. As far as Darwinism, it's no where near being proven. Exactly how many species have we had go extinct since the beginning of time? I'm sure there's a lot. There is no definitive proof that the past primate/human fossils aren't types of extinct primates, actually it's more likely they are. Look at the what we know about sapiens and neaderthals now. There are more and more scientific revelations taking place now than ever, thanks to technology.

I wouldn't sell myself on the Creationist view or the Evolutionary view just yet.

When two sides argue, there is always his side, her side, and the truth.

reply to post by thomasc83

When two sides argue, there is always his side, her side, and the truth.

Except that, within academic circles, there is no argument. There is a scientific consensus on Evolution. The only people arguing are those who have taken up the call of science and reason to defend from the religious zealots who want to get their religiously biased non-science taught in schools and those who have decided to ignore the evidence and cling to ancient myths. In the academic world Creation versus Evolution is a non-issue.

And of course the primate fossils we find are extinct, otherwise we would still find those species walking around. That isn't to say that some of the species didn't eventually evolved into what we are today (because they did) but it does mean that that species itself IS technically extinct.

Creationists keep begging for transitional species when in actuality every species is in transition at all times. Some change more than others, some change quicker than others but they are all changing genetically over the course of generations and that's all that evolution is.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by thomasc83

There is no definitive proof that the past primate/human fossils aren't types of extinct primates, actually it's more likely they are.

Not quite sure what your point is here. Past primate/pre-human are exactly that: extinct primates. The proof is that they once existed, and now they don't.

Your post seems to imply that you don't quite understand what happens to a species as it evolves into new species. Sometimes the "original" form continues, sometimes it goes extinct.

Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose you are walking in the woods on a trail along side a small creek. You come to a fork in the road. One fork crosses the stream where a tree has fallen across the creek and continues on through the meadow on the other side and on into the forest beyond. Which trail is the original? Its a bit arbitrary, but lets decide that the one that does not cross is the original. So we continue on a bit further and come to another fork. This time one fork starts a switchback up the side of the hill. Again we continue on the creek trail and find that it comes to an end at the top of a waterfall.

So we have just witnessed two evolutionary branches and an extinction. If we go back to the trail that started up the hill, and get to the top, we find yet another fork, one of which goes down a slope and ends at a cliff providing a viewpoint looking over the valley below, while the other continues on down the hill into the valley. We now have two completely different trails, co-existing, but with a common ancestor. Continuing on either the forest trail or the valley trail we will find further forks and further dead-ends.

This is a very simplistic analogy, but I think it addresses the misconception that your post implies to me: that fossil primate remains are somehow all linked in a perfect series from the most ancient to modern. They aren't, several existed at the same time, Neanderthal and Modern certainly co-existed and interacted (some claim even interbred).

Evolution isn't just a species evolving from one thing to another to another to another. There are branches and dead-ends.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Hey Titen,
Don't even bother with the thermodynamics question. As you know it is a question they are told to ask by answersingenesis hoping to stump "evolutionist".

How I handle it, is just make up random crap. This is much more fun then repeating the same correct answer over and other. Just make something up. Like ... the second law of thermodynamics is not a valid argument because we are the 3rd plant from the star and then spit out a random equation.

This one will work : F = GMm/R2

It is great because 90% of the time they don't know what entropy is, with the bonus of them not being about to tell your equation was completely pulled from your ass.

Good times.

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by randyvs

 

I would expect all Evolutionists to be Vegetarians. They say animals are our Cousins. I don't know how they justify killing and eating their Cousins.

I'm not trying to be offensive but I really wonder how they morally justify eating their Cousins.

Peace


edit - corrected terminology - Atheists to Evolutionists.



[edit on 18-7-2010 by FearNoEvil]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by FearNoEvil]

By your analogy we should stop eating vegetables too because they are technically our cousins as well. We should all just starve to death now shouldn't we.

There's absolutely no logical reasons why we can't eat meat.

Originally posted by upstateman

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by randyvs

 

We know the Evolution happens and as best as we can tell is responsible for all the bio-diversity we see.

"we" dont know any such thing. scientists have been studying this topic for a long time, but evolution is STILL nothing more than a wild unscientific theory that violates BOTH the 1st AND 2nd laws of thermodynamics. over 150 years ago Pasteur figured out that LIFE cannot, never, EVER come from NON-LIFE ... no matter how much time is allowed.

it looks like people still havent caught up with this reality.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Not the slightest bit. Have creationists caught on with this yet? If you want to talk about the origins of life please go create another thread.

I can't believe creationists are STILL using that same strawman.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by Firepac]