Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 260

Thread: Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

  1. #1
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

    http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp Very interesting read that wont take much of your time. For the "open minded" "free thinkers" I thought I would share some information so that you might be able to make an informed decision. Discuss......
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  2. #2
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Mmmmmmmmm. Thermodynamics. My specialty Why do you post the good shit when I'm at work?

    First, before I explain away this site tonight when I get home, you have to be totally open to scientific reasoning. If you're not, the conversation isn't gonna go anywhere, and you're gonna be a lost puppy.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  3. #3
    Senior Member | IA Veteran Sinfix_15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Age
    36
    Posts
    11,435
    Rep Power
    30

    Default


    "The greatest form of inequality is when you try to make unequal things equal"

  4. #4
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    I am completely ready to hear your thoughts. But from this site and many others I have read, I see that the theory of evolution is just that...a theory; not "fact" as you said before. After all, scientific "fact" must agree with other scientific "fact"....especially the first and second law. From what I have researched, I see evolutionary biologists tweek their statements, ideals, and beliefs every time a valid arguement is made. What they have failed to do as of yet, is to come up with a theory that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So, I have an open mind and am willing to be "schooled" in the theory of evolution.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  5. #5
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    I am completely ready to hear your thoughts. But from this site and many others I have read, I see that the theory of evolution is just that...a theory; not "fact" as you said before.
    Alright. Let's stop right here. Before we go any further in discussing any scientific information, we must first be on the same page with our scientific definitions, if you plan to use science to discredit evolution anyway. First is a lesson on the word "theory"

    In short, you need to forget everything you know and everything you've been told about the word "theory".

    Nowhere in academia (that's any secondary or post secondary science classes, or any scientific field) does "scientific theory" mean, or equal to "educated guess". We have to get past this false definition if we are to understand ANYTHING related to any kind of scientific discussion.

    So are we still on the same page?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  6. #6
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    I will break it down one step further.

    The word theory (when talking about scientific things) basically means a verified way of explaining things. Let me give you an example of another theory which you should be regarding as "fact"

    Heliocentric "theory" basically states that the earth (and the other planets) revolve around the sun. You believe the earth revolves around the sun correct?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  7. #7
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Blank cd- we are on the same page. But, what is your definition of scientific fact? To me, a fact can not clearly contradict other known facts. It is a fact that I am 6ft 3/4" tall. It could not be said that i am any taller or shorter.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  8. #8
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    Blank cd- we are on the same page. But, what is your definition of scientific fact? To me, a fact can not clearly contradict other known facts. It is a fact that I am 6ft 3/4" tall. It could not be said that i am any taller or shorter.
    Glad you asked that, as that was step two. Colloquially and mathematically (distance is primarily dealt with in geometry) yes, A fact would be you are 6' 3/4" tall. With the information we have, as long as we use a standard measuring device, no one will dispute that. Scientifically, a fact is something that is verified through repeated testing through the scientific method. The scientific method is equivalent to, let's say, order of operations in mathematics. In order to get correct results, this never changes. Every time you add 1+1, you will always get 2. Every time you combine two atoms (stable atoms, but that's another topic) of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, you get water. So a scientific fact would be that water is made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Another scientific fact is that the earth spins on an axis

    We still on the same page?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  9. #9
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Yes we are on the same page, yet, if a so called scientific fact conflicts with other known scientific facts....is it then valid?
    Also, if we are to discuss this as mature adults, i would like for you to present your arguement, backed by evidence, and address the problems found in the theory of evolution as discussed in the link i provided. I will then give my counter arguement with evidences. We will then continue by a friendly back and forth with intelligent responses not dodging questions and not simply mocking one anothers statements...agreed?
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  10. #10
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    I have to say man, i have spent the last 48 hours studying anything and everything i can find on evolution....from what i have witnessed, compared, and researched...it has only solidified my belief in a Creator...
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  11. #11

  12. #12
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    still waiting...
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  13. #13
    Another Honda Boy 98blackcivic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    GWINNETT IS GREAT!
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,096
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    There is a creator
    and evolution is the tinkerer


  14. #14
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Ive been trying to figure out a way to explain all of this in the simplest terms possible, as everyone reading this thread may not have a good grasp on science, which isnt a bad thing. Some were bad in science, some in math, some in history, whatever the case may be. So delving into deep biological thermodynamics and entropy might sound like spanish to most people

    I just got around to watching that video. They presented a quite interesting case, however the video was kinda leading (read: misleading). It sounded like they were trying to spin alternative hypothesis as "negative evidence" in some cases. There is no "negative evidence" (evidence that something doesnt exist) for evolution, or anything for that matter. You can either have positive evidence, an alternative hypothesis, or something doesnt exist until further information is provided.

    I want to point out a particular excerpt in this video that stuck out in my mind, if I may, regarding the anti-evolution document. "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was a document created in 2001 by a group of conservative lobbyists called the Discovery Institute. A little research shows that courts and other scientific organizations have found D.I. is engaged in manufacturing controversy in evolution, as well as other areas of public policy. The video stated that almost 700 scientists with PhDs from around the world have signed the document. What wasnt mentioned was the areas of professional expertise of the people that signed this document, which basically means that its not exactly all evolutionary biologists with PhDs, we may have some people with political science degrees, business science degrees, law science, psychologists, computer scientists, aviation scientists, etc. Less than a quarter of the signatories were actual biologists. What also wasnt mentioned is how much exactly does 700 people represent to the entire scientific community. There are about a million registered biologists according to the NSF, so if we said half of the signatories of the "Dissent" were biologists, we get far less that 1% of the entire biological science community. Even if we take all the signatories and compare them to the ENTIRE scientific community world wide (im gonna guesstimate, but I'd say ten million is a pretty conservative number) we still have less than 1% of an entire scientific community that signed this document. We also have to look at the wording of the document itself. It doesnt necessarily say "a complete rejection of darwinism" The dissent states:

    "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

    This isnt 700 people that completely reject darwinian theory, as this video is leading you to believe, this is 700 people who are skeptical.

    Another is the Miller-Urey experiment as described in the video. I'll explain later

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  15. #15
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    The video did bring up interesting points. I would also like to make another point that I would like you to address. Darwin was a very smart man for his time and with the available technology, put forth a great movement of intellectual thinking and is considered to be the "father" of evolution. Yet, he himself said something along the lines that if there was ever discovered a complex organism that could not have formed slowly over time...his theory would be invalid.( not an exact quote but generally what he said. Exact quote can be found in video link) Also, science is supposed to be the objective, unbiased, search for explanations of the natural world. Yet these days i would say that all believers in evolution are atheist's. Those that claim religion and evolution are completely wrong. So, if the if these experts are self-proclaimed atheist's....is not their study, hypothesis, and prediction biased and all together invalid? After all, science claims itself to be fallible and those that seek to find truth regardless of where it might lead. For example, Richard Dawkins, a very big proponent of evolution and in my eyes a (prophet) of the atheist religion. He to me is not a scientist nor one who seeks truth, but rather a fan boy that uses propaganda to try and mock and defeat the Judeo-Christian faith. Every video or writing i have seen from him, he claims Faith is "attacking" the scientific community. He then goes to the " Holy Land" and churches and tries to make them look foolish. I am sorry to say, but i see the theory...yes theory...of evolution as a tool used by atheists to defeat faith. It has lost its credibility because it is completely biased.

    There is a fact of evidence. Evidence found in cells, nature, the cosmos, ect...Evolution is just one view of interpreting what that evidence means, creationalism is another. Much like evidence in a murder trial. One side presents a theory or arguement on the evidence found, and the other side does the same. The interpretation of that evidence is up to the men/women who observe it. I can say that only ONE FACT is actually true and apparent based on empirical evidence...Some thing did happen to start the universe/life....what that is, is up to how such evidence is observed.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  16. #16
    Gods Chariot Vteckidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Atlanta Centennial Park
    Age
    39
    Posts
    33,102
    Rep Power
    66

    Default

    Evolution is an interesting theory, but if we evolved from apes, how come there are STILL APES :P ? How come we havent seen a middle evolved human-ape of some sort?

    Evolution in other species is not quite as dramatic as darwin makes it in our own species. If their were apes before , surely, by his own law, we would have seen half species and progressions in the fossil record. Currently we do NOT.

    Evolution happens in very small patterns of species, but to believe we as humans came from apes, extremely far fetched with little to no information to support that theory. ANyone that believes otherwise, is just living in fantasy world.
    Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
    -www.usedbarcode.net

  17. #17
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Adaptation.....is a FACT! It is clearly seen in nature and necessary for species to continue. That does not mean evolution is occurring. Things can adapt in order to survive, it does not mean that some how there genes have mutated in a way to survive. Also, i am very curious as to this first "super cell" that we all apparently mutated from. The environment of early earth was well...uninhabitable. Yet what you expect me to believe is that for no reason at at and by sheer chance, a random cell or bacteria came into existense already prepared to survive the harsh atmosphere of early earth. What a load of crap. The way i see it, the earth, the universe, and all life in general show purpose. If something shows purpose, it shows intent, which shows intelligence. Chaos and chance do not show purpose,intent, or intelligence....but an Intelligent Designer does.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  18. #18
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    The video did bring up interesting points. I would also like to make another point that I would like you to address. Darwin was a very smart man for his time and with the available technology, put forth a great movement of intellectual thinking and is considered to be the "father" of evolution.
    Darwin was one of the pioneers, but there are newer figures in the study of evolution, and "darwinism" has become a colloquialism. There are newer evolutionary models along the same line scientists refer to as "modern evolutionary synthesis" (this is like what "general relativity" is to its former "laws of gravity"

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    Yet, he himself said something along the lines that if there was ever discovered a complex organism that could not have formed slowly over time...his theory would be invalid.( not an exact quote but generally what he said. Exact quote can be found in video link)
    The cambrian explosion is something i was going to explain as well

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    Also, science is supposed to be the objective, unbiased, search for explanations of the natural world. Yet these days i would say that all believers in evolution are atheist's. Those that claim religion and evolution are completely wrong. So, if the if these experts are self-proclaimed atheist's....is not their study, hypothesis, and prediction biased and all together invalid?
    There was a study done not to long ago in the scientific community. It found that (out of the ENTIRE scientific community, some not in any kind of biological field at all) around 40% believed in creator-guided evolution. That means that a creator (not necessarily a biblical god) laid out all the plans and they're happening as designed. Absolutely plausible. Around 60% did NOT believe in creator-guided evolution. Also absolutely plausible. The rest around 5% did NOT believe in any form of evolution at all. All atheists may understand evolution, but most of faith do as well. we're not saying "oh you believe in god so you don't understand evolution" because that's not the case. They are two separate things.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    After all, science claims itself to be fallible and those that seek to find truth regardless of where it might lead. For example, Richard Dawkins, a very big proponent of evolution and in my eyes a (prophet) of the atheism. He to me is not a scientist nor one who seeks truth, but rather a fan boy that uses propaganda to try and mock and defeat the Judeo-Christian faith.
    Dawkins has his Masters and PhD in Ethology, the study of animal behavior. He is very much a scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    Every video or writing i have seen from him, he claims Faith is "attacking" the scientific community. He then goes to the " Holy Land" and churches and tries to make them look foolish. I am sorry to say, but i see the theory...yes theory...of evolution as a tool used by atheists to defeat faith. It has lost its credibility because it is completely biased.
    Its not, because they're not opposites. You can, and people of faith do understand evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    There is a fact of evidence. Evidence found in cells, nature, the cosmos, ect...Evolution is just one view of interpreting what that evidence means, creationalism is another. Much like evidence in a murder trial. One side presents a theory or arguement on the evidence found, and the other side does the same. The interpretation of that evidence is up to the men/women who observe it. I can say that only ONE FACT is actually true and apparent based on empirical evidence...Some thing did happen to start the universe/life....what that is, is up to how such evidence is observed.
    I think you're starting to understand....

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  19. #19
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vteckidd View Post
    Evolution is an interesting theory, but if we evolved from apes, how come there are STILL APES :P ? How come we havent seen a middle evolved human-ape of some sort?

    Evolution in other species is not quite as dramatic as darwin makes it in our own species. If their were apes before , surely, by his own law, we would have seen half species and progressions in the fossil record. Currently we do NOT.

    Evolution happens in very small patterns of species, but to believe we as humans came from apes, extremely far fetched with little to no information to support that theory. ANyone that believes otherwise, is just living in fantasy world.
    Are you being serious right now?

    You do know there is evidence and fossils of the common ancestor between humans and other primates right?

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  20. #20
    Gods Chariot Vteckidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Atlanta Centennial Park
    Age
    39
    Posts
    33,102
    Rep Power
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    Are you being serious right now?

    You do know there is evidence and fossils of the common ancestor between humans and other primates right?
    Dead serious, there is little to no evidence to support evolution, on the scale that Darwin believes and wrote about, actually happened or happened. The Tree of Life has been debunked, the fossil catalog is eons bigger than when darwin wrote his theory so we have much more evidence to go by.

    He was right about evolution happening but on a much smaller scale. Evolution also happens for bad reason, like a genetic change to a species that doesnt work. Where are all those ancestors?

    Also, the time frame of it(primate evolution) all doesnt work out. If we evolved from Primates, why are there still primates? If evolution is survival of the fittest should the apes be long gone by now considering humans have been around for AT LEAST 2000 years?

    Are we to believe we made 1 giant leap from barely speaking or communicating primates to walking and talking humans in 1-2 generations?

    In almost all other cases of evolution the species evolves and the evolution survives. But somehow not in our case.

    You can believe evolution is true, but there are far too many holes to shoot in it to make it plausible. A simple google search will provide you with thousands of 3rd party scientists (since thats what you like) that will say evolution is very hard to prove. Probably more evidence than creationism, but still no where near the defacto "THATS WHERE WE CAME FROM"
    Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
    -www.usedbarcode.net

  21. #21
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    Adaptation.....is a FACT! It is clearly seen in nature and necessary for species to continue. That does not mean evolution is occurring. Things can adapt in order to survive, it does not mean that some how there genes have mutated in a way to survive. Also, i am very curious as to this first "super cell" that we all apparently mutated from. The environment of early earth was well...uninhabitable. Yet what you expect me to believe is that for no reason at at and by sheer chance, a random cell or bacteria came into existense already prepared to survive the harsh atmosphere of early earth. What a load of crap. The way i see it, the earth, the universe, and all life in general show purpose. If something shows purpose, it shows intent, which shows intelligence. Chaos and chance do not show purpose,intent, or intelligence....but an Intelligent Designer does.
    You're getting there. Adaptation is part of the evolutionary process. You just seem to be at odds with how it all started...I think when I explain the Miller-Urey experiment a little more, it'll fall into place

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  22. #22
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vteckidd View Post
    Dead serious, there is little to no evidence to support evolution, on the scale that Darwin believes and wrote about, actually happened or happened. The Tree of Life has been debunked, the fossil catalog is eons bigger than when darwin wrote his theory so we have much more evidence to go by
    That whole post absolutely boggled my mind

    But really, are you being really serious right now? I refuse to believe someone with any kind of post secondary, paid higher education background has such limited understanding of evolution. Unless you went to BYU

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  23. #23
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    One of Faith cannot believe in evolution. These two do not go hand in hand. I like your numbers on how many in the science community believe in a Creator driven evolution.....but those numbers still show that only 5% believe in any evolution at all. The science behind the theory is still not unbiased. I saw a video offering a critique of the "Case for a Creator" videos. He never really gave evidence against what the video said but rather tried to dismiss it by saying that " science nor the scientific method could comment on the "supernatural". His aim was to say that the "evidences" that exist cannot be used to show a case for Creation. What I find ironic is that this same evidence is used to say " there is no way God can exist". Kind of hypocritical wouldn't you say?

    As far as Dawkins goes....i don't care what kind of degree he has....he still pushes atheistic agenda...not science. Therefore, he and any "scientist" that pushes agenda or tries to use scientific study to further atheistic thinking, has lost all credibility. Why? because his science is no longer unbiased. He and many evolutionists( many who are atheists) are no longer looking at evidence for truth but rather looking for evidence to further their personal beliefs. That would be like putting a man on trial for killing a black person, with the entire jury being black and former black panther members. Do you see how it could be a problem?
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  24. #24
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    You're getting there. Adaptation is part of the evolutionary process. You just seem to be at odds with how it all started...I think when I explain the Miller-Urey experiment a little more, it'll fall into place
    No theory or math is needed to see that "adaptation" happens. That is something very observable that can be seen in each of our life times. I am not at odds with " how it started ". One, because evolution does not show empirical evidence how it started. Two, because the theory itself has many holes and is at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The real problem lies in this, the model is changed to somehow "fit" into natural laws not based on the search for truth (wherever it might lead) but rather to fit in with the atheistic agenda. By the way, i understand the Miller-Urey experiment very well, I also understand that the experiment came under a lot of fire. "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." When new experiments were conducted with what is now believed to be a more realistic "early atmosphere"...no amino acids were formed. So that experiment is invalid as the results have not been reproduced.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  25. #25
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    One of Faith cannot believe in evolution. These two do not go hand in hand.
    Why do you believe this? My wife believes in god and understands evolution. Is she a lone exception?

    Evolution and faith are two different things. Evolution is not a belief system. It's something that happens which unfortunately goes against what the bible says happens, this is why we have dissent over it in the first place

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    That would be like putting a man on trial for killing a black person, with the entire jury being black and former black panther members. Do you see how it could be a problem?
    I don't see what this has to do with anything but if a man killed someone, it doesn't matter what jury he goes against as long as the evidence is followed and not beliefs.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  26. #26
    Gods Chariot Vteckidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Atlanta Centennial Park
    Age
    39
    Posts
    33,102
    Rep Power
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
    That whole post absolutely boggled my mind

    But really, are you being really serious right now? I refuse to believe someone with any kind of post secondary, paid higher education background has such limited understanding of evolution. Unless you went to BYU
    Ok, answer my questions then mr. Scientist

    Where did MATTER come from. Apes didnt just shit themselves out of the sky.
    Explain the differences in chromosomes between humans and apes
    Why are there still apes? How come no other species has experienced evolution on the scale that humans supposedly have?
    we know ONE GENE-ONE PROTEIN-ONE FUNCTION is wrong , at least the mapping of the human genome proves it
    The time phase of the age of earth compared to when humans supposedly SHOWED UP, doesnt make sense. assuming the universe is 20 billion years old:
    The odds of forming a chain of 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acid bases is 1 x 1064,489! Now that is just one complex molecule and life requires much, much more. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of the free living organisms, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. A human DNA molecule can contain three billion amino acid bases. That is not counting all the other enzymes, proteins, hormones and other life chemistry needed. These odds are utterly impossible and shows that evolution being the source of life’s beginning is not even remotely possible.

    thats just a few.

    I guess i question the material im taught more than you do.
    Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
    -www.usedbarcode.net

  27. #27
    Gods Chariot Vteckidd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Atlanta Centennial Park
    Age
    39
    Posts
    33,102
    Rep Power
    66

    Default

    I believe there is evidence that shows evolution is happening, but at the extent that man was evolved from apes, is rediculous. Where did the apes come from? Where did the primordial soup come from? Where did MATTER come from ?

    Go back far enough and there are so many problems with evolution, it cant possibly be right.
    Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
    -www.usedbarcode.net

  28. #28
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    No theory or math is needed to see that "adaptation" happens. That is something very observable that can be seen in each of our life times.
    Almost got it....

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    I am not at odds with " how it started ". One, because evolution does not show empirical evidence how it started.
    This is because no evolutionary theory has ever attempted to explain how life began. Ever. This is not what evolution is. That is called "abiogenesis"

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    Two, because the theory itself has many holes and is at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    It doesn't if you understand what the 2nd law of biological thermodynamics means.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    The real problem lies in this, the model is changed to somehow "fit" into natural laws not based on the search for truth (wherever it might lead) but rather to fit in with the atheistic agenda. By the way, i understand the Miller-Urey experiment very well, I also understand that the experiment came under a lot of fire. "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." When new experiments were conducted with what is now believed to be a more realistic "early atmosphere"...no amino acids were formed. So that experiment is invalid as the results have not been reproduced.
    There is very little debate to what early atmosphere is. The only debate is between those manufacturing dissent

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  29. #29
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Why do you believe this? My wife believes in god and understands evolution. Is she a lone exception?

    Evolution and faith are two different things. Evolution is not a belief system. It's something that happens which unfortunately goes against what the bible says happens, this is why we have dissent over it in the first place
    You answered your own question right here.
    It's something that happens which unfortunately goes against what the bible says happens
    Either the entire Bible is true or none of it is.

    I don't see what this has to do with anything but if a man killed someone, it doesn't matter what jury he goes against as long as the evidence is followed and not beliefs.
    I would like to see this explanation be given in the court of law in the case i listed above. The jury would be biased to side with " one of their own" and would be considered unfair. Their opinion would be biased. The point was to show the biased agenda of evolutionary scientists.

    You care to still use the Miller-Urey experiment? Or can we go ahead and agree it is invalid?

    It is extremely funny how you agreed that the evidence that clearly exists, is up to interpretation, yet when that same evidence is used to be the base of Creationalism...it is dismissed. One man in the video put it this way," Creation science and intelligent design theory are not "based" on theology of any sort, but rather empirical evidence. If the path towards truth leads to theological ideas...so be it". It seems though that these days, science is no longer on the path to seek truth, but rather on a path to disprove God.

    Oh and by the way, adaptation can happen without evolution. Adaptation is a result of environmental effects whereas evolution would be an actual change in the genetic make up of an organism to adapt. Adaptation can be seperate and can be used by either intelligent design or evolution theory.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  30. #30
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    It doesn't if you understand what the 2nd law of biological thermodynamics means.
    "Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

    Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

    "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

    Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
    The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?" from allaboutscience.org.
    That about right?

    There is very little debate to what early atmosphere is. The only debate is between those manufacturing dissent
    Um, here is a fact...The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted with what they believed at the time to be an accurate portrayal of what early earth atmosphere was composed of. Upon further study it was found that this was wrong. Under new experiments with the correct elements...the results were never reproduced. Quit trying to use an experiment that has been proven invalid.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  31. #31
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Oh but wait, an asteroid hit earth and was carrying amino acids with it and thats how life sprung up and evolution began. How long with scientist concoct ridiculous explanations? How long will they avoid serious evidences against their theories? How long will you use the available evidence to support your theory but then deny that the same evidence can be used for another explanation?

    That is my entire point. The theory of evolution is self defeated by men who have a biased opinion on available evidence. They are no longer interested in discovering true facts but rather how to make their theory fit in. Evolution started as good science by Darwin but has now been abused as propaganda by "hero's" such as Dawkins. Call it what it really is...a war on faith. The Fact is this....every organism on earth and in the universe has a purpose. Purpose shows intent and intent intelligence. Bacterial flagellum are a complex "machine" system which it is implausible that could have "evolved" gradually over time. Darwin himself stated that if such an organism was found, his theory would be utterly defeated. Where is your white flag my friend?
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  32. #32
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Whoops

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  33. #33
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    Charles Darwin

    This is because no evolutionary theory has ever attempted to explain how life began. Ever. This is not what evolution is. That is called "abiogenesis"
    So a theory that cannot explain where it came from or how it happened..... yes that makes a lot of sense. Come on man, do you believe in the theory of evolution because you researched it and it sounds plausible to you or because it fits your atheistic views?
    Last edited by geoff; 02-06-2012 at 04:24 PM.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  34. #34
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    You answered your own question right here.Either the entire Bible is true or none of it is.
    Yes, either Genesis is true or none of it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    I would like to see this explanation be given in the court of law in the case i listed above. The jury would be biased to side with " one of their own" and would be considered unfair. Their opinion would be biased. The point was to show the biased agenda of evolutionary scientists.
    If you're on trial for killing a black man, and you know you definitely killed him, and you get convicted of murder by a jury full of the most racist black people you can find, you think there's a bias there?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    You care to still use the Miller-Urey experiment? Or can we go ahead and agree it is invalid?
    If it were invalid, I wouldn't use it. It is the case though that scientists have used the experiment as recently as 2009 with conclusive results. No scientists have ever ruled out the first early atmosphere, they have only tested other ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    It is extremely funny how you agreed that the evidence that clearly exists, is up to interpretation, yet when that same evidence is used to be the base of Creationalism...it is dismissed. One man in the video put it this way," Creation science and intelligent design theory are not "based" on theology of any sort, but rather empirical evidence.
    which is....the bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff
    Oh and by the way, adaptation can happen without evolution. Adaptation is a result of environmental effects whereas evolution would be an actual change in the genetic make up of an organism to adapt. Adaptation can be seperate and can be used by either intelligent design or evolution theory.
    I didn't say adaptation wasn't separate.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  35. #35
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    Charles Darwin


    So a theory that cannot explain where it came from or how it happened..... yes that makes a lot of sense. Come on man, do you believe in the theory of evolution because you researched it and it sounds plausible to you or because it fits your atheistic views?
    Are you serious right now? There is a separate theory for this! I've said it a million times. Abiogenesis. They are separate. They always have been. The only people using evolution as propaganda are the Christian Right.

    Evolution = how single cells evolve into humans

    Abiogenesis = how the cells came to be in the first place

    I understand science the same way I understand math. I don't believe in evolution like I don't "believe" in the order of operations in mathematics. I know both of them work. Atheism is not a religion, evolution is not something you believe in, it is something everyone except the misinformed understand.

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Unfortunately the very first thing this article states is not true:

    "The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)"

    Neither (1) nor (2) are part of evolutionary theory.

  37. #37
    magical negro/photog .blank cd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    12,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
    Unfortunately the very first thing this article states is not true:

    "The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)"

    Neither (1) nor (2) are part of evolutionary theory.
    That's what I'm trying to tell them, but in creationists eyes, evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. So they'll never get past this because it conflicts with their belief that the bible is the absolute truth

    NIKON Squad member 01

    I HAVE SUBS AND CAMERAS AND LENSES FO SALE
    OF*C
    OEMFitment Crew Memeber 01

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,627
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff View Post
    So a theory that cannot explain where it came from or how it happened..... yes that makes a lot of sense. Come on man, do you believe in the theory of evolution because you researched it and it sounds plausible to you or because it fits your atheistic views?
    Since when does a single theory have to explain everything? No one knows what causes gravity (many think it has something to do with dark matter) but it doesn't stop us from believing it because we have the evidence that it exists.

  39. #39
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    If you're on trial for killing a black man, and you know you definitely killed him, and you get convicted of murder by a jury full of the most racist black people you can find, you think there's a bias there?
    I didnt say the man was 100% guilty, i said he is on trial. Yes it would be biased and unfair.

    If it were invalid, I wouldn't use it. It is the case though that scientists have used the experiment as recently as 2009 with conclusive results. No scientists have ever ruled out the first early atmosphere, they have only tested other ideas.
    Yes an experiment that was based on a theory of what the atmosphere could have been....thats not empiricle evidence and is there for invalid.

    which is....the bible?
    No, by the same clearly existing evidence used by the "evolutionists", just interpreted differently. You agreed early in the thread to there being more than one possible interpretation.

    I didn't say adaptation wasn't separate.
    I am glad this is understood, many unlearned believers in an intelligent designer are unaware of this.

    Are you serious right now? There is a separate theory for this! I've said it a million times. Abiogenesis. They are separate. They always have been. The only people using evolution as propaganda are the Christian Right.

    Evolution = how single cells evolve into humans

    Abiogenesis = how the cells came to be in the first place

    I understand science the same way I understand math. I don't believe in evolution like I don't "believe" in the order of operations in mathematics. I know both of them work. Atheism is not a religion, evolution is not something you believe in, it is something everyone except the misinformed understand.
    Once again you present evolution as some "universal" fact. Which is wrong. It is one way of interpreting the available evidences. And as far as atheism goes....see Richard Dawkins. That man spends more time spreading atheistic doctrine than studying evolution.

    Since when does a single theory have to explain everything? No one knows what causes gravity (many think it has something to do with dark matter) but it doesn't stop us from believing it because we have the evidence that it exists.
    True. But you and other "evolutionists" pass on a theory as fact that does not even explain where it originated. Creationalism not only gives a how but a why. Once again like every other proponent of evolution you pick and choose which issues to dismiss and which to continue discussing. I see this tactic all the time, its called politics. Science is supposed to present itself as fallible, yet every single evolutionist, seeks only to prove themselves right. In my mind that is biased and disqualifies the theory and men behind it due to the fact that they contradict the very purpose of science and the scientific method.
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

  40. #40
    wherever God leads geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    gwinnett
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Science is the study of the "natural world" and as evolutionist so eloquently put it, cannot be used to comment on the "supernatural". In the same way though, how can it be used to deny the existence of such?
    riding for God crew member #1


    IA Domestic Alliance

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
ImportAtlanta is a community of gearheads and car enthusiasts. It does not matter what kind of car or bike you drive, IA is an open community for any gearhead. Whether you're looking for advice on a performance build or posting your wheels for sale, you're welcome here!
Announcement
Welcome back to ImportAtlanta. We are currently undergoing many changes, so please report any issues you encounter with the site using the 'Contact Us' button below. Thank you!