lol yeah I was going to mention Hovind. Even major creationists groups have called Hovind out on being a total moron.
Re: Evolution
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:01 pm
by tuckerlinen
DSF isn't going to resolve this tired argument
could we move on to speculation about how the initial asexually reproducing lifeforms came about?
someone mentioned earlier a sort of genesis from an extraterrestrial form of life, and honestly that's what I'd say if forced to answer the question.
but no theory i've encountered has convinced me either way.
what have you got?
Re: Evolution
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:30 pm
by bright maroon
noam wrote:shit you done a mix BM
That's a REALLY old mix noam - I only have a handful of Dubstep records...
I can't afford records right now...don't have cdjs
Re: Evolution
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:39 pm
by bright maroon
tuckerlinen wrote:could we move on to speculation about how the initial asexually reproducing lifeforms came about?
The motion of the ocean made different chemicals bash into each other...reactions occured
carbon proved to be both volitile and extremely stable at the same time..
There's no way I can address everything in this thread. It seems a little one sided. However, I shall carry on providing reasons for why I believe what I do. Hovind, may not have his science nailed down to a tee, this is correct but, I think his reasoning behind his ideas is flawless in most cases. Just watch the guy speak before judging him based on what others have said about him. Even if it is just to see how a strong argument can be formulated.
The fact is, we cannot observe evolution happening. Science is, fundamentally speaking, about the observation of things or testing predictions. We can't do either of these things with evolution. It IS, regardless of what you think, still a theory. Yes we have a fossil record but it is incomplete in the sense that it doesn't manage to show us a complete (or even close to being complete) evolutionary chain. There is that famous example often quoted of the fossils showing the development of a horse however, the first fossil in the chain right till present day horse only shows adaptation of the same thing, in essence, a horse. It may have got taller, changed it's skeletal structure etc over time but it never changed species.
I find the Bible contradiction argument tedious as, anyone who has ever read the bible will note that, a lot of rules regulations etc laid out in the old testament become irrelevant after the birth of Christ as, Christ marks the beginning of a new covenant man entered into with God.
In order for me to respond a little easier could we do this in a Q and A style debate as it is much easier to answer specific questions than it is to try to remember everybody's points and address them.
Question regarding the big bang theory that Hovind proposed and I for one can't find a decent answer for besides that of an intelligent designer:
The big bang theory claims that the universe started with a spinning singularity and then, BOOM it expanded.
Cool but, according to the laws concerning circular motion; if an object is spinning in one direction (think the spinning point in the beginning) and meets no resistance, it will continue to spin in the same direction indefinitely. How come some of the planets observed in our own solar system spin in a different direction to the majority?
More Evolution questions:
How do we go from a bunch of complex chemicals to life? Chance seems a bit of a cop out.
And if so chance, why not God? Surely intelligence makes more sense.
I hate being called out as either deluded, naive or ill informed as I think this argument is a personal attack as to my character rather than an attempt to debate my beliefs. I do not think for one minute I am any of these things and I always try to base my views, opinions and beliefs in as much facts or evidence as there is. I will always go with the side that presents the strongest case and I definitely believe that Creationism provides the strongest evidence.
And now for a few quotes to support my reasoning:
an excerpt from a time magazine article (time are very pro evolution)
"Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."
The following is how one very prominent evolutionist once described what we have actually found in the fossil record....
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979.
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
-Charles Darwin
Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University
Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?
-anon
Dawkins admits ID is possible, but comes up with some stupidly complicated and illogical reason for it.
I like this one.
That will do for now. Please keep things coming though. It is always good to view all sides of a possible argument.
snypadub wrote:
How do we go from a bunch of complex chemicals to life? Chance seems a bit of a cop out.
And if so chance, why not God? Surely intelligence makes more sense.
I hate being called out as either deluded, naive or ill informed as I think this argument is a personal attack as to my character rather than an attempt to debate my beliefs. I do not think for one minute I am any of these things and I always try to base my views, opinions and beliefs in as much facts or evidence as there is. I will always go with the side that presents the strongest case and I definitely believe that Creationism provides the strongest evidence.
exactly-- that does seem like a bit of a cop out, hence my unwillingness to accept the happy accident model (will look into mars theory)
god seems a bigger cop out however.
no personal attacks, it's just that everyone has encountered creationist morons before and they're awful (u know its true)
in your mind what's the difference between what you call adaptation and we call evolution?
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:09 am
by snypadub
tuckerlinen wrote:
exactly-- that does seem like a bit of a cop out, hence my unwillingness to accept the happy accident model (will look into mars theory)
god seems a bigger cop out however.
no personal attacks, it's just that everyone has encountered creationist morons before and they're awful (u know its true)
in your mind what's the difference between what you call adaptation and we call evolution?
I think adaptation is what caused the ostrich to loose flight capabilities. Adaptation is an observable change whereas, evolution is one species changing into another.
I know plenty of blind and ignorant creationists. they are lovely people but they haven't got a clue why they think the way they do. I think intelligence is vital in life and can't really abide stupidity. We all need to base our reasoning on evidence.
Why does God seem to be a bigger cop out?
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:11 am
by mks
Well, in this interview he makes it clear that his opinion is that both Intelligent Design and Evolution may have happened.
Perhaps, these are not mutually exclusive ideas?
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:24 am
by Dub_freak
snypadub wrote:
tuckerlinen wrote:
exactly-- that does seem like a bit of a cop out, hence my unwillingness to accept the happy accident model (will look into mars theory)
god seems a bigger cop out however.
no personal attacks, it's just that everyone has encountered creationist morons before and they're awful (u know its true)
in your mind what's the difference between what you call adaptation and we call evolution?
I think adaptation is what caused the ostrich to loose flight capabilities. Adaptation is an observable change whereas, evolution is one species changing into another.
Adaptation is evolution, like animals adapting to living outside water by growing lungs instead of gills. its these adaptations that cause the evolution of animals.
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:32 am
by bright maroon
this is starting to get irritating...
No - there was no scientist standing with a microscope
trained on the dna of a plateau trapped unicorn
in the instant that it became a narwhale...
It was not observed.
God must have been up to his shenanigans again.
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:39 am
by tuckerlinen
I don't see it in terms of species changing into other species, I just see the progression of life.
every living thing has DNA
the DNA codes for a specific life form
we know that through the process of living and reproduction that this code changes or mutates
these mutations will translate into offspring that is different, whether or not this difference is advantageous determines whether the creature carrying it passes it on to future generations
evolution
what I cannot answer is where the hell this DNA came from
I do not believe that such a complex and essential bit of life just happened, at least not to my understanding of initial conditions on this planet
idk, maybe it did come from Mars which leaves a gap I cannot fill because where did it come from on mars etc.
I have to say that I do not know
so why not God (used caps that time)?
because I could make a strong argument that humans created God and not the other way around. If we're talking bible God here, and I think we are. If not, if we're using God as a way to express our awe and gratitude for existence at all then I don't think we have to call it anything specific. But I think you mean God God.
we can talk about that more if you'd like. probably best not to sidetrack into that though.
I don't know where I read this, but it's a valid question and i'll put it to you here.
Why wouldn't God make each creature unique instead of relying on certain models over and over. 4 limbs, 2 eyes, nostrils etc. and not just with mammals but fish look like fish and bugs... you get the idea?
maybe we could agree that God implemented evolution? maybe
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:40 am
by tuckerlinen
i should have stressed the interchangeability of DNA
the great similarities between the DNA of diverse lifeforms
very significant to my argument
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:52 am
by snypadub
tuckerlinen wrote:
I don't know where I read this, but it's a valid question and i'll put it to you here.
Why wouldn't God make each creature unique instead of relying on certain models over and over. 4 limbs, 2 eyes, nostrils etc. and not just with mammals but fish look like fish and bugs... you get the idea?
maybe we could agree that God implemented evolution? maybe
God made lots and lots of unique creatures that have adapted into the variations we see today.
I really can't stress this enough, a horse is a horse is a horse; a butterfly is a butterfly is a butterfly and so on. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest one species changing into another. I know we couldn't observe this BM but surely the fossil record would provide answers?
Dub_freak wrote:Adaptation is evolution, like animals adapting to living outside water by growing lungs instead of gills. its these adaptations that cause the evolution of animals.
Show me some evidence of the transitional phase of any creature changing species (like your sea animals outside of water example. There isn't any evidence for it. It is completely and utterly a hypothesis that has not nor ever will be tested or proved.
mks wrote:Perhaps, these are not mutually exclusive ideas?
One has to have come before the other no?
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:00 am
by bright maroon
here...here's your transitional creature..it's called amphibian
but or horse looks like a dog yeah? I can tell the difference but when you consider all the possible forms they have way more in common than not. almost the same think honestly. limbs, digits, eyes. they all work the same way, do the same thing.
you seem to be looking at this like cats morphing into mountain goats or something when what evolution stresses is that a common ancestor evolved (adapted itself) into what we call a cat and a mountain goat. It's just life doing it's thing and we our theory on this mechanism is evolution.
you avoided the my question btw..
if you said that we cannot see into the mind and motives of god i'll accept it
but you have to admit that lots of critters look very similar for being different and unique species
also, what do you make of the universality of DNA?
it's just life, in different forms, perpetually changing, evolving, adapting
o ja, the mudskipper! ^^^^^
Re: Evolution
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:08 am
by snypadub
bright maroon wrote:here...here's your transitional creature..it's called amphibian
Lol, aint a transitional creature though is it? I know they can hold their breath for a long time but it doesn't make them a fish.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.