Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Evolution is not science - it is nothing less than false religion « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 27

Bookert1905

*
Starter
****
Posts : 999
Offline
#30 : June 25, 2012, 12:28:52 AM

Humans did not evolve from monkeys.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#31 : June 25, 2012, 12:36:40 AM

Just so we're clear, we can prove without any doubt that dinosaurs exist because they have larger bones, yet evolution is still just a theory because of smaller bones? With all of this "overwhelming evidence", why is it still just a theory? Why can we prove certain creatures existed, yet can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them?

And while you're responding, how about a third attempt to explain why creatures we supposedly evolved from are still here in their original form.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#32 : June 25, 2012, 12:37:47 AM

Humans did not evolve.


You got that right.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#33 : June 25, 2012, 03:06:04 AM

An interesting take I stumbled across while searching for the probability life could start by chance. Both articles are by the same person, the second is a follow up to the first. Some very interesting numbers thrown around. They are both very long, but worth a read. I'm sure Vin will attempt to refute it all because it doesn't account for bone length, but I figured I'd post the articles anyway.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/640506/posts

http://www.nutters.org/docs/more-monkeys

OneTruth

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1985
Offline
#34 : June 25, 2012, 06:52:24 AM

An interesting take I stumbled across while searching for the probability life could start by chance. Both articles are by the same person, the second is a follow up to the first. Some very interesting numbers thrown around. They are both very long, but worth a read. I'm sure Vin will attempt to refute it all because it doesn't account for bone length, but I figured I'd post the articles anyway.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/640506/posts

http://www.nutters.org/docs/more-monkeys
==================================================================================================================

The chances of failure are still essentially 100%, even after 2^34 years. Hmmm. It doesn't look like were are going to get very far with this, but just for the heck of it, let's see if we are any better off with a lot of monkeys. Let's not hold back here -- I hypothesize 17 billion galaxies, each containing 17 billion habitable planets, each planet with 17 billion monkeys each typing away and producing one line per second for 17 billion years. What are the chances of the phrase "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION." not being included in the output?


the funniest thing I have ever read. ...because its true.

OneTruth

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1985
Offline
#35 : June 25, 2012, 06:54:15 AM

In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life. How can I suppose that Shakespeare himself was the result of a random process when it is quite clearly impossible for even a trivial fragment of his work to have arisen by chance? No sir, I see information all around me, and I conclude that it is the product of a far, far greater intelligence.

Information is the product of intelligence, not chance.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#36 : June 25, 2012, 08:41:42 AM


Please show me the remains of Adam and Eve. Unless of course you have a double standard.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

Bookert1905

*
Starter
****
Posts : 999
Offline
#37 : June 25, 2012, 10:26:06 AM

So Adam and eve were the first people and everyone came from them right? Then how did people become darker skinned?

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20164
Offline
#38 : June 25, 2012, 11:08:56 AM

Interesting that to some human evolution is seemingly the only type of evolution and since there is no "defintive proof" evolution in total must be false. Anyone besides me see the ridiculous flaw in that argument. Talk about a closed minded way to look at the world. 

There are thousands and thousands of examples of evloution/natural selection all around, none of which seem inconsitent to me with the notion of God, UNLESS you are part of the very very small minority that see the Bible solely as a literal text.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20164
Offline
#39 : June 25, 2012, 11:19:59 AM

Just so we're clear, we can prove without any doubt that dinosaurs exist because they have larger bones, yet evolution is still just a theory because of smaller bones? With all of this "overwhelming evidence", why is it still just a theory? Why can we prove certain creatures existed, yet can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them?

And while you're responding, how about a third attempt to explain why creatures we supposedly evolved from are still here in their original form.


Huh? Escobar, tell me definitely why dinosaurs no longer exist on earth?  Oh wait, there are only theories as to why dinosaurs no longer exist (because no one was around at the time) so then dinosaurs are not true either.  :-) Lol, truly funny stuff you type sometimes.  Sad other times

This statment shows you either don't get it or you are just being . . .  well . .  you:

Why can we prove certain creatures existed, yet can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them?


"Lucy" existed over 3 million years ago. (http://iho.asu.edu/lucy/ ) That's a fact, not a theory. Just like it is a fact that her pelvis and knee and cranium existed and were of the size and structure observed. So, its only you that says we "can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them."  It's not a theory, she existed. The "theory" is whether her unique characteristics are evidence of evolution just like it is a theory that dinosaurs were killed by a comet impacting earth etc. In any event,  considering the studies of her DNA, not sure how any reasonable person could say no, but there in lies the rub . . .  . "reasonable."

 Ironic that those most opposed to evoution because it is a "theory" are also those who premise their religious beliefs on nothing more than "faith." Thus, the absence of evidence is more compelling that the existence of some evidence????
: June 25, 2012, 11:22:11 AM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

DailyRich68

*
Starter
****
Posts : 573
Offline
#40 : June 25, 2012, 02:46:58 PM

So Adam and eve were the first people and everyone came from them right?

If that's the case, where the hell did Cain and Abel's wives come from?

BucNY

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7860
Offline
#41 : June 25, 2012, 03:34:22 PM

the worst type of blindness is the kind you willingly accept.


There is a saying in psychology.......IF YOU SPOT IT, YOU GOT IT. Basically it means we recognize traits in other people that we possess ourselves. Keep that in your mind and you'll find its true much much more than it's not. I'm sure you're one of the few that it's not true for.
: June 25, 2012, 03:50:15 PM BucNY

\\\\\\\"This forum needs a poster like BucNY now more than ever\\\\\\\"
      - Everyone

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#42 : June 25, 2012, 04:30:03 PM

Just so we're clear, we can prove without any doubt that dinosaurs exist because they have larger bones, yet evolution is still just a theory because of smaller bones? With all of this "overwhelming evidence", why is it still just a theory? Why can we prove certain creatures existed, yet can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them?

And while you're responding, how about a third attempt to explain why creatures we supposedly evolved from are still here in their original form.


Huh? Escobar, tell me definitely why dinosaurs no longer exist on earth?  Oh wait, there are only theories as to why dinosaurs no longer exist (because no one was around at the time) so then dinosaurs are not true either.  :-) Lol, truly funny stuff you type sometimes.  Sad other times

This statment shows you either don't get it or you are just being . . .  well . .  you:

Why can we prove certain creatures existed, yet can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them?


"Lucy" existed over 3 million years ago. (http://iho.asu.edu/lucy/ ) That's a fact, not a theory. Just like it is a fact that her pelvis and knee and cranium existed and were of the size and structure observed. So, its only you that says we "can't progress beyond the theory stage of creatures that existed after them."  It's not a theory, she existed. The "theory" is whether her unique characteristics are evidence of evolution just like it is a theory that dinosaurs were killed by a comet impacting earth etc. In any event,  considering the studies of her DNA, not sure how any reasonable person could say no, but there in lies the rub . . .  . "reasonable."

 Ironic that those most opposed to evoution because it is a "theory" are also those who premise their religious beliefs on nothing more than "faith." Thus, the absence of evidence is more compelling that the existence of some evidence?????


Your dinosaur "example" is absolutely horrible. Whether we know how or why they disappeared doesn't matter in the least, we still know AS FACT that they did exist...nobody can dispute it. How you combined not knowing how they died with not knowing if they existed is beyond me. Does the bar still exist? Does passing it require little more than winning a game of pin the tail on the donkey? Some of the things you put out there are flat out embarrassing.

If you read the articles I posted (you didn't) you would know why I, and others, believe what we do. It is FAR more logical to believe that a world so complex was designed by a higher being, than it is to believe it all happened by chance. We haven't even gotten into macroevolution, one species turning into a different species. It's already absurd enough to believe we evolved from some man ape, factor in the idea that tigers may have come from butterflies, or elephants were once koala bears...and you can start to see the complete lunacy in the whole thing.


Here's a snippet from the second article I posted:

Relevance to Evolution

In order to tie the question of monkeys and typewriters to the question of the existence of God, I've implicitly brought evolution into the picture. To be precise, I'm challenging the idea that complex things like living organisms can arise without intelligent input. If there is no simple formula for producing life, then an intelligent agent like God must fill in the gap. The "simple formula" can involve billions of years if necessary, but it must be a feasible mechanism for producing life all on its own, or else we need an Intelligent Creator.

No evolutionist of which I am aware supposes that complex organisms like humans arise fully formed by chance, but they all suppose that the forces of nature alone were sufficient to produce the first living cell. The "forces of nature" in this case carry two important components: deterministic laws, and random events. Gravity is an example of a deterministic law: you drop an apple, it falls down. Random events are like the motion of indiviual molecules in a fluid: you can't tell where one started or where it's going.

The main deterministic law involved in the process of evolution is supposed to be natural selection. Roughly speaking, this is the idea that some organisms are better at surviving and producing offspring than their peers, and the fact that they leave more offspring will mean that their genes will tend to proliferate in future generations. Thus, the winners produce more winners, and the losers tend to fade away. There are lots of arguments that one could have about natural selection, but none of them are particularly relevant to this document. Instead, I take issue with the random part of the mechanism. (I may address the deterministic part in a future monkeys document, though, so stay tuned to Nutters.org!)

In order to keep the natural selection part as far out of the picture as possible, let us consider the genesis of the first living cell. Some interesting scientific research has been performed into estimating the minimal gene set required for a living cell, and this has been followed up by experiments on Mycoplasma genitalium, the simplest known cell, to see how many genes could be damaged before the organism failed to survive and reproduce. The original estimate determined that approximately 256 genes would be the minimal set required to support a viable cell. The experiments on Mycoplasma genitalium, however, never managed to reach this low level: their experiments suggest that between 265 and 350 genes are necessary.

Even if we take the lower estimate of 256 (which isn't too far below the lower end of the experimental data), then it's clear that we have a problem that's far too big to produce by chance. What we have here is a requirement for 256 genes, and each individual gene is a small document in its own right. Given that it's ludicrous to suggest that a 100 keystroke document could arise by chance, it's well beyond ludicrous to suggest that the genome of the simplest organism could arise by chance in one step. But what good is anything less than the fully formed organism which, I might add, is considerably more complex than just its genes?

If you aren't familiar with terms such as "Miller-Urey experiment", read a brief introduction to naturalistic theories of life's origin so that you can understand what I'm criticising here, and how monkeys and typewriters are relevant to it. The keys on the monkey's typewriter are like the various things necessary to construct a living organism: in particular, they can be used to model amino acids, DNA base pairs, or DNA codons. The monkey is the random force that rearranges these things until they do something useful in their own right.

My particular experiments with monkeys assume the typewriter has all the necessary keys to get the job done, and no keys which are useless. Sometimes keys aren't used, but all the keys have a use. Compare this to a keyboard which contains a bunch of useless squiggles or heiroglyphics in addition to the letters of the language in which we wish to write our document -- keys which serve no purpose but to make the task more likely to fail. The monkey typewriter is similar to an ideal environment for the spontaneous formation of life: all the amino acids (or other components) are assumed to be present and ready for random arrangement. This is a far kinder environment than the output of Miller-Urey experiments, which contain all sorts of weird and wonderful (but fundamentally useless) things.

So let's take a look at a relevant extract of the "origin of life" document to which I hyperlinked earlier, and see where my particular objection lies in the overall process. Bear in mind that this is material being taught in all seriousness at a university biology course, not something that I am making up.

    Stage 2: The second stage produced organic molecules through interactions between inorganic substances, driven by energy sources such as lightning and ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

    Stage 3: In the third stage, the organic molecules present assembled randomly into collections capable of chemical interaction with the environment. As the collections formed, interactions taking place within them produced still more complex organic substances, including polypeptides and nucleic acids. Some of these collections of molecules were capable of carrying out primitive living reactions. There is little agreement on the form taken by the first spark of life in these primitive aggregates.

    Stage 4: In the fourth stage, a genetic code appeared in the primitive living aggregates. This code regulated duplication of information required for reproduction of the aggregates and established the link between nucleic acids and the ordered synthesis of proteins. Things were still pre-cellular, but with these developments (directed synthesis and reproduction), life was fully established in the molecular assemblages.

    -- Richard H. Falk, "How did life originate?"

As you can see, I'm being so kind as to assume that stage 2 is completely successful, such that we have an ideal environment for stage 3. But then what happens in stage 3? Basically, the stuff mixes around, producing more and more complex organic substances, until they start to exhibit life-like qualities. Exactly how these life-like qualities emerge or what the pre-cellular sort-of-life forms looked like is a matter of little agreement. Then in stage 4 a genetic code "appears"! Where the heck does it appear from? Where is the simple formula that we need to perform this apparent miracle? Note that this stage is still not quite at the level of the degenerate Mycoplasma genitalium which represents the simplest living organism we have observed directly.

My objections, therefore, are aimed largely at stages three and four of this scenario. Within the space of these two stages, all the complexity of a "simple" single celled organism with at least 256 genes must arise. This is a huge problem, and the amount of hard science that exists to show that it is at all feasible is pretty darn flimsy. For all I know, maybe it is possible for organisms to arise by a natural process like this, but if so, we know ten tenths of nothing at all about it in a scientific sense.

As a parting shot, let's assume that each of the 256 genes necessary for the supposed simplest cell could each arise independently and then fortuitously join up. Would this make the problem feasible? The short answer is no. The average number of base pairs per gene in Mycoplasma genitalium is about 1200, meaning that there are on average around 400 amino acids per protein. Each protein is thus the rough equivalent of a 345 keystroke document as produced by one of our monkey typewriters. This is still way into the ludicrous end of the spectrum, even if we allow for huge wads of error.

In short, molecular biology has a lot of explaining to do. Stories such as "more complex substances were formed", and "a genetic code appeared" may be satisfying to those who are predisposed to belief in a natural origin of life, but they are not testable scientific hypotheses. Random strings of letters or DNA base pairs do not become "more complex" simply by joining up into longer strings -- any more than a canvas more closely resembles a Rembrandt painting the more blobs of paint you hurl at it.

From a strictly mathematical perspective, the idea that life arose out of a pre-biotic soup is about as reasonable as the idea that Hamlet could arise out of alphabet noodle soup.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20164
Offline
#43 : June 25, 2012, 05:18:30 PM

It is FAR more logical to believe that a world so complex was designed by a higher being, than it is to believe it all happened by chance. We haven't even gotten into macroevolution, one species turning into a different species. It's already absurd enough to believe we evolved from some man ape, factor in the idea that tigers may have come from butterflies, or elephants were once koala bears...and you can start to see the complete lunacy in the whole thing.

I saw you post once that you like to argue to argue, so I assume that is your goal here BECAUSE I have already posted that evolution is not inconsistent with belief in God.  What you have done is create a straw man that certainly I never argued.  I have never said that everyhting happened by chance or that "one species turned into a different species"  So yes, I can see the "complete lunacy" of the false argument you have created.  LOL. I can also see WHY you created it.  It's much easier to argue against an extreme, so you define the concept of evolution as "tigers may have come from butterflies" and "elephants were once koala bears." Funny stuff.  Pretty transparent, even for a guy with a pin the tail on the donkey education like me :-)

Don't be so scared to think Escobar.  God will not hold it against you.  You have at least as much right as a sponge.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#44 : June 25, 2012, 05:38:26 PM

It is FAR more logical to believe that a world so complex was designed by a higher being, than it is to believe it all happened by chance. We haven't even gotten into macroevolution, one species turning into a different species. It's already absurd enough to believe we evolved from some man ape, factor in the idea that tigers may have come from butterflies, or elephants were once koala bears...and you can start to see the complete lunacy in the whole thing.

I saw you post once that you like to argue to argue, so I assume that is your goal here BECAUSE I have already posted that evolution is not inconsistent with belief in God.  What you have done is create a straw man that certainly I never argued.  I have never said that everyhting happened by chance or that "one species turned into a different species"  So yes, I can see the "complete lunacy" of the false argument you have created.  LOL. I can also see WHY you created it.  It's much easier to argue against an extreme, so you define the concept of evolution as "tigers may have come from butterflies" and "elephants were once koala bears." Funny stuff.  Pretty transparent, even for a guy with a pin the tail on the donkey education like me :-)

Don't be so scared to think Escobar.  God will not hold it against you.  You have at least as much right as a sponge.

Yeah, let's go ahead and provide some proof of that ridiculous claim. Then we can get back to the debate.

Actually I'll just enlighten you now. The Bible says we were created in His image. Are you inferring that God is the most basic form of matter to ever exist, waiting to evolve into something more meaningful? It's not possible to mix the two, either we were created in HIS image, and the Bible is accurate, or everything happened by chance and God is in no way related. You're trying to tie in the two because it's what you always do, take the safe route. I've called you out on this in other threads and it's holding true in this thread. Your opinions are ALWAYS the result of what will offend the smallest number of people, that's why you're trying to agree with evolutionists AND creationists at the same time, because you're too big of a coward to pick a side.

If the theory of evolution is correct, then what I said holds true, both macroevolution and microevolution would have to be true, and possible. You can call the argument "transparent' all you'd like, you can also call it accurate. Given the diversity of life on Earth animals would have had to come from other animals, at some point there would have had to of been a branch off with one animal becoming two different kinds of animals. That process would have had to repeat itself repeatedly to get the diversity we see today. Is there evidence of this? If so, show me. If not, why not? It is IMPOSSIBLE for the theory of evolution to be true if these things didn't take place. The chances of even a single creature evolving from nothing is beyond remote, the chances of everything we see today evolving from nothing isn't even worth talking about. Show me the "overwhelming proof" that at one point in time an animal branched off into two different animals, and that process repeated itself. I'll hold.
: June 25, 2012, 06:17:16 PM Escobar06
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 27
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Evolution is not science - it is nothing less than false religion « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools