Login

Join for Free!
118307 members


Another creationist thread

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby mith » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:43 am

a) Again, you're treating mutation as only of one type. Read my other post if you didn't see it the first time.

c) Just because it is math does not make it true; if you cared to look at my ideal gas law example. The question I ask is, why do you think this math model of evolution is an accurate representation, because I already stated that it is incomplete and oversimplified.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby elevent » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:12 am

Who is the faggot that changed my post thread to "another creationist thread?"
elevent
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:24 pm

Postby elevent » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:16 am

As usual, the evolution disciple answer questions and facts with his own question. Pathetic.

I could care less what you call it. God, Aliens, or even the Predator.

Intelligent design IS necessary. You don't look at a computer and say "oh look it came about by chance". Like I said before......


...you study in highly sophisticated labs that were intelligently designed. You study with highly sophisticated tools, calibrated to the teeth, all intelligently designed, and yet even though these had a maker you say that the cell had no maker.

Fucking bullshit and you know it. You can't swallow your pride anymore than the government can to admit it's mistakes.
elevent
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:24 pm


Postby mith » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:35 am

I changed it. If you read the forum rules, it states that threads should have titles that reflect their content.

If you were truly asking a question you would be interested in knowing the answer. However instead of debating the issue logically, it seems you prefer to insult. Which is fine :).
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby elevent » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:47 am

Are you fucking kidding me? Have you not read the countless facts I have taken the time to type? Give me a break. Your answers are all based on "theory"... what do you expect? I sit and put paragraphs of information that you just ignore. Stay on Albert Camus' dick you extentialist faggot
elevent
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:24 pm

Postby Tzachitx » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:10 pm

elevent wrote:Are you fucking kidding me? Have you not read the countless facts I have taken the time to type? Give me a break. Your answers are all based on "theory"... what do you expect? I sit and put paragraphs of information that you just ignore. Stay on Albert Camus' dick you extentialist faggot


For starters, you might as well cool your ass cos shouting and balling like a baby won't make people think "hmm... y'know... with the amount he's swearing, he might just be on to something with this god stuff!"

Secondly, theory. Theory is a problem? You are denouncing the idea of a belief based on theories, when yours is a belief based on... belief. Just blind reasoning. No facts, no evidence. You're just coming in and shouting "it's logical! There MUST be a creator!"

Well whether it's a logical concept or not, it's far, far, far from having any sort of actual backing. Just because you think it's a good idea does not make it right. I'm sorry, but that's not the way the world works.

The sad thing about people like you is that you seem to be under the impression that every existentialist says "there is no god! take that!", when infact most of us don't. What we say would be "based on what we see, and the evidence we have, against the lack of evidence for intelligent design, it would be illogical to assume that intelligent design is the case". That's the difference between exitentialists and creationists. You say "based on my logic, there must be a god", we say "based on evidence, there PROBABLY isn't a god".

If the existentialists here feel this is incorrect then I apologise, obviously I can't speak for everyone.

Also, you say "facts i've take the time to type". Maybe you should check exactly what "fact" means. Also didn't you say you were doing biology at school, and that's why you're here? Well i can guarantee that at least one person that took the time to reply to you actually has qualifications in biology. Doesn't being in school for something mean you're... y'know... learning it? As in, you need to get better at it? If someone answers you, there's a good chance they have more knowledge on the subject than you.

Anyway, getting back to the point, you have no right to complain about "theories", when theories based on evidence are far better than what you have.

Which is a theory based on... well...

Absolutely nothing.
Tzachitx
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:01 pm

Postby scibtag » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:21 pm

Ahh, the creationists can be so funny. I like that he tried for subtlety and lying at first but as soon as that didn't work he just started hurling insults.

Even though you won't change your mind, I had some thoughts on the whole "math" issue. First, math doesn't describe the real world. Yes 2+2=4, but 2 atoms of uranium added to 2 other atoms of uranium at sufficient velocity will certainly not equal 4 atom of uranium. Math describes a theoretical universe of ideas. By mapping real world concepts to the world of ideas we can work with them in ways that allow us to find out things about the real world, this doesn't mean math describes the universe all by itself.

Second, combinatorics and probability don't really apply to the situation. Imagine you have a machine that flips a coin at random intervals of time in a box with a light. Now this light is setup so that it is only on when the coin is heads. You are then allowed to randomly view the box and what do you come up with? The probability of the coin being heads is 100%!

Probability only appears when you are looking at a large number of equal cases. We can't observe all the times life didn't evolve, because there was no life to observe it.
scibtag
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:06 pm

Postby moofocracy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:28 pm

1. I agree with Tzachitx. I myself am a Christian existentialist. I think religion is totally irrational, but finding it so needn't keep you from believing in it. Existentialism is pretty complicated. I know a lot of very smart people who find it to be sheer bollocks. In any case, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

2. Practically all of science is based on inductive reasoning. Since it's only observation, it can only be so accurate. However, it *is* all based on observation. True scientists only make theories in order to explain the evidence found. Anything else is not a theory, it's only conjecture.

3. Given that scientists find this evidence, as scibtag noted, then the odds of the thing have nothing to do with it. The case is that we observe change. We observe some change in the genetic code (the genotype), we observe mechanisms of change such as meiosis, random mutation (which can be for better or worse), etc. The theory of evolution is no more than an attempt to explain the evidence at hand without use of the supernatural fiat involved with intelligent design.

4. This is not totally spontaneous generation here. Every particle has a certain set of properties (basic science here, stay with me). These particles then interact. They tend to act in particular ways. These interactions build upon more interactions build upon more interactions. Now, in localized areas, open systems can develop spontaneously as long as there is an energy source. For the earth, this is the sun. These spontaneous developments are not random, they are the result of the interactions that precede them. These spontaneous developments trigger more spontaneous developments. This continuing chain reaction can continue as long as the system has the energy to sustain it. They can go in more than one direction (if we go with certain interpretations of quantum physics), and what the result is is nothing more than the sum of a million (well, quite more than a million) possibilities.

5. Now, here's the key. The results are improbable, but thats not the point. The theory of evolution does not claim that evolution is what usually should happen on a cosmological scale (that is, as I mean it, the development of a universe). As far as we can tell, the universe could have gone in infinitely many directions. If we follow that chain of logic, we find only that we are the improbable result. However, the fact of our existence does not demand intent or reason. No part of science demands divine intervention. There is room for that at the beginning of the universe, where theoretical physics becomes useless as the laws of nature themselves seem to break down at a point one Planck time after the Big Bang. At that point, you enter the field of speculative physics.

6. The theory of evolution claims only to explain the mechanism by which speciation occurs. It does not claim that God does not exist. It does not claim to explain how DNA came about (that's microbiology, biochemistry, and gene theory, which combined with Darwinian evolution comprise what is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.) In fact, when the theory of evolution was first published, DNA was totally unknown, and Darwin had no more than a passing awareness of Mendelian genetics when he wrote Origin. Darwin only reported his conclusions based on what he saw. It's later experimentation and observation have proven his theories to be not only sound, but a cornerstone of modern biology.

6. My point is, Mr. elevent, in short, there's a lot of statistics and logic backing up this part of biology, the theory of evolution. You don't seem to be particularly well-read on the topic, and I think that a standard university-level introductory biology textbook would be a fine resource for you to consult. After that, we can move on to cosmology and the origin of life, which seems to be your real target.
moofocracy
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Another creationist thread

Postby blather » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:22 pm

elevent wrote:I'm taking Biology 111...


Right here is where this topic should have ended.

You're out of your league.
blather
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:21 pm

Postby kollege » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:35 am

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. elevent proves that statement. He is trying to fight a battle, when there is no such battle. There is no such battle, because it is over since people use their brain for reason, rather than insulting. The shift in the behavior of humans is like a mutation in the genome of ideas. The universe works like P-53 in justifing a specific behavior. If something (elevents behavior e.g.) is not suitable, it is discarded. One can simply say: unsuitable mutations discards themselves. The same is true for ideas/behaviors.

to say it in blathers words: You're out of your league.

:)
kollege
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:17 am

Postby alextemplet » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:56 am

Apparently I'm the only Christian here willing to step out and claim his faith; I do not know what religion the author of this thread is but I'd be willing to bet that, based on how much he insults and swears, he's not doing a very good job of practicing his faith.

That said, I'm not going to argue against evolution (That would be foolish.) nor am I going to argue against God (equally foolish). All I'm going to do is echo the words of the late and great Pope John Paul II:

"Evolution is compatible with Christianity."

Agree if you like; disagree with you like. I'll just continue to watch the feathers fly and I won't be surprised at all if this guy gets banned for his obscenity.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby genovese » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:08 pm

Could "elevent" please explain why an intelligent designer would place a flexible tube (the urethra) through the middle of a gland (the prostate) which enlarges with age until it very often causes obstruction to the outflow of urine? I could imagine that this defect could be attributable to random mutations which would be unaffected by Natural Selection because most men would be able to procreate in their youth before dying of urinary obstruction and renal failure; but would you really want to attribute this design to an all powerful Creator? What kind of a Creator is this?
User avatar
genovese
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests