Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Tomn , Fantastic thread! It just goes to show that evolution has so many holes. It is no wonder why many atheists and those who believe in evolution now are saying that aliens have created us. They CANNOT DENY the evidence for an intelligent creator, yet, they just don't want Yahweh, so they resort to embracing the aliens..... The bible talks about this as the great deception.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Jeremiah 33:3 Call on me in prayer and I will answer you. I will show you great and mysterious things which you still do not know about.'
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Call to Yeshua Jesus!
No, it's actually this way - people who are racists look for any reasoning to make their believes approved. And Darwinism may provide such. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
If all the creatures were created by God with love, how so that the so religious US south used to be so racist? Where did the slavery hold the longest?
I see, so the Bible is divinely inspired. How do you know? Because the Bible says so!!!
Show me the evidence for science and medicine? Where does it state that the heart pumps blood and that brain (at least in some people) is responsible for emotions and reasoning? Where does it say that plants and animals are composed of basically the same building blocks - cells. That those are further composed from proteins and lipinds and our hereditary information is in DNA. And all of this is composed of atoms. Which are actually not not indivisible as old Greeks (but not Christians) thought, but are composed of yet another sub-atomic particles? Where does it state anything about combustion engine?
No, you have it actually wrong, the Christians are converting to Islam, just check the western Europe.
The rest is just such bullshit, it's even hard to comment...
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
I would be more impressed if God had done that for the native Africans or native Americans before any missionaries, crusaders, or emigrating Protestants had entered the picture.
You got it wrong! There is NO evidence of "an intelligent creator" just as there is NO evidence of microbe to human evolution. There is, however, abundant evidence that WE can create new species and WE can send them to other planets. Hence, we can extrapolate that there is a possibility that this was done to us in the past. The theory that LIFE is older than our planet is supported by math, not bible.
Exactly. They also used certain Bible verses to justify slavery. That doesn't mean Christianity leads to racism, it just means there are racist Christians.
God did not do it, Gravity did it. Gravity in something as massive as a star, all of which are powered by nuclear fusion, so I guess that is, after all, a natural process.
Russian science is often wrong being more political than scientific, but I would need an actual reference to such a claim to provide a detailed rebuttal.
The Earth's magnetic field does not decay along a half-life curve, as radioactive elements do. It varies in complex and non periodic, cyclical ways, as we have demonstrated by sampling past magnetic fields as they were captured in the iron rich magma along the sides of mid ocean ridges, as the sea floor has spread.
You have no understanding of population growth, it is not a constant as you have modeled it so your "rules" are wrong. There is a saying in science, "garbage in, garbage out."
There are exposed outcroppings of rocks of almost every conceivable age, somewhere on earth. That is dependent upon the overlying rock and the weathering that it is exposed to.
There are no human footprints inside of dinosaur footprints except in the imaginations of some charlatans.
This is know as the, "argument from irreducible complexity," and it has been debunked many, many times with respect to many, many structures. Each time a door is slammed in the creationists' face (as it has been with respect to many structures and many metabolic pathways) they attempt to open another one, and the Evolutionists scurry about and slam it too, and the process goes on and on.
But the truth is, even if the Evolutionists can't (for the moment) explain something, all that wins for the Creationists is the admission that the Evolutionists don't know (yet). It not until the Creationists commit the intellectual fraud of making an argument from ignorance, that they can pretend to have taken some ground. But the reality is that even if something cannot, at this moment, be perfectly explained, that is not evidence that "Goddidit." That is only evidence that, perhaps, we don't know (yet). “God of the Gaps” doesn’t cut it.
Michael Behe, the prominent Creationist, defines an "irreducibly complex form" as: "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
While surrounded by some fancy words and the language of science, this is nauht but his personal incredulity that the world could arise through naturalistic processes. Behe's argument is no more advanced or "evolved" than William Paley's "Watch Argument" which stated that since a watch looked created, it must have a creator. Essentially, Behe is stating "because I can't see a natural explanation, Goddidit" - this ignores any possibility that a naturalistic explanation or evolutionary pathway will later be discovered.
It's also quite telling that Behe never goes on to attempt to define "several" as a meaningful number, giving intelligent design a crucial untestability. It gives the creators infinite room to declare any number of things (that do not presently have an evolutionary explanation) "irreducibly complex", while at the same time denying the applicability to other structures with a known evolutionary history.
Biologist Björn Brembs suggests an alternative definition for irreducibly complexity: "A statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist."
Although irreducible complexity is offered as evidence of creationism, this conclusion is questionable. Robustness is generally considered to indicate good design, not precariousness. Which parachute would you consider better designed - one which ceased to function if a single part was missing, or one which has a back-up ripcord? Irreducible complexity is at best evidence for crappy design and at worst an example of highly muddled thinking disguised as “common sense.”
That is why I now try to not address arguments from irreducible complexity and ignorance in the specific but rather dispose of the entire class of such foolishness in one swell foop.
Among the more famous early instances of an argument from "irreducible complexity" is the argument by Herbert Spencer that the huge antlers of the Irish Elk together with the other bodily structures needed to support them formed a combination that could not have arisen by natural selection alone (Robert J. Richards, Was Hitler a Darwinian?: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013, page 125).
Another obvious counterpoint is that irreducible complexity can easily be demonstrated in technology, and the Creationists’ arguments become utterly ludicrous when applied to a real process of design: e.g., a modern steel mill makes steel, but has vital components that are themselves made of steel. The Creationists’ claim, applied to this example, would be "a designer must have magically created the steel components of the first mill,” rather than imagine that perhaps the first steel was not made in a modern steel mill.
One way in which "Irreducibly complex" structures develop is via a process known as scaffolding, wherein a structure gains in complexity via duplication and mutation of parts, then parts are knocked out via mutations, leaving a structure with no direct linear development from the original, basic structure, much the way an arch is built. Other paths by which irreducibly complex structures may form include cooption of parts from other structures. Both of these can be seen in the case of the bacterial flagellum, which includes many parts taken from a secretory pump.
Another is "function shift" which can also explain how irreducibly complex structures can evolve. During evolution, a feature may shift from one function to another-a classic example is the feathers of a bird. They originally evolved in dinosaurs as a way to keep warm, but birds then evolved to use them for flight. Half a wing might not be useful for flying, but it will still keep you warm. Our arms are another example-they were originally legs, but evolved into arms when we became bipedal.
Additionally, to assert that something is irreducibly complex is to assert that none of the parts could have provided a benefit by themselves. The more parts there are, the more impressive it is that all of them developed; however, this also means that there are more possibilities that have to be eliminated. For instance, if someone claims that there are ten parts to a particular irreducibly complex structure, then there are ten different possibilities for which one developed first. If even just one of them has a use that we are unaware of, then the structure is not irreducibly complex.
With thanks to Rationalwiki
The problem is not with with gradual (or even episodic) evolution; the problem is with the misapplication of “common sense” by fools and their tools and their invention of "facts". Your logic is fatally flawed and easily falsified in the both the specific and general case, as has been shown above.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest