An atheists world (2)

[Subduction Zone]

He was probably standing on top of one to holler over here and whine about creationism.

Translation: get the skeletons out of your own closet, before you worry about ours.

Having a mosque in your country is no more a "skeleton" than having a church is.

There is really no difference between the two.

 

[bhsmte]

Having a mosque in your country is no more a "skeleton" than having a church is.

There is really no difference between the two.

Isn't it funny how so many christians are so judgmental?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did gradyll go?

I thought he had questions about evolution.

Funny, he could not even ask one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Having a mosque in your country is no more a "skeleton" than having a church is.

There is really no difference between the two.

From a creationist perspective, you're right.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are all monotheistic creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm British so please feel free to destroy as much as you can of American youth with your crap, don't let up.

* After I respond. *

Isn't it funny how so many christians are so judgmental?

... solid aurum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From a creationist perspective, you're right.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are all monotheistic creationists.

No, sorry they are not.

Worldwide most Christians accept the theory of evolution. The same goes for most Jews. I do believe that most Muslims may be creationists.

Just think about that, AV probably agrees with more Muslims than Christians!

 

[mzungu]

From a creationist perspective, you're right.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are all monotheistic creationists.

Ah not another derailment

 

[AV1611VET]

You will do anything but think about the amount of crap you have spent your 59 years believing, you are pathetic.

I got saved when I was 27, so I still have 27 years to go before I hit "59 years of believing this amount of ..."

Goodbye.

May I get the door for you?

 

[createdtoworship]

Seriously? You have to ask? That goes back even further in time.

Once again evolution deals with life once it exists. Do you not understand that simple sentence? And the best Steven Meyers could come up with was an argument from ignorance. In other words "I don't understand this problem, therefore God did it." Do you see how that approach solves nothing?

There are groups studying abiogenesis right now. In fact here is a simple video that explains the basics:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube

Turn up your speakers.

my you tube doesn't work good, you'll have to sum it up.

(I can buffer about 30 seconds then they crash)

new computer too.
kinda

so whats the video about?

btw abiogenesis is evolution remember?

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. - abiogenesis
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds. "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."- UC Berkley website
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.

some of these six are found in biology textbooks as definitions of evolution:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf

if you don't agree with my definition of evolution then your commiting an equivocation fallacy, and an etymological fallacy.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, sorry they are not.

Worldwide most Christians accept the theory of evolution. The same goes for most Jews. I do believe that most Muslims may be creationists.

Just think about that, AV probably agrees with more Muslims than Christians!

I can't say this enough, and I love the way you guys facepalm, but for the record: theistic evolutionists are creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah not another derailment

Of course!

AV stands for: Another Vykolejit!

 

[nuttypiglet]

actually if the photos are missing, your evidence is missing. It's about evidence. The controversy over evolution is because scientists using the same evidence are coming up with a differing conclusions.

I think a three year old would recognise photos of a child as being a young human lol
Besides, we can OBSERVE the growth, which is something you cannot do with macro evolution. You hide behind "it takes millions of years". We can all hide behind such a statement, I can say "In millions of years I will show you that God exists".

 

[Subduction Zone]

my you tube doesn't work good, you'll have to sum it up.

(I can buffer about 30 seconds then they crash)

new computer too.
kinda

so whats the video about?

btw abiogenesis is evolution remember?

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.

some of these six are found in biology textbooks as definitions of evolution:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf

if you don't agree with my definition of evolution then your commiting an equivocation fallacy, and an etymological fallacy.

No, abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is abiogenesis.

Your Kent Hovind list is not definitive, if anything any claim of Hovind's that turns out to be correct is truly amazing.

To shortcut what the video shows is that abiogenesis is simply chemistry. It is rather complex, but no miracles need apply.

 

[lasthero]

some of these six are found in biology textbooks as definitions of evolution:

Which textbooks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how could a new computer crash watching YouTube?

Is it a computer or a tablet? Please tell me so that I can avoid such a product.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which textbooks?

It looks identical to Kent Hovind's list.

gradyll does not seem to understand what a proper textbook is.

 

[CarlosTomy]

you gotta remember teaching the controversy of evolution has won 8 states already, thats over 16 percent of the nation in a little over a decade. I assume in the next 50-75 years the rest of the nation will be teaching the controversy.

That is largely because the "controversy" they purport to teach isn't really a "controversy".

There's always questions in science, but the level of "controversy" in evolution is so very small. The whole desire to "teach the controversy" is limited to only those things which impinge on a RELIGION's views.

How many "controversies" are taught in quantum mechanics? Well certainly there are questions in that field, but you don't see people marching to have disclaimers put in science books.

Evolution is a pretty solid hypothesis. NOt perfect, but CERTAINLY nowhere nearly as controversial as specific religious organizations would like.

Science is taught in the earliest levels using the best available evidence and the least controversial stuff.

Only when the students are able to understand the scale of the questions are the questions delved into.

so back to the evidence, have you yet read "signature of the cell" by stephen meyer?

it basically asks how things like the double helix can evolve?

I have not read Meyer's book but I am familiar with him.

The problems with this sort of thing come down to a couple points:

1. When one is looking at a system that has the ability to "adapt" to and has had sufficient time in a given niche then it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between successful adaptation and some "original design".

2. When the ONLY way to find evidence for the designer is in "information entropy" it becomes even more questionable. Think about the nature of a "designer" capable of designing all of life on the earth. This being should of course be far more obvious and unable to hide so effectively. If the only way to know it is there is to rely on a rather hyper-complex concept such as information entropy (when most people don't even understand basic entropy in thermo let alone this sort of thing) it makes me question why I should prefer an "intelligent designer" to an adapted organism/structure.

Now your question about DNA, well that's actually quite good! And interestingly enough DNA is simply a chemical. Just like any number of chemicals in the world around you that follows very strict, relatively simple physical rules.

When you put water in the refrigerator you get ice. Ice is a highly organized structure of the molecules of water. In fact we see crystals spontaneously form in nature all the time without the need of a "designer' because the chemicals HAVE to conform in certain ways based on their CHARGE, SIZE, and BONDS.

DNA is very much like that. It essentially has to form a helix (which is NOT uncommon in many macromolecules) due to the nature of the bonds and the order in which the molecules are stacked.

DNA becomes "magical" in this discussion NOT because it is somehow magical but because it is a big molecule that people know is related to life. But it is little different to many regular polymers that you may experience in the world that don't carry for you (or other religious people) any sort of mystical meaning. (There are some vinyl polymers with a helical structure if I recall correctly, and then some starches take on a helical structure).

There is no reason to assume that these structures are somehow special apart from the basic "energy minimization" and "conformational" rules that govern regular chemicals.

 

[bhsmte]

And how could a new computer crash watching YouTube?

Is it a computer or a tablet? Please tell me so that I can avoid such a product.

Divine intervention?

 

[Skaloop]

my you tube doesn't work good, you'll have to sum it up.

(I can buffer about 30 seconds then they crash)

new computer too.
kinda

so whats the video about?

btw abiogenesis is evolution remember?

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds. "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."- UC Berkley website
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.

some of these six are found in biology textbooks as definitions of evolution:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf

if you don't agree with my definition of evolution then your commiting an equivocation fallacy, and an etymological fallacy.

Are you kidding? By saying that the evolution we are talking about is the same as the other types of evolution that you mention, you are the one equivocating and you are the one falsely relying on etymology.

 

[createdtoworship]

And how could a new computer crash watching YouTube?

Is it a computer or a tablet? Please tell me so that I can avoid such a product.

I already have most of what I need downloaded from the tube, it don't bother me. But it's a refurbished quad core win 7- but I have a feeling it's my antivirus thats doing it, oh well.

can still watch netflix, amazon movies