...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Mr Strawberry]

The little engine that could, got up the hill because of the confidence that he could. If people want to admit it or not, there can be a thin line between what some call faith, positive thinking and the power of suggestion.

I think this is a very valid comment. The placebo effect in medicine has measurable effects, even though it's just a sugar pill, simply because people believe it's doing them good. Similarly, if someone truly believes they can do something, like climb Everest or get a doctorate in science, the chances are they will do it or die trying.

But that doesn't mean that you can actually fly if you jump off a building merely because you believe with every ounce of your being that you will. And it doesn't mean that your missing arm will grow back, or your male pattern baldness will suddenly be reversed or that you can halt the relentless ageing process and be 20 years younger again, however much you'd like that or truly believe that it is going to happen. Miracles don't happen, I'm afraid.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that doesn't mean that you will actually fly if you jump off a building purely because you believe with every ounce of your being that you will,

When the time comes, I won't need to jump off a building!

[youtube]rh7bs2SL9Xg[/youtube]

 

[Mr Strawberry]

When the time comes, I won't need to jump off a building!

I suppose it depends whether you are cremated or not.

 

[Heissonear]

Isn't it amazing how people who have never created life can so freely critique the work of one who has; even going so far as to say that they have such a profound understanding of biology and science that if any genetic design doesn't fit with how they think it should be then the God who created it must be a liar or a deceiver. Atheists give testimony to the veracity of Psalms 14:1 on a daily basis. If you can get past their childish blaspheme it can be amusing to watch them discussing the characteristics of a God in which they don't believe.

Who are they trying to fool? Each other?

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed." The reason that we hear the same arguments over and over is that they all come from the same textbook. Atheists think they are profound because they can ask the same questions atheists ask day in and day out. It certainly takes a sound mind to cut and paste the things you read in a textbook. None of them seem to actually understand the nature of science.

Here's a clue. Science does not equal reality. In a purely physical world we're born, we reproduce and we die. That's it. There is no need for love. Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction. We should care nothing about the condition of the world we leave behind because we won't be here. If something will benefit me then I should take it. There can be no right or wrong in a physical world, only what is productive and what is counterproductive. It makes perfect sense to kill someone who might otherwsie eat your food. Dedicating your life to helping others is meaningless. There is no morality, no reward for good deeds, nothing but cool dirt at the end of the life span.

Surprise! We don't live in that world! In this world there is good and evil. No matter how you lie to yourself you still have a conscience which tells you what's right and wrong; even if you refuse to follow it. Where did that come from? What was the name of that tree in Eden again?

In a true physical world, every single reported NDE is a lie. Every premonition is a lie. Every reported apparition is a lie. Every unexplained image on film had to be fabricated. Ouija boards don't work and have never worked. Everyone who has ever felt the presence of God is insane. Every soldier who sacrifices himself for another is a fool.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

So clearly stated and so true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well put, and something with which I agree.

The physicists/engineers I know are not concerned with biological evolution; cosmic evolution is, of course, a different story. But, most physicists tend to treat cosmic evolution as something fundamentally different - usually stopping right before "primordial soup." I am in a minority of scientists that do not favor cosmic or biological evolution.

So the evoluton of our solar system stopped when life appeared on Earth 4 billion years ago? Really?

Or is it that cosmic evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution?

For me, there are entropic problems with biological evolution.

Then you should have real problems with embryonic development. A human baby starts out as one cell and develops into a mutlicellular, complex human being over just 9 months. If that can happen over 9 months without violating the laws of entropy, then why is it a problem if that process takes billions of years instead of 9 months?

But, with all of that said, you will still get looks of horrific disdain if you EVER profess your doubt about [cosmic or biological] evolution in the scientific community, much like confessing doubt about the deity of Christ in a church.

Just as you would get looks of horrific disdain if you denied the existence of germs at a biomedical conference. The look of disdain is because of your willingness to ignore the facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose it depends whether you are cremated or not.

If I'm cremated, I'll go up even sooner!

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

 

[Loudmouth]

Interestingly, physicists and cosmologists are the least likely to buy into evolution because they realize the neccessity of causation to existence.

Then they must also have problems with chemistry since how can you determine how atoms interact if you can't come up with a theory explaining where atoms came from?

Germ theory? They definitely reject that one. Afterall, since you can not come up with a causation for life existing you can not determine how germs interact with the host, right?

Do you understand why your argument is a bunch of nonsense? Or do you understand the concept that we can understand proximal causes without needing to know the distant origins of the system?

Don't forget car mechanics. Physicists don't trust them either because you can't determine how car parts interact if you can't explain the origin of the atoms that make up the car.

The universe had to come from somewhere, but there is no provision in science for the spontaneous creation of matter/ energy.

So you reject all of science then?

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't it amazing how people who have never created life can so freely critique the work of one who has;

You haven't show that anyone has created life. Perhaps you should start with this claim before criticizing others.

even going so far as to say that they have such a profound understanding of biology and science that if any genetic design doesn't fit with how they think it should be then the God who created it must be a liar or a deceiver.

That is actually what you are arguing. You are complaining that life evolved, as if you get decide how species come about. You are the one who is claiming that God just make it look like life evolved, even though it didn't. You are the one that must runaway from the facts found in nature because it doesn't fit how you want the world to be.

If you can get past their childish blaspheme it can be amusing to watch them discussing the characteristics of a God in which they don't believe.

So says the person who insists that God plants fake evidence.

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed."

So another dishonest debater who insults people before even hearing what they have to say. Nice move.

The reason that we hear the same arguments over and over is that they all come from the same textbook.

They come from the world around us. They are called facts.

Here's a clue. Science does not equal reality. In a purely physical world we're born, we reproduce and we die. That's it. There is no need for love.

Since when? Why wouldn't a physical world need emotional satisfaction?

Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction.

Since when?

The same for the other blindingly ignorant statements you made after the one above.

Surprise! We don't live in that world! In this world there is good and evil.

Yes, just as there should be if we evolved as a social species capable of empathy and reason.

 

[BarryDesborough]

I somehow don't think you see me when you look at a mirror.

You are the one who thinks he left detailed but false and unnecessary evidence of common ancestry in our DNA. You have a pretty dim view of your "God".

 

[BarryDesborough]

I give up ... why?

I give up ... what?

I give up ...why?

Only if God (that's why the caps) did it your way ... in my opinion.

He didn't. He is not the liar that you presume Him to be.

 

[Lollerskates]

So the evoluton of our solar system stopped when life appeared on Earth 4 billion years ago? Really?

Or is it that cosmic evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution?

*sigh*

I never said that "the evolution of our solar system stopped when life appeared on earth 4 billions years ago." "Really," I didn't. I said physicists generally are not concerned with cosmic evolution after the "primordial soup." Moreover, I said that physicists treat biological and cosmic evolution as fundamentally different. Some physicists do concern themselves with biological: biophysicists, for example, may be very interested in terrestrial and cosmic evolution, and how they relate to each other.

And, I did not say "cosmic evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution." It should have been implied that I acknowledge some relationship between the two, seeing as though I said that physicists stop at the "primordial soup" point (for study.)

Then you should have real problems with embryonic development. A human baby starts out as one cell and develops into a mutlicellular, complex human being over just 9 months. If that can happen over 9 months without violating the laws of entropy, then why is it a problem if that process takes billions of years instead of 9 months?

No, I shouldn't. And, I don't. An embryo is already part of a complex biological organism that has genetic code programmed to conduct certain tasks (the mother.) The embryo itself is also a complex biological organism that contains genetic instruction that dictate its development - specific to certain conditions. Adding in a constant source of energy (eating, oxygen from the mother, blood, etc.) the miracle of life does not cause me problems with respect to entropy. The embryo already had the program to grow into a baby in nine months written into its genes. If an embryo randomly became a complex organism like a baby with no discernible "program" (i.e. genetics,) and without a constant source of energy feeding it, then that would be a problem.

With respect to biological evolution, the question of programming is troublesome. With the embryo example, we have the luxury of saying the body/organism already has the instruction manual (genetics.) For a large sphere full of cooling chemicals with extremely high entropy, how does one go that to organization with molecular and structural functionality? Also, the chirality of DNA and proteins poses a problem. Every amino acid in every protein in our body has the same left-handedness. Can amino acids form randomly? Of course. Can amino acids with 100% the same chirality form randomly? No, you will get a equal amount of its isomer.

Just as you would get looks of horrific disdain if you denied the existence of germs at a biomedical conference. The look of disdain is because of your willingness to ignore the facts.

Well, of course you would get disdainful looks denying the existence of germs at a biomedical conference, because it is "accepted" that germs exist today. If you did not deny the existence of germs at a biomedical conference about 400 years ago, you would get the same disdainful looks. It isn't about willingness to ignore "facts," because are changed and amended with time. It is recognizing what is accepted, and being humble enough to say that what you understand today may not be correct - it is just "accepted."

 

[Loudmouth]

*sigh*

I never said that "the evolution of our solar system stopped when life appeared on earth 4 billions years ago." "Really," I didn't. I said physicists generally are not concerned with cosmic evolution after the "primordial soup."

Yes, they are concerned with the evolution of our solar system after life appeared on Earth. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Moreover, I said that physicists treat biological and cosmic evolution as fundamentally different.

They are fundamentally different since they work through different mechanisms.

Some physicists do concern themselves with biological: biophysicists, for example, may be very interested in terrestrial and cosmic evolution, and how they relate to each other.

Which alleles are passed on from one generation to the next works through a different mechanism than the accumulation of ice on a Kuiper Belt object. I think we can agree with that, can't we?

No, I shouldn't. And, I don't. An embryo is already part of a complex biological organism that has genetic code programmed to conduct certain tasks (the mother.)

Where in the laws of thermodynamics does it say that multicellular organisms with a programmed code can ignore the laws of thermodynamics? Do you know how thermodynamics works?

Also, if I put energy into a system is entropy allowed to decrease? Yes or no?

The embryo itself is also a complex biological organism that contains genetic instruction that dictate its development - specific to certain conditions. Adding in a constant source of energy (eating, oxygen from the mother, blood, etc.) the miracle of life does not cause me problems with respect to entropy.

So the womb is like the Earth in that it is supplied with a continuous supply of energy. If that is so, why is there a problem with evolution and entropy? Which step in the process of evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics?

The embryo already had the program to grow into a baby in nine months written into its genes.

So you can ignore thermodynamics with the right program? Really?

With respect to biological evolution, the question of programming is troublesome.

There is nothing about programming in the laws of thermodynamics. None.

For a large sphere full of cooling chemicals with extremely high entropy, how does one go that to organization with molecular and structural functionality?

Which law prevents an input of energy producing a more complex system?

Well, of course you would get disdainful looks denying the existence of germs at a biomedical conference, because it is "accepted" that germs exist today.

No, there are mountains of evidence supporting the existence of germs and their role in infectious diseases. The same applies to the Big Bang and Evolution. They are just as well supported as Germ Theory.

It isn't about willingness to ignore "facts," because are changed and amended with time.

Yes it is about ignoring facts.

 

[Lollerskates]

Yes, they are concerned with the evolution of our solar system after life appeared on Earth. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.



They are fundamentally different since they work through different mechanisms.



Which alleles are passed on from one generation to the next works through a different mechanism than the accumulation of ice on a Kuiper Belt object. I think we can agree with that, can't we?



Where in the laws of thermodynamics does it say that multicellular organisms with a programmed code can ignore the laws of thermodynamics? Do you know how thermodynamics works?

Also, if I put energy into a system is entropy allowed to decrease? Yes or no?



So the womb is like the Earth in that it is supplied with a continuous supply of energy. If that is so, why is there a problem with evolution and entropy? Which step in the process of evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics?



So you can ignore thermodynamics with the right program? Really?



There is nothing about programming in the laws of thermodynamics. None.



Which law prevents an input of energy producing a more complex system?



No, there are mountains of evidence supporting the existence of germs and their role in infectious diseases. The same applies to the Big Bang and Evolution. They are just as well supported as Germ Theory.



Yes it is about ignoring facts.

You have an ability for finding implicit arguments unrelated to explicitly stated assertions, at least with what I present. This is the second instance.

I hope you find that for which you are looking.

 

[Tomk80]

You have an ability for finding implicit arguments unrelated to explicitly stated assertions, at least with what I present. This is the second instance.

I hope you find that for which you are looking.

Translation: I can't answer your arguments so I'll run away now.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have an ability for finding implicit arguments unrelated to explicitly stated assertions, at least with what I present. This is the second instance.

"I said physicists generally are not concerned with cosmic evolution after the "primordial soup.""--Lollerskates

Please try to restate this in a way that better communicates your thoughts on the matter.

I hope you find that for which you are looking.

I found the laws of thermodynamics, and they say nothing about programs, genetic or otherwise.

 

[HitchSlap]

*sigh*

I never said that "the evolution of our solar system stopped when life appeared on earth 4 billions years ago." "Really," I didn't. I said physicists generally are not concerned with cosmic evolution after the "primordial soup." Moreover, I said that physicists treat biological and cosmic evolution as fundamentally different. Some physicists do concern themselves with biological: biophysicists, for example, may be very interested in terrestrial and cosmic evolution, and how they relate to each other.

And, I did not say "cosmic evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution." It should have been implied that I acknowledge some relationship between the two, seeing as though I said that physicists stop at the "primordial soup" point (for study.)





No, I shouldn't. And, I don't. An embryo is already part of a complex biological organism that has genetic code programmed to conduct certain tasks (the mother.) The embryo itself is also a complex biological organism that contains genetic instruction that dictate its development - specific to certain conditions. Adding in a constant source of energy (eating, oxygen from the mother, blood, etc.) the miracle of life does not cause me problems with respect to entropy. The embryo already had the program to grow into a baby in nine months written into its genes. If an embryo randomly became a complex organism like a baby with no discernible "program" (i.e. genetics,) and without a constant source of energy feeding it, then that would be a problem.

With respect to biological evolution, the question of programming is troublesome. With the embryo example, we have the luxury of saying the body/organism already has the instruction manual (genetics.) For a large sphere full of cooling chemicals with extremely high entropy, how does one go that to organization with molecular and structural functionality? Also, the chirality of DNA and proteins poses a problem. Every amino acid in every protein in our body has the same left-handedness. Can amino acids form randomly? Of course. Can amino acids with 100% the same chirality form randomly? No, you will get a equal amount of its isomer.



Well, of course you would get disdainful looks denying the existence of germs at a biomedical conference, because it is "accepted" that germs exist today. If you did not deny the existence of germs at a biomedical conference about 400 years ago, you would get the same disdainful looks. It isn't about willingness to ignore "facts," because are changed and amended with time. It is recognizing what is accepted, and being humble enough to say that what you understand today may not be correct - it is just "accepted."

Sounds like someone broke into an expired box of Creo-Munch cereal and ate until they puked.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then you should have real problems with embryonic development. A human baby starts out as one cell and develops into a mutlicellular, complex human being over just 9 months. If that can happen over 9 months without violating the laws of entropy, then why is it a problem if that process takes billions of years instead of 9 months?

Intelligent people doe not use fetal development to prove evolution. They know that the fetus, the baby and the subsequent adult have the same DNA, so they know that argument is a vacuous lie.

 

[CabVet]

Intelligent people doe not use fetal development to prove evolution. They know that the fetus, the baby and the subsequent adult have the same DNA, so they know that argument is a vacuous lie.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then they must also have problems with chemistry since how can you determine how atoms interact if you can't come up with a theory explaining where atoms came from?

Germ theory? They definitely reject that one. Afterall, since you can not come up with a causation for life existing you can not determine how germs interact with the host, right?

Absolutely the most idiotic argument ever. We don't need to know the origin of anything to observe what we observe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Absolutely the most idiotic argument ever.

Yes, creationists arguments usually are.