Evolutionist "poof" theory

The Gregorian · Mar 4, 2005

corvus_corax said:
1- Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis. One may follow the other, but the creation of the first pre-protocell (if even that) is not evolution (see #2)
2- So if you dont think that evolution is a fact, then you believe that alelles do not actually change in frequency over time?

1: true, but one relies upon the other to be a complete coherant thought. otherwise you get two theories like:

a: My bed is soft
and
b: and hazardously close to my basboard heater, therefore warm.

Each of them are seperate... sentance fragments... but meaningless until you put them together.

2: Unless I'm more tired than I think I am... and methinks I'm very sleepy, and am going to bed after this post.... I assume you're talking about natural selection passing on certain genotypes creating altering phenotypes in the species.... That is observable, that's a fact. I havn't seen any evidence showing that new alelles just pop up and become a breedable part of a species.

AAAAND I'm done for the night.

it's been a blast, but I'm leaving town for the weekend tomorrow, so I won't likely respond until monday after class (haha, I got you good! I went back to college... that makes me a college kid again. woot!). So... eherm.... uhh... yea. g'night.

Arikay · Mar 4, 2005

Well I doubt you will get an explanation for how a full blown cell formed from inanimate matter, as that theory has been disproven for awhile now.

Modern abiogenesis on the other hand, a basic bit about the possibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

corvus_corax · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
but other than that (including you corvus... even though I've come down on you like 3 times today) I'm honestly enjoying this conversation and I don't want any hard feelings.

GET OFF MY BACK!!!!!!

Hehe
j/k of course. Just dont get upset if I likewise come down on you. Its not personal (well, usually not)

Hands Open · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
it also says he created the universe in one day... but that includes the earth, and how could he create something in the time it takes for an object to spin around it's axis one time before that object existed. It's unlikely that those "days" were 24 hours.... rather just a "period of time" (maybe 1 second, maybe 5,365,892 billion years... no way to keep track because the earth wasn't around to rotate around the sun 5,365,892 billion times.

This is a famous explanation that sadly is silly. I think I heard it first in "Inhertit the Wind". The idea was that 6 days could have been millions of years (so that christians can evade the fact that their previous claim was scientifically absurd) the problem is that there is this little asumption that god needs the sun to tell when a day is done. Before science people just said "6 days must have been 6 days" Isn't your god all powerful? Why not just have faith like a child an believe?

evolution can't be a "fact" because there still is no explanation as to how it started. Therefore it's not even a complete idea yet.

This is cute. As a matter of fact the sun comming up must still be a theory as we don't know how it began. On top of that lets remember that we don't know where gravity came from.....

You misunderstand "theory" to mean "we have no clue whatsoever" when it really means "although not perfect and abolute it is one of the best working and well researched ideas we have."

How are we to learn when no one has anything about how it started. In over 50 posts, the best explanation I've got was about a pink anal dwelling sprite. Because there is no completion to this theory, what is more logical than to try to explore the possibility that it MIGHT not be true?
[/size][/color][/font]

This is what scienece does friend. Once an idea has been brought up every scientist does everything he can to prove it wrong. The fewer exceptions the stronger the theory. But the scientists also work on this thing called logic and the scientific method. As of yet nobodys found a better way to test claims.

I don't suspect you have a better one?

Hands Open · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
1: true, but one relies upon the other to be a complete coherant thought. otherwise you get two theories like:

a: My bed is soft
and
b: and hazardously close to my basboard heater, therefore warm.

Each of them are seperate... sentance fragments... but meaningless until you put them together.

2: Unless I'm more tired than I think I am... and methinks I'm very sleepy, and am going to bed after this post.... I assume you're talking about natural selection passing on certain genotypes creating altering phenotypes in the species.... That is observable, that's a fact. I havn't seen any evidence showing that new alelles just pop up and become a breedable part of a species.

So I thought I'd give you something to think about on Monday.

Each theory is a separate sentence fragment? I'd have to honestly disagree. They may be complementary, but I can have evolution without having abiogenesis, therefore they are most certainly not dependant. As we already said that (and as you thankfully just reiterated) evolution is fact, then we must mow regard the theories as building blocks. You may have problems with abiogenesis, and I don't see the need to argue with you on this as so many others are doing that job.

So lets remember that oversimplification is never good and giving the attributes of one thing to another simply because you find them similar and that helps you argument is also never good.

While you may disagree with any theory (and are entitled to) you have to come back with good explanations and solid reasoning as to why. You're also gunna wanna have a really good back up theory.

I have yet to see anything but word play and "just off the mark" logic. Tell me how college works out for ya.

leccy · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
When you can put two cats in a room and come out with a frog, I'll give you $10,000.

I can do that.

Where can I collect my $10,000?

It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution though.

Dennis Moore · Mar 4, 2005

dad said:
You may call some after creation process 'evolution' if you want. To me, evolution is the old fable that life sprung from someplace, somehow, by some chain of flukes, and proceeded to be responsible for all life on earth.

Than you are demonstrably and completey wrong, because that is not what evolution is defined as by the scientific community and the world in general. It would be nice if we could all argue for or against things based on our own personal definitions of them, but that would make all discourse meaningless. Instead, try learning about what's actually up for debate before presuming to debate it.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Mar 4, 2005

Yes, JetBlack... YOU scolded me for not accepting the fact that no one has "any reasonable conclusion" as to how abiogenises could work without outside intelligent stimuli. If there are no reasonable explanations... why is it unreasonable to go with the most logical choice until a reasonable explanation is given?

This is "God of the Gaps". Once of a day we didn't know how lightning was formed. Does that mean that we should have gone for Thor throwing it down from heaven?

For the theist, God is in everything, including those bits that also have a scientific explanation. Relegating Him to the currently unexplained bit is to relegate Him to an ever shrinking minor part.

Dennis Moore · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
If there are no reasonable explanations... why is it unreasonable to go with the most logical choice until a reasonable explanation is given?

Because the most reasonable and logical approach is to withhold final judgement and seek answers based on evidence, not embrace baseless myths with no evidence to support them.

When we say "we're not sure," we're not saying that there's zero evidence for early cosmology, the Big Bang, etc; we're saying that based in the facts at hand, we cannot [and it would be scientificallly irresponsible] to offer up a concrete theory with certainty. But tentative hypotheses abound, and they're being tested even as I type. We're not sure which will play out as the most correct, but we're progressing towards an answer. The Big Bang was an early hypothesis; and though the term itself remains, the ideas behind it have changed significantly with every new discovery we make. And that is a good thing, because each increase in our knowledge, each revision to our hypotheses, brings us closer to the truth.

Dennis Moore · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
I'm truely sorry, I come to learn.

To be brutally honest, I don't believe you.

This means... you. Don't link me to another page. I've read those pages. I want to know what YOU know, because obviously you have an understanding that I don't have, and that I didn't attain from those pages.

Why? I'm not a scientist. I couldn't offer an insight that would be better than what science already has. If you want to know more look up what scientists have to say. Hence my links.

So far I've clicked on all your links, and they've ALL said how proteins can polymirize or how amino acids can form, or how this or that part of a cell can form... but NONE have given any hint to what made a mixture of inanimate chemicals actually animate.

You're confusing "incomplete theory" with "no theory" ... and you're missing the point. REPLICATION BEGAN BEFORE "CELLS" FORMED. The reason all these theories are talking about amino acids and polymers and RNA strands is that THESE ELEMENTS WERE LIKELY THE FIRST SELF-REPLICATORS, not whole cells. Self-organizing and self-replicationg proteins begin the process.

So copy and paste if you must...

But I thought you said you wanted MY words? Make up your mind.

but skip over the inanimate stuff, and everything after the point where the cell's animate.... I just want that ONE part. Can anyone... please... give me that ONE part?

This is not a lecture hall, and I am not your teacher. But since you won't shut up until we play your games ... Self-replicating chemical systems began either generating, or taking advantage of, natural lipid substances that aided in their competition for proteins. hence, primative cells. At least, that's one [simplified for your consumption] hypothesis. More detail, though still accessible, can be found here.

Note that this is NOT "how cells animate," because the thing you refuse to get is that cells did not "animate"--that is, no one is suggesting that an inorganic formation that looked like a cell suddenly "woke up" and moved around. No one. At all. Except you, and the dishonest or ill-informed Creationists who fight against it. No abiogenesis hypothesis in existence believes that life started with the cell ... hence all the talk about proteins and polymers that you find so distressing. Cells were a stage in development, but life did not begin as a cell.

h2whoa · Mar 4, 2005

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Karl - Liberal Backslider again.

h2

DirkGeevink · Mar 4, 2005

The Gregorian said:
But evolution, as a "chain" must have some beginning. Abiogenisis IS a seperate "theory" but without that theory, evolution is an imcomplete explaination as to where a given species came from.

example:
Where'd chickens come from: ancient birds
Where'd ancient birds come from: Dinosaurs
Where'd dinosaurs come from: smaller dinosaurs
Where'd the small dinosaurs come from: fish
Where'd those fish come from: Small sea creatures
Where'd those sea creatures come from: bacteria
Where'd the bacteria come from: I don't know, that's abiogenisis' problem (that's the break in the chain, therefore, it's an incomplete theory until you can complete the chain. Unfortunately, once you can explain how the first cell animated, you have to explain how the earth got here, and the big bang theory will end up as part of evolution)

I think evolution is a fact. If you backtrack it to the very beginning, a problem arises. Where did the first lifeform come from?

I think there are two possibillities:

1. Abiogenesis
2. A deity created it

To me, the first option is the most likely. But in either case, evolution remains a fact.

JesusFreak786 · Mar 4, 2005

Evelution is nothing but lies....to think that humans came from dumb-minded retarded monkeys is really low. God made everything. The dinos have lived with us when we were all created. They we on the ark,since noah put 2 of every animal on the ark. They were probebly shot down by humans and eaten. But dinos were NOT here before humans because God made them and humans at the same time

Arikay · Mar 4, 2005

Anyone else think Jesusfreak786 is just trying to bait an argument?

Mechanical Bliss · Mar 4, 2005

JesusFreak786 said:
Evelution is nothing but lies....to think that humans came from dumb-minded retarded monkeys is really low. God made everything.

Arrogant proclamations from a position of ignorance of the relevant sciences involved in this discussion.

The dinos have lived with us when we were all created.

There is no paleontological evidence to support this assertion. There are no dinosaur remains above the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary and no human remains below it. There is a separation of tens of millions of years of sediment in the geologic record between humans and dinosaurs.

They we on the ark,since noah put 2 of every animal on the ark.

We already know that story is not a literal one given that (1) it is borrowed from the Sumerian flood myth that predates the Bible and (2) geologic evidence disproves a global flood.

They were probebly shot down by humans and eaten.

So why is there no evidence of early human technology found in mesozoic sediments or around dinosaur fossils? Why no primitive stone tool weapons? Why no etching marks from these weapons on the fossils. Why aren't their remains found in early human communal sites?

You are just storytelling and ignoring the fact that there is not only no evidence for what you are saying but also evidence against it.

But dinos were NOT here before humans because God made them and humans at the same time

Unsupported assertions carry little weight on this forum. Apparently you're a newbie, but you should be forewarned that posts like the one you just made will not lend to your credibility if you continue to post here in the same manner.

And it's not like you're the first person to say these things (without evidence) on this forum.

Mechanical Bliss · Mar 4, 2005

Arikay said:
Anyone else think Jesusfreak786 is just trying to bait an argument?

Quite blatantly. However she is a newbie (supposedly...though there's another girl here with a similar name who posts the same types of provocations...but creationists often start to sound all the same anyway), so perhaps she could be granted a period to earn some credibility beyond the trollish behavior of stating "evolution is nothing but lies."

Army of Juan · Mar 4, 2005

JesusFreak786 said:
Evelution is nothing but lies....to think that humans came from dumb-minded retarded monkeys is really low. God made everything. The dinos have lived with us when we were all created. They we on the ark,since noah put 2 of every animal on the ark. They were probebly shot down by humans and eaten. But dinos were NOT here before humans because God made them and humans at the same time

LOL, not one single thing in post was even close to being true. Lurk more or maybe read a science book or two.

JesusFreak786 · Mar 4, 2005

All you get from science is theories that can never be proven....its like living your life with no answers.

michabo · Mar 4, 2005

EDIT: not worth it for such an obvious troll.

caravelair · Mar 4, 2005

JesusFreak786 said:
All you get from science is theories that can never be proven....its like living your life with no answers.

no... it's not like that at all. you don't trust science? how do you think that computer in front of you was designed? did people find the instructions in the bible?

Evolutionist "poof" theory

Troll

HI

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Redistributor of wealth

Senior Veteran

Redistributor of wealth

Redistributor of wealth

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

Member

Active Member

HI

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Senior Member

Active Member

reason, evidence

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency