1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Time and evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by JohnR7, Feb 25, 2007.

  1. Grengor

    Grengor GrenAce

    +50
    Deist
    US-Republican
    The creation of the first imperfect replicated, yes. Creation meaning: development. If you want to use created as in the literal created-by-a-god meaning, go ahead. There just happens to be no evidence for that.
     
  2. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +606
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Evolution presupposes nothing about the origin of the replicators. If the universe and said replicators were created by an external entity, then yes, I suppose you'd be right. But the odds of that are a tad slim (Occam's Razor, I love thee).
     
  3. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics. I know of people with Phd's in Biology that do not know as much about population genetics as I know. Not that I know all that much, but just having read one book on it is more then most people have done.

    If I "know nothing of evolution", then evolution has failed because that would mean that few to none are able to demonstrate that they know evolution to your satisfaction. So this all becomes a mute point, because you would be admiting that no one knows anything about evolution. Although it has been my experance that what you accuse others of, you are guilty of. So perhaps you are the one that knows nothing of evolution.
     
  4. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Good. Now you have to understand it.
     
  5. Electric Skeptic

    Electric Skeptic Senior Veteran

    +126
    Atheist
    Married
    You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of evolution. You can't even get the basics right. I've seen your claims to have studied it before - either they're false or you're just a terrible study, because you obviously know virtually nothing about the subject.
     
  6. TeddyKGB

    TeddyKGB A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

    +427
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others

    This kind of absurdist skepticism is really the last refuge of the defeated. Try as you might, you can't shoehorn the rafts of evidence for an ages-old Earth into a 10,000 year period. Thus, sayeth the impossibly single-minded Christianist, the very fabric of the cosmos must have been different not so long ago. Never mind that such thinking makes every bit of inductive knowledge not just unprovable but utterly worthless.
    Don't expect any intellectually honest religious authority to challenge it either. Most agree that in order to know something we have to be able to, y'know, know something.
     
  7. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat

    If you have a reasonable knowledge of evolution then you know the difference between evolution and the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

    So, to complain about evolution not being able to explain these other origins while knowing that these are outside of the theory is to LIE about what evolution is. 10 Commandments ring a bell?
    So which is it? ignorance or lying?
     
  8. us38

    us38 im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

    661
    +35
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Please. Your very first post in this thread shows an incredible lack of knowledge of evolution. Your very first post in this thread shows an incredible lack of knowledge of evolution.Your very first post in this thread shows an incredible lack of knowledge of evolution. Either you are incredibly good at making people think you know nothing of evolution, or you actually do know nothing evolution. Here's a hint: the first option doesn't make sense.
     
  9. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +606
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    And yet, we're not the ones trying to link Communism to Darwinism, are we?
     
  10. pantsman52

    pantsman52 Senior Veteran

    +211
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    Does this even relate to evolution? This seems more of a hard-core physics question.
     
  11. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +165
    Atheist


    "Do the impossible and I'll believe you!"

    It's not just a matter of careers. It's a matter of the knowledge of every single human being. Do you assume that the laws of physics operated differently yesterday, unless there is evidence to the contrary? What about 100 years ago? 10000?

    If you drop this assumption you can no longer make any empirical claim. Everything you claim to know about the world is underpinned by an assumption that the universe operated the same yesterday as today, or if it didn't, it left evidence.

    Perhaps you should meet dad, he seems to enjoy your brand of solipsism.
     
  12. FoeHammer

    FoeHammer Veteran

    916
    +15
    Baptist
    Married
    It can also denote order. So, what was there before time?

    FoeHammer.
     
  13. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Foehammer... Dude, you GOTTA study the physics...

    There MAY have been a timelike analogue before the universe, there may not have been. Its impossible to know scientifically about what, if anything, existed before the universe. However, and this we are fairly sure about, anything detectable about our current timeline (yesterday->today->tommorrow->) began at the first instant of this universe. The conceopt of "before" this universe, as far as the concept of time as a mathematical co-ordinate, is essentially meaningless.

    Hawkin suggests that time, infact, may originally have been a SPATIAL co-ordinate, that, as the universe expanded and spatial pressure decreased, began acting the way we know it today... so, theoretically, there may have been a "period" in the early hostory of the universe when there was no time, only direction.

    Of course, given that our brains are developed to calculate the balistics of a thrown rock, and our speech centre developed for telling other members of the tribe where the good fruit is, some of this can be hard to describe and understand. Its certainly counter intuitive.

    But please realise that counter-intuitve is not the same as "wrong". It just means you need to open your mind sometimes.
     
  14. lemmings

    lemmings Veteran

    +125
    Atheist
    Private
    [​IMG]
    Here is a graph of a Sine function; Y=Sine(X) for the values of -pi/2 to 5pi/2 (-.5pi to 2.5pi)

    If you notice the output line is between one and negative one. Is there any reason at all to believe that at 1000000000pi the value will be greater than one or less than negative one?

    Another thing that you may notice about the graph is that at (integer)pi, the value is alway zero. Is there a reason to believe that 3774387473pi will not equal zero?

    If you have answered 'no' to either one of these questions, you are a Uniformitarianist.
    If you have answered 'yes' to either one of these questions, you likely never got past algebra1A.
     
  15. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Evolution is proved false by Big Bang theory. Because explosions don't create cells, we know that both of them never happened
     
  16. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Lemmings, I disagree... TOE is not dependant on cells, ultra early evolutionary processes may have occured in prions and basic pre cursor proteins for millions of years before the advent of the lipid bubble necesary to consider something a cell
     
  17. lemmings

    lemmings Veteran

    +125
    Atheist
    Private
    [FONT=&quot]After seeing John’s thread mistaking Social Darwinism for Biological Evolution, I am trying to set boundaries between the various forces with ‘evolution’ in their name. While they are both subject to their own forms of natural selection and mutations, I consider the ability to reproduce the defining aspect between Chemical Evolution and Biological Evolution.[/FONT]
     
  18. EnemyPartyII

    EnemyPartyII Well-Known Member

    +812
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    prions reproduce acellularly!

    However, lest the conversation get to indepth for members to follow, may i suggest we go back to watching the main event?
     
  19. FoeHammer

    FoeHammer Veteran

    916
    +15
    Baptist
    Married
    EPII, Dudette, If this is the result of a study of the physics you can keep it. As for an ''open mind'' that is a comment best directed towards those who have closed theirs when they claim that the question of what was there before time is is a meaningless one.

    FoeHammer.
     
  20. WilliamduBois

    WilliamduBois BenderBendingRodriguez

    252
    +9
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    It is a meaningless one as far as evolution is concerned.
     
Loading...