[dsade]

Fortunately, Science and reality are not a democracy of perceived truth...you are either correct (ultimately) or incorrect.

Reality will quickly tell you which you are, when you try to act on your beliefs and knowledge.

[rockhard_4eva]

In a country, if there are enough conservative religious people, you can throw freedom out the window. That is scary.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by rockhard_4eva

People like you are more dangerous to freedom and democracy than the "terrorists"

You completely misunderstand my statement if you liked the episode of Bull****.


Evolution is a theory about how life has evolved from one state to another. It has absolutely nothing to do with how life initially formed. How life formed is the theory of biogenesis. There are a ton of theories of biogenesis none of which so far have really panned out. We need a lot more information before we can form a solid theory. One of the biggest challenges is creating an environment for any experiments to be done since it is nearly impossible to create an environment here on earth where there are literally zero bacteria.

I've read that a great comment about this. Something along the lines of "trying to discredit evolution by saying it doesn't address the creation of life is like complaining the theory of gravity doesn't work because it doesn't explain what my cousin had for breakfast yesterday." Neither have anything to do with the other.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by rockhard_4eva

In a country, if there are enough conservative religious people, you can throw freedom out the window. That is scary.

You are so ass backwards its scary.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You completely misunderstand my statement if you liked the episode of Bull****.


Evolution is a theory about how life has evolved from one state to another. It has absolutely nothing to do with how life initially formed. How life formed is the theory of biogenesis. There are a ton of theories of biogenesis none of which so far have really panned out. We need a lot more information before we can form a solid theory. One of the biggest challenges is creating an environment for any experiments to be done since it is nearly impossible to create an environment here on earth where there are literally zero bacteria.

I've read that a great comment about this. Something along the lines of "trying to discredit evolution by saying it doesn't address the creation of life is like complaining the theory of gravity doesn't work because it doesn't explain what my cousin had for breakfast yesterday." Neither have anything to do with the other.

Apparently scientists must have modified the theory of evolution because of their shortcomings of explaining the existance of life on earth.

Too bad they will have to keep modifying it for the theory to work since they can't explain how the **** a wing evolved from a leg. How is a worthless stub of a limb more useful to a creature if it can barely walk? If it is not an advantage for survival, it doesnt follow the most basic laws of evolution. A stub of a limb is not even remotely close to ever being able to fly, and can barely help the creature walk, it cant defend the creature. I would like to hear one credible detailed explanation of even how this might be even remotely possible.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by rockhard_4eva

People like you are more dangerous to freedom and democracy than the "terrorists"

Ignorant and closed minded people that cant even be intellectually honest and blindly follow myths flat out lies are the most dangerous threat to any society. Its amazing to me that anyone can get so up in arms for someone pointing out very simple shortcomings of a scientific theory. This wouldnt happen if we were arguing a new form of mathematics. I guess people dont base their religion on math. People base their religion on Darwin as much as any holy book.

[dsade]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Apparently scientists must have modified the theory of evolution because of their shortcomings of explaining the existance of life on earth.

Too bad they will have to keep modifying it for the theory to work since they can't explain how the **** a wing evolved from a leg. How is a worthless stub of a limb more useful to a creature if it can barely walk? If it is not an advantage for survival, it doesnt follow the most basic laws of evolution. A stub of a limb is not even remotely close to ever being able to fly, and can barely help the creature walk, it cant defend the creature. I would like to hear one credible detailed explanation of even how this might be even remotely possible.

Apparently you did not do your homework after being told. Look up how "webbed" shoulders (as a product of random mutation, perhaps) could have enabled a small animal to survive a fall from a tree from a height of 15 feet that the other animals would NOT survive, allowing this animal to reproduce and pass on such a trait. As other mutations (perhaps a more pronounced webbing that would offer air resistance enough to allow an animal to survive a fall of 25 feet.)

After millions of years of such advantages, traits would emerge and limbs modified.

You are absolutely incorrect that mid-developed appendages offer no advantage to survival.

Now go do your homework, and search for developement of say, an eye.

[EESCHMan]

Ugh...why did someone dig this back up...

[EESCHMan]

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)"

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by EESCHMan

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)"

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read. Its absolytely frightening how intellectually dishones intelligent people can be to fight for the cause of their faith in their scientific religion. Of course chemical structure follow rules and laws. All of these laws are incredibly stacked against any formation of life. Read my posting on the explanation of what exactly a protein is. A set of up to 20 amino acids that are in chains of over 200,000. These amino acid chains are so complex that even if one amino acid is out of sequence, the entire protein unfolds and is rendered useless. Being a cell is made of up to 8 trillion of these and a protein HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUNCTION ouside of a cell, It is absolutely absurd to believe one could form randomly, or by checmical property interactions. Yes it is true that complex molecules randomly form. They just dont last. I challenge anyone to find a shred of scientific evidence that 20 amino acids can naturally form and exist for a significant amount time to even form a protein. Even if they can form, it would be like creating an alpabet to writing the dictionary to make a protein. A protein that would surely deteriorate because of the most funamental laws of thermodymics and chemistry.

If you ignore the inconvenient fact of the improbability of the formation of life, it will go away. How convenient. That argument is as scientific as people that claim Adam and Even were the first man and woman on earth.

The burden of proof lies with those who are making a claim. Science has shown absolutely no evidence that random formation of life from chemicals is possible. There have been conveniently set up simulations that dont follow scientific laws that show it being possible, but they are once again unscientific.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by dsade

Apparently you did not do your homework after being told. Look up how "webbed" shoulders (as a product of random mutation, perhaps) could have enabled a small animal to survive a fall from a tree from a height of 15 feet that the other animals would NOT survive, allowing this animal to reproduce and pass on such a trait. As other mutations (perhaps a more pronounced webbing that would offer air resistance enough to allow an animal to survive a fall of 25 feet.)

After millions of years of such advantages, traits would emerge and limbs modified.

You are absolutely incorrect that mid-developed appendages offer no advantage to survival.

Now go do your homework, and search for developement of say, an eye.

I hope you are kidding. How many of these reptiles hang out in trees and fall in order to develop worthless stub limbs. If they were to develop a wing, the bone in their stub limb would become hollow. This would be more likely to break in a fall than a regular limb even if they fell at a slightly differnt rate.

If these reptiles are hanging out in trees a lot, a webbed shoulder or wing is hardly the most adventageous mutuation a large population could have over a significant amount of time. Why didnt they develop strong and long limbs to grab the branches like a sloth? There is no reason for the population to develop incredibly complex wings when a simple claw that can grab would take much less time and be much more probable.

The imaginative reaches evolutionists take to describe the incredible diversity of life on this planet sounds as foolish as when I hear the story of Adam and Eve. I wish I had enough blind faith to become a Ned Flanders or a evolutionist but they both dont pass the smell test.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Squeaks4ver

well, your bangers hang outside the body to best regulate temperature to help sperm production

This is correct. They need to be about 3-5 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the body, and this is why they move toward and away from the body.

we dont have back pain from standing up-right, we have back problems from not standing correctly.

Yeah, we evolved from creatures that do not stand upright, and this is why humans are prone to back problems and why humans are so prone to those little, loveable things we've come to know as hemorrhoids.

as for the eyes, i am just shocked that they work. evrything seems to work pretty much just right together and that is very wonderful.

No shock that they work at all. Look up the evolution of the eye, its actually interesting how eye's developed in three evolutionarily distinct branches of life starting simply from light sensitive cells developing into patches of light sensitive cells through a process of natural selection to concaved patches of light sensitive cells (allows for detecting movement) through natural selection, etc, etc. I

ts just strange that the optic nerve runs straight through the retina creating a blind spot.

And this brings me to the question, if Humans were to be gods perfect beings created in his likeness why the hell did he develop squid's eyes without an imperfection he gave humans?

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Squeaks4ver

well, your bangers hang outside the body to best regulate temperature to help sperm production

This is correct. They need to be about 3-5 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the body, and this is why they move toward and away from the body.

we dont have back pain from standing up-right, we have back problems from not standing correctly.

Actually, we evolved from creatures that do not stand upright, and this is why humans are prone to back problems and why humans are so prone to those little, loveable things we've come to know as hemorrhoids.

as for the eyes, i am just shocked that they work. evrything seems to work pretty much just right together and that is very wonderful.

No shock that they work at all. Look up the evolution of the eye, its actually interesting how eye's developed in three evolutionarily distinct branches of life starting simply from light sensitive cells developing into patches of light sensitive cells through a process of natural selection to concaved patches of light sensitive cells (allows for detecting movement) through natural selection, etc, etc. I

ts just strange that the optic nerve runs straight through the retina creating a blind spot.

And this brings me to the question, if Humans were to be gods perfect beings created in his likeness why the hell did he develop squid's eyes without an imperfection he gave humans?

[CNorris]

You can bring up all the petty little imperfections about humans all you want, but you cant explain why everything works so incredibly well. Evolution does not account for the irreducible complexity of almost every organ in the body. Most organs are like a car. Take out a couple minuscule spark plugs and your car is worthless.

Evolution does not explain the eye. I find it hilarious people are using one of the most complex and mysterious organs in the body to state their case for evolution. If a creature needed to be able to detect blurry lit environments to survive its screwed. Also why do some organisms have incredible senses of smell and hearing and antenna, far less complex organs to develop? Why don't all animals in the same region and environments have similar sense capabilities? If evolution took the most advantageous path and least complex path, there is no reason any creature on this planet should have eye sight.

There is no explanation on how a bat is able to detect a mosquito using echo location. The echo location must have started out being far far far less complex, like chirping and detecting sound bouncing of a huge object. Well if a bird couldn't see a large predator and needed to detect a chirp echo to detect it, its an eaten bird anyways. It wouldn't survive to be able to produce better chirp locating birds.

Its incredibly ironic when evolutionists talk about fairy tales. Their entire existence is a fairy tale. The most improbable fairy tale ever told.

[rockhard_4eva]

Originally Posted by Bobo

You are so ass backwards its scary.

No, living in a right wing religious country where children are taught that evolution is just a theory and are also taught about intelligent design is ass backwards.

How much longer till abortion will also be illegal. We already know about the stem cell thing.

Cant wait for the crusades to start again.