The Off-Topic forum is open for debate for almost all opinions and posters so long as it's done within the accordance of the rules. If you find the environment unsatisfactory, you don't have to come here.
Evolution is nonsense!
- Thread starter puglover
- Start date
- Status
.wait until he goes to college then see if the wash-braining works or not
HAND
Armchair Philosopher
Puglover you need to read up on the sciences. 
Get your parents to buy you some books on Biology and Chemistry. They should do that for you, if you're home schooled?
Get your parents to buy you some books on Biology and Chemistry. They should do that for you, if you're home schooled?
HAND
Armchair Philosopher
Originally posted by Mikoyan
I think biology books are 'banned'.
I know
. Just trying to get Puglover to ask his folks! . Theres no harm in reading up on some thing that is "just a theory" to religious people.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Evolution makes no sense!
Physics makes no sense either
Doesn't stop it from working.
Let's say you have a little model tank. If you leave it outside for a year it will break and rust and become worthless. But according to evolution, if you leave it out there for a billion years it will turn into a full-size M1 Abrams tank!
Problems with your analogy: The tank is a machine. A living thing has DNA, genes which are passed on to the offspring. It's been PROVEN, obviously, that if you change the DNA you change the offspring. All that needs to happen for this change to occur naturally, without interference, is random mutation, which has been proven to occur. Hence, evolution is the best explanation. And we're talking GENERATIONS, not a single being, and evolution is CHANGE, not GROWTH.
And, according to evolution, hydrogen atoms (the smallest and simplist atoms) were banging together until bigger atoms were made. And then they were banging together until even bigger atoms were made
Astronomers observe this EXACT process going on in stars TODAY. You can see it with a spectrometer.
until finally, a living creature was made. The atoms would have had to have banged together to create bigger atoms almost a BILLION times! And there is a ONE IN A BILLION chance that the HYDROGEN atoms will bang together enough to change into something bigger to begin with!
And there are TRILLIONS [to a trillionth power] number of atoms in the universe to begin with! One in a billion is an excellent probability for a useful collision - your body contains several HUNDRED TRILLION individual atoms, I'd guess. If you doubt that such useful collisions can occur, then you doubt the effectiveness of, for example, your digestive system. Well, you seem to still be alive.
If it is so easy to accept that hydrogen is eternal, what makes it so hard to believe that there is a force (namely, God) which is eternal?
Because I can SEE hydrogen and OBSERVE its eternality. Is it possible to destroy hydrogen? No*.
* yes, in nuclear reactions, but these just change it into an equivalent form - energy.
God never SHOWED UP for us to SEE him and TEST his eternality, so WHY should I believe?
What is the chance of an atom banging together to make an amino acid?
Your body is creating billions and billions of amino acids at this moment.
Now that process is guided by enzymes, so the chances are significantly higher for successful collisions, but even without enzymes the chances are good.
Okay. Then how about an apple tree. If it gets rained on for a billion years will it turn into a pear tree?
No, but its descendants might!
An apple tree can't "turn into" a pear tree. The apple tree has a specific SET of DNA which say "what it is". That DNA might change randomly, so that the seeds of the apple tree are just a little bit different. And the next trees will have seeds with just a few more differences, and so on. Of course, the trees that are best suited to the environment will live the longest and produce the most seeds. Eventually the trees might be totally different from their long-ago parent, because of random changes and the pressure of the environment. So eventually there MIGHT be a few trees that would be so different we'd have to call them by a different name - pear trees for instance.
There is no evidence of intermediate life in nature or the fossil record of changes in species! There should be MILLIONS of intermediate species.
Take the horse. There are around 500-700 horse "species". Only what, ten, are alive today [and many hundreds of breeds, subspecies, of course]. The other 400-600 are extinct [Megatherium and so forth]. Gone, dead, poof. It's obvious that they were separate species. So if every type of living animal was CREATED by God, that means the creation was going on up until a few million years ago - actually, it's going on today. But no. The Bible says that all animals are FIXED and ideal forms and that God was finished with animal creation before he even started on making mankind.
The presence of constantly shifting species up until and including the present is a contradiction of Genesis.
The fact that all creatures with wings didn't come from the same common ancester seems crazy to me.
All animals have the same basic limb structure from frogs to humans to whales - even sometimes the same number of bones. And their arrangement is eerily similar. Once you have the right bone structure, all that matters is the covering. And it can be feathers [birds] or fur [sugargliders, bats], it still works the same way.
1.) It has been said that evolution can't happen to non-living things. I don't recall atoms being living things...
The reason evolution can only happen to living beings is because only living beings have DNA, the genetic code of life, a code that can be changed to create a new kind of animal. Atoms of course have no DNA
2.) It has been said that evolution is the changing of one species into another species. Please define species.
Two populations which are reproductively isolated [they cannot produce fertile offspring, either because of different anatomy, different mating behavior, or different incompatible genes] are said to be separate "species".
4.) Evolution is a "theory". A theory is a well tested hypothisis that has not been proven wrong. Evolution cannot be tested, so it by definition cannot be a hypothesis. If it cannot be a hypothesis, it cannot be a theory either. So why is it called such?
A theory is not a single hypothesis, it's a collection of well tested hypotheses glued together by inductive reasoning. Certain parts of evolution ARE testable. For example, we have already proved the link between genes and features by using gene therapy to alter the expression of certain characteristics in animals. We have proven another part by altering genes and observing the result in offspring [man's been doing this for thousands of years with plant and animal breeding]. We've proven another part, the hypothesis of natural selection, by observing changing animal populations and characteristics. We've proven the hypothesis that these change radically over time by looking at the fossil record.
True, the whole theory is not "practically" provable because it would take millions of years to test and observe, but the individual parts are VERY well proven.
Physics makes no sense either
Doesn't stop it from working.Let's say you have a little model tank. If you leave it outside for a year it will break and rust and become worthless. But according to evolution, if you leave it out there for a billion years it will turn into a full-size M1 Abrams tank!
Problems with your analogy: The tank is a machine. A living thing has DNA, genes which are passed on to the offspring. It's been PROVEN, obviously, that if you change the DNA you change the offspring. All that needs to happen for this change to occur naturally, without interference, is random mutation, which has been proven to occur. Hence, evolution is the best explanation. And we're talking GENERATIONS, not a single being, and evolution is CHANGE, not GROWTH.
And, according to evolution, hydrogen atoms (the smallest and simplist atoms) were banging together until bigger atoms were made. And then they were banging together until even bigger atoms were made
Astronomers observe this EXACT process going on in stars TODAY. You can see it with a spectrometer.
until finally, a living creature was made. The atoms would have had to have banged together to create bigger atoms almost a BILLION times! And there is a ONE IN A BILLION chance that the HYDROGEN atoms will bang together enough to change into something bigger to begin with!
And there are TRILLIONS [to a trillionth power] number of atoms in the universe to begin with! One in a billion is an excellent probability for a useful collision - your body contains several HUNDRED TRILLION individual atoms, I'd guess. If you doubt that such useful collisions can occur, then you doubt the effectiveness of, for example, your digestive system. Well, you seem to still be alive.
If it is so easy to accept that hydrogen is eternal, what makes it so hard to believe that there is a force (namely, God) which is eternal?
Because I can SEE hydrogen and OBSERVE its eternality. Is it possible to destroy hydrogen? No*.
* yes, in nuclear reactions, but these just change it into an equivalent form - energy.
God never SHOWED UP for us to SEE him and TEST his eternality, so WHY should I believe?
What is the chance of an atom banging together to make an amino acid?
Your body is creating billions and billions of amino acids at this moment.
Now that process is guided by enzymes, so the chances are significantly higher for successful collisions, but even without enzymes the chances are good.
Okay. Then how about an apple tree. If it gets rained on for a billion years will it turn into a pear tree?
No, but its descendants might!
An apple tree can't "turn into" a pear tree. The apple tree has a specific SET of DNA which say "what it is". That DNA might change randomly, so that the seeds of the apple tree are just a little bit different. And the next trees will have seeds with just a few more differences, and so on. Of course, the trees that are best suited to the environment will live the longest and produce the most seeds. Eventually the trees might be totally different from their long-ago parent, because of random changes and the pressure of the environment. So eventually there MIGHT be a few trees that would be so different we'd have to call them by a different name - pear trees for instance.
There is no evidence of intermediate life in nature or the fossil record of changes in species! There should be MILLIONS of intermediate species.
Take the horse. There are around 500-700 horse "species". Only what, ten, are alive today [and many hundreds of breeds, subspecies, of course]. The other 400-600 are extinct [Megatherium and so forth]. Gone, dead, poof. It's obvious that they were separate species. So if every type of living animal was CREATED by God, that means the creation was going on up until a few million years ago - actually, it's going on today. But no. The Bible says that all animals are FIXED and ideal forms and that God was finished with animal creation before he even started on making mankind.
The presence of constantly shifting species up until and including the present is a contradiction of Genesis.
The fact that all creatures with wings didn't come from the same common ancester seems crazy to me.
All animals have the same basic limb structure from frogs to humans to whales - even sometimes the same number of bones. And their arrangement is eerily similar. Once you have the right bone structure, all that matters is the covering. And it can be feathers [birds] or fur [sugargliders, bats], it still works the same way.
1.) It has been said that evolution can't happen to non-living things. I don't recall atoms being living things...
The reason evolution can only happen to living beings is because only living beings have DNA, the genetic code of life, a code that can be changed to create a new kind of animal. Atoms of course have no DNA
2.) It has been said that evolution is the changing of one species into another species. Please define species.
Two populations which are reproductively isolated [they cannot produce fertile offspring, either because of different anatomy, different mating behavior, or different incompatible genes] are said to be separate "species".
4.) Evolution is a "theory". A theory is a well tested hypothisis that has not been proven wrong. Evolution cannot be tested, so it by definition cannot be a hypothesis. If it cannot be a hypothesis, it cannot be a theory either. So why is it called such?
A theory is not a single hypothesis, it's a collection of well tested hypotheses glued together by inductive reasoning. Certain parts of evolution ARE testable. For example, we have already proved the link between genes and features by using gene therapy to alter the expression of certain characteristics in animals. We have proven another part by altering genes and observing the result in offspring [man's been doing this for thousands of years with plant and animal breeding]. We've proven another part, the hypothesis of natural selection, by observing changing animal populations and characteristics. We've proven the hypothesis that these change radically over time by looking at the fossil record.
True, the whole theory is not "practically" provable because it would take millions of years to test and observe, but the individual parts are VERY well proven.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
No offense puglover, but you don't seem to understand the issue. Evolution doesn't say that a tank will become a better tank, because a tank is a non-living thing. Evolution says that, through random mutations in reproduction, animals will change their DNA throughout time, and the best suited animals will survive while the others will die.
This DOES NOT contradict Christian philosophy because it leaves room for a Creator who set the rules of the universe and set it all in motion.
This DOES NOT contradict Christian philosophy because it leaves room for a Creator who set the rules of the universe and set it all in motion.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
evolution obviously only applies to living things.
by the way, thats why there is extinction, when a species no longer exists on the Earth.
Here is an example of evolution:
You have 100 moths living in pre-Industrial Britain. 90 of them are grey, the color of bark, and 10 of them are black, which stands out easily against bark. Obviously, animals such as birds can see the black ones better and catch them easier, which is why there are less of them, making it harder for them to pass on their genes from generation to generation. As Britain becomse industrialized, soot covers the trees, making the grey ones stand out against the trees, while the black ones are camuflage. Most of the grey ones die and the black ones live, making there more black moths than grey moths. that is evolution. Imagine something like that happening 1,000,000 times, and you have a new species(obviously, something beside skin color would change in the other 999,999 times).
Margim
Footy's back.
Well I guess that all depends on which books you believe
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
If evolution is not real, then explain all the unique animals in remote places like the Galapagos Islands. These animals have adapted to survive in this harsh climate. And how about feral animals, like the rabbits in Australia? They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves in a hostile enviroment. I am sure that if you took an Australian rabbit and an American rabbit, they would have some similarities, and some differences.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Sims, you're left out a critical concept in your example, you left out mutation, that is a vital concept in evolution, because it shows that evolution doesn't just alter ratios of traits but allows for new traits to occur. And not many mutations need to occur to make a new species, in fact a Oenothera lamarckiana plant evolved into Oenothera gigas after a single mutation in one generation.
Oh and CGannon say "organisms" not animals, plants fungi and other living things (and viruses too!) evolve too
Oh and CGannon say "organisms" not animals, plants fungi and other living things (and viruses too!) evolve too
Micaelis Rex
Prince
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The reason evolution can only happen to living beings is because only living beings have DNA, the genetic code of life, a code that can be changed to create a new kind of animal. Atoms of course have no DNA
So then how is it that atoms could have "evolved" into something countless times more sophisticated than they are.
What about those "species" that don't have mates? And there are several thousand species of the fly, even though most of them can mate with many of the other "species".
Haha, where to begin. Ok, here goes:
1.) Gene Theropy, doesn't that require intelligent design? Evolution didn't have such an advantage, atleast according to evolutionists.
2.) Altering genes, see #1.
3.) Natural selection, well, um, wonderful. I'm a creationist, I accept natural selection. Infact, natural selection is a creationist idea, Darwin stole it from us.
4.) Looking at the fossil record, well that isn't observing, since you cannot know what actually happened. Any conclusions you come to are inferences about facts which do not on their own proclaim any such conclusion. I've looked at the fossil record too, I don't believe it supports evolution. There are too many inconsistancies.
I don't suspect those are the individual parts of evolution. Perhaps if science observed amino acids forming or something of the like I would be more impressed.
SewerStarFish
King
Antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
Staph infections are increasing resistant to common antibiotics. The non-resistant members of that species have been under many of their generations of pressure from the use of antibiotics. This has given an environmental advantage to those Staph with genetic resistance to the antibiotics. Staph has evolved -- into a subspecies with a different characteristic. Given enough time and a variety of pressures and environments several different species could evolve.
If Apple trees get rained on alot many would die, but if just a few survive then reproduce and this occurs generation after generation of trees say as little as several thousand years; a comparison of original apple tree to the newer tree might be so significant as to prevent one from pollenating the other and a new species of tree would be.
The core problem with this debate is that while evolution is a theory that gets modified with each experiment and can be proven wrong with just ONE repeatable test that refutes it, religious beliefs are articles of faith that demand belief without proof. They can not be compared. It's like apples and pears.
Staph infections are increasing resistant to common antibiotics. The non-resistant members of that species have been under many of their generations of pressure from the use of antibiotics. This has given an environmental advantage to those Staph with genetic resistance to the antibiotics. Staph has evolved -- into a subspecies with a different characteristic. Given enough time and a variety of pressures and environments several different species could evolve.
If Apple trees get rained on alot many would die, but if just a few survive then reproduce and this occurs generation after generation of trees say as little as several thousand years; a comparison of original apple tree to the newer tree might be so significant as to prevent one from pollenating the other and a new species of tree would be.
The core problem with this debate is that while evolution is a theory that gets modified with each experiment and can be proven wrong with just ONE repeatable test that refutes it, religious beliefs are articles of faith that demand belief without proof. They can not be compared. It's like apples and pears.
Margim
Footy's back.
Superbeaver - Hey, I never argued against evolution - take a look in the science vs creation thread, and you'll find I'm actually not phased one way or the other . I was simply pointing out to Pilate's statement that some people do believe that God actually did show up - we are generally known as Christians.
As to rabbits, they are the bane of the bush/outback - along with cane toads, foxes, and tourists. (seriously, they may be slightly different, but I doubt it - we've also got feral horses, camels, and donkeys, but they are hardley becoming new species. Adaptation and evolution are related, but I don't know that they are the same thing).
edit:spelling
. I was simply pointing out to Pilate's statement that some people do believe that God actually did show up - we are generally known as Christians.As to rabbits, they are the bane of the bush/outback - along with cane toads, foxes, and tourists.
(seriously, they may be slightly different, but I doubt it - we've also got feral horses, camels, and donkeys, but they are hardley becoming new species. Adaptation and evolution are related, but I don't know that they are the same thing).edit:spelling
Sims2789
Fool me once...
yes, that is true.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
Ado
Chieftain
Perfection
The Great Head.
A billion years in a hot reducing atmophere being zapped by UV and Lightning
Actually most of those breeds of fly can't mate, his definition is the "Biological Species" concept, works great for living animals fungi and plants (Which actually can interbreed like crazy but usually stay within their species) for asexuals and fossils they usually refer to the "morphospecies" concept, either way it's more of classification then evolutionary theory.
1.) Yes, there are more effecient mechanisms then evolution when you have an intelligent controller, doesn't proove anything.
2)see #1.
3)Please back up that answer, and explain why that is agianst evolution
4)Yes it is observing, just not directly. And there is plenty of other evidence to back it up too!
Miller-Urey did this way back in 1953
Sims2789
Fool me once...
We got that intelligent through evolution. Natural selection killed off the stupid induvidual apes, and now only the smart ones survive. by stupid i mean ones who can't make good tools, not people with an IQ of 80.
there is something called radiocarbon dating which measures the half life of something dead. a half life is the ammount of time it takes half of the substance to decay. i have bo idea of how radiocarbon dating works, but i''d like someone here who does to explain it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
