AynRand Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Is this a serious post? Speaking as a double major in biology, and chemistry, and as a person who has more then 18 months experience working in a biochem lab. I can reasonably say you have some fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution is (assuming that this is a serious post). The theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe, so I'm not sure why you mentioned the big bang. The theory of evolution makes no claims on abiogenesis because evolution is the change from one population of organisms to another. It is an undeniable fact of nature that organisms change, and I might add that I witness the change of bacteria on a weekly basis. one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal = macro evolution This occurs after thousands of generations. It seems that you are implying that a dog gives birth to a cat or something. Do you mean to deny that organisms change from one population to another? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notjam Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Is this a serious post? Speaking as a double major in biology, and chemistry, and as a person who has more then 18 months experience working in a biochem lab. I can reasonably say you have some fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution is (assuming that this is a serious post). The theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe, so I'm not sure why you mentioned the big bang. The theory of evolution makes no claims on abiogenesis because evolution is the change from one population of organisms to another. It is an undeniable fact of nature that organisms change, and I might add that I witness the change of bacteria on a weekly basis. This occurs after thousands of generations. It seems that you are implying that a dog gives birth to a cat or something. Do you mean to deny that organisms change from one population to another? to extrapolate the "mirco evolution" (variations/mutations) from one kind of animal to it's offspring into "macro evolution" (transformation) into a different kind of animal is not science it's a faith based religious belief. if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that's a fairy tale. but if you give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" it's science. 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AynRand Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 to extrapolate the "mirco evolution" (variations/mutations) from one kind of animal to it's offspring into "macro evolution" (transformation) into a different kind of animal is not science it's a faith based religious belief. Once again this is a misunderstanding of evolution. The same natural processes that cause micro evolution which is something that it appears you support, are the same processes that cause what you call "macro evolution". The difference between micro and macro evolution is the time scale, and not the natural processes. if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that's a fairy tale. but if you give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" it's science. Funny, but I can make witty substance free one liners about religion as well. Christianity: One woman's lie about having an affair that got seriously out of hand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notjam Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Is this a serious post? Speaking as a double major in biology, and chemistry, and as a person who has more then 18 months experience working in a biochem lab. I can reasonably say you have some fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution is (assuming that this is a serious post). The theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe, so I'm not sure why you mentioned the big bang. The theory of evolution makes no claims on abiogenesis because evolution is the change from one population of organisms to another. It is an undeniable fact of nature that organisms change, and I might add that I witness the change of bacteria on a weekly basis. This occurs after thousands of generations. It seems that you are implying that a dog gives birth to a cat or something. Do you mean to deny that organisms change from one population to another? "The theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe, so I'm not sure why you mentioned the big bang." do you believe in the big bang theory? ........ do you believe in evolution? if yes to both questions then the connection is made. Once again this is a misunderstanding of evolution. The same natural processes that cause micro evolution which is something that it appears you support, are the same processes that cause what you call "macro evolution". The difference between micro and macro evolution is the time scale, and not the natural processes. Funny, but I can make witty substance free one liners about religion as well. Christianity: One woman's lie about having an affair that got seriously out of hand. "The difference between micro and macro evolution is the time scale, and not the natural processes." if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that's a fairy tale. but if you give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" it's science. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AynRand Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 do you believe in the big bang theory? ........ do you believe in evolution? if yes to both questions then the connection is made. Not that this is relevant at all, but I am actually not convinced by the big bang model. I realize that I go against the grain on this issue, but I am not entirely convinced. However even if I did support the big bang model that would not lead to a connection to evolution. This is an obvious non sequitur because again the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe. It's reasonable to infer that (assuming abiogenesis started at the same time) evolution would be uneffected whether or not the universe was started 1 billion years ago, or 100 quadrillion years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notjam Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Not that this is relevant at all, but I am actually not convinced by the big bang model. I realize that I go against the grain on this issue, but I am not entirely convinced. However even if I did support the big bang model that would not lead to a connection to evolution. This is an obvious non sequitur because again the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe. It's reasonable to infer that (assuming abiogenesis started at the same time) evolution would be uneffected whether or not the universe was started 1 billion years ago, or 100 quadrillion years ago. "I realize that I go against the grain on this issue" yes becuase most believers in evolution also believe in a big bang. which is why there is a relevant connection even though : "the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 What an insulting post, devoid of reason or evidence. There's nothing rational to respond to so you can be dismissed out of hand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 "The difference between micro and macro evolution is the time scale, and not the natural processes." if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that's a fairy tale. but if you give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" it's science. No, it is the accumulation of genetic variation under selection pressure over time. A fish does not stay a fish for millions of years then instantly turns into a reptile. Genetic variation produces lunged fish with no limbs, limbed fish with gills, amphibians employing cutaneous respiration, fish with gizzards and everything in between. The ones that survive have the most advantageous genetic adaptations and when sufficient mutations leads to inability to breed with the original, a new species emerges. The theory may not be complete, but it is rational and empirical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 the church of evolution the faith based religion that something can come from nothing = the big bang life can come from non life = abiogenesis one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal = macro evolution as impressionable children we are indoctrinated into a state religion and it's reinforced by movies, news anchors and other well dressed respectable people in suits we are told that silly religious fairy tales have no place in academia we feel we stand apon reason and evidence and science and we are rational free thinkers so we don't have to question our own dogma Not "nothing", a singularity. Also, not faith-based, unless you count all scientific views as "faith based". "Life" in it's simplest form is just a self-replicating chemical or set of chemicals. So you are saying that it's not possible for a catalyst to create more of a certain chemical? Not a different kind, the same kind, but with extra traits that not all of the larger group has. Humans still have the "ape" traits, they just also have special "human" traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Not that this is relevant at all, but I am actually not convinced by the big bang model. I realize that I go against the grain on this issue, but I am not entirely convinced. However even if I did support the big bang model that would not lead to a connection to evolution. This is an obvious non sequitur because again the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe. It's reasonable to infer that (assuming abiogenesis started at the same time) evolution would be uneffected whether or not the universe was started 1 billion years ago, or 100 quadrillion years ago. Assuming that the difference in time doesn't change background radiation, the ammount of heat the sun is producing, the chemical makeup of the area, etc. Also assuming that "abiogenesis started at the same time" you mean relative to modern times, not relative to the beginning of the universe. If both of those assumptions are correct then yes, the age doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Not "nothing", a singularity. Also, not faith-based, unless you count all scientific views as "faith based". To be fair, we dont know that there was a singularity, before the universe began, as far as I am aware. All we do is rewind time to come to the conclusion that everything started from the same point in space. But where did that "point in space" come from? Even if we accept that there was a singularity, where did that singularity come from? Plus "singularity" is a very vague term anyway. Its basically a place holder for where the laws, the mathematics, of physics, break down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Notjam does not have an original thought, he is just parroting things he has heard from other creationists because he doesn't like the theory of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasio Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 The best, shortest and most obvious argument against creation I know of is: The throat being one single intake for air as well as for food means, humans can choke on food. If that was a created design, the designer would be downright dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 To be fair, we dont know that there was a singularity, before the universe began, as far as I am aware. All we do is rewind time to come to the conclusion that everything started from the same point in space. But where did that "point in space" come from? Even if we accept that there was a singularity, where did that singularity come from? Plus "singularity" is a very vague term anyway. Its basically a place holder for where the laws, the mathematics, of physics, break down. There was no before the universe, you're ignoring time. You can't rewind time, you're just using that as a weird euphemism for examining the evidence, which is a reasonable thing todo to get to a conclusion. You again forget time though, everything started from the same point in time, or more precisely, all time was also in that point; Which leads onto the next sentence, that point in space didn't come from anywhere, that point is existence, time and space, if it didn't "exist", then the concept existence wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 The best, shortest and most obvious argument against creation I know of is: The throat being one single intake for air as well as for food means, humans can choke on food. If that was a created design, the designer would be downright dumb. Shorter: what engineer runs a sewer through a maternity ward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasio Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Shorter: what engineer runs a sewer through a maternity ward? God's a civil engineer because no one else one run sewage through a recreation area. Ok, so it's the punchline to a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 God's a civil engineer because no one else one run sewage through a recreation area. Ok, so it's the punchline to a joke. Yeah I played to the bias of the mods for childbirth over whoopie, though. Trying to avoid the PUA debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notjam Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 The best, shortest and most obvious argument against creation I know of is: The throat being one single intake for air as well as for food means, humans can choke on food. If that was a created design, the designer would be downright dumb. ever hear of a "nose". one can breathe and eat at the same time. fallacious argument. An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat if you could prove that man's throat "evolved" you might have an argument. God's a civil engineer because no one else one run sewage through a recreation area. Ok, so it's the punchline to a joke. ever hear of a "nose". one can breathe and eat at the same time. fallacious argument. An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat if you could prove that man's throat "evolved" you might have an argument. There was no before the universe, you're ignoring time. You can't rewind time, you're just using that as a weird euphemism for examining the evidence, which is a reasonable thing todo to get to a conclusion. You again forget time though, everything started from the same point in time, or more precisely, all time was also in that point; Which leads onto the next sentence, that point in space didn't come from anywhere, that point is existence, time and space, if it didn't "exist", then the concept existence wouldn't be. yes. which is why the faith based church of evolution must make up new terms like : "singularity" . / "dark matter" / "multi verse" / "relativity". aka "science of the gaps" . The best, shortest and most obvious argument against creation I know of is: The throat being one single intake for air as well as for food means, humans can choke on food. If that was a created design, the designer would be downright dumb. why do we have a "nose" ? we can eat and breathe at the same time. can you demonstrate how the human throat "evolved"? if so, that would be an argument against creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. can you say "design"? The best, shortest and most obvious argument against creation I know of is: The throat being one single intake for air as well as for food means, humans can choke on food. If that was a created design, the designer would be downright dumb. why do we have a "nose" ? we can eat and breathe at the same time. can you demonstrate how the human throat "evolved"? if so, that would be an argument against creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. can you say "design"? The best, shortest and most obvious argument against creation I know of is: The throat being one single intake for air as well as for food means, humans can choke on food. If that was a created design, the designer would be downright dumb. why do we have a "nose" ? we can eat and breathe at the same time. can you demonstrate how the human throat "evolved"? if so, that would be an argument against creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. can you say " Not "nothing", a singularity. Also, not faith-based, unless you count all scientific views as "faith based". "Life" in it's simplest form is just a self-replicating chemical or set of chemicals. So you are saying that it's not possible for a catalyst to create more of a certain chemical? Not a different kind, the same kind, but with extra traits that not all of the larger group has. Humans still have the "ape" traits, they just also have special "human" traits. "science of the gaps" likes to make up new terms like "singularity, dark matter, multi verse". my favorite is "time did it" . if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince , it's a fairy tale. but give it "millions of years" and it's science. time = magical fairly dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince , it's a fairy tale. but give it "millions of years" and it's science. time = magical fairly dust. You keep saying this as though its making some sort of point. It isnt, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat if you could prove that man's throat "evolved" you might have an argument. That didn't even address my argument, but while we're at it, explain why giraffes have a several foot long nerve that runs up and back down the neck when a two inch long one would work there. Of course, I don't expect a troll to actually try to answer, so, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts