well, there is no getting around it if you are flat-earth fool enough to say the earth is 5,000 years old in the face of tons of independent corroborating evidence to the contrary.QUALTHWAR said:
Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
The 'hockey pokey' was infact long, passionate love making, capped off by simultaneous orgasms.
Picture this: The human body starts out as one single cell. But it ends up as trillions of cells. Trillions of cells in something the size of a person.
If cells are made up of amino acids, amino acids must be smaller than cells. Imagine how many amino acids there must be on a planet if there are so many in one person. But let’s just use the statistics of one single person. There are between 10 and 100 trillion cells in the body. If we use just the ten trillion, image trying to do something unimaginable 10 trillion times. You stand in the middle of a field and have to throw a dart somewhere away from you while blindfolded to hit a small target on the ground, but close enough for you to hit it if you just have the right trajectory. You could throw the dart a million times and not hit the target, so it seems hopeless. But chances are, you’ll hit the target before 10 trillion tries are up.
Can you imagine how many “almosts” there were when amino acids were assembling a structure that could eventually be useful for a lifelike form to initiate? How many trillions and trillions and trillions…….etc…….attempts at structure must have occurred? And what if all those attempts included just a single day’s activities for the planet? Think about all those attempts happening over and over for a trillion days. Eventually, you’ll achieve a working structure for the precursors to life.
There’s an old saying: If there’s a mathematical probability that something “can” happen, then it becomes a mathematical “certainty” that it “will” happen given enough time.
If cells are made up of amino acids, amino acids must be smaller than cells. Imagine how many amino acids there must be on a planet if there are so many in one person. But let’s just use the statistics of one single person. There are between 10 and 100 trillion cells in the body. If we use just the ten trillion, image trying to do something unimaginable 10 trillion times. You stand in the middle of a field and have to throw a dart somewhere away from you while blindfolded to hit a small target on the ground, but close enough for you to hit it if you just have the right trajectory. You could throw the dart a million times and not hit the target, so it seems hopeless. But chances are, you’ll hit the target before 10 trillion tries are up.
Can you imagine how many “almosts” there were when amino acids were assembling a structure that could eventually be useful for a lifelike form to initiate? How many trillions and trillions and trillions…….etc…….attempts at structure must have occurred? And what if all those attempts included just a single day’s activities for the planet? Think about all those attempts happening over and over for a trillion days. Eventually, you’ll achieve a working structure for the precursors to life.
There’s an old saying: If there’s a mathematical probability that something “can” happen, then it becomes a mathematical “certainty” that it “will” happen given enough time.
QUALTHWAR said:
Cool, much funnier than Lego porn. I think it was the story of Er and Onan that made me conclude it was a piss take.
I also found this on bash.org:
Yeah, I'll go there. Cat you obviously see the small piece but lack the desire to see it to its necessary conclusion. If the theory works in small pieces, then it works well in large ones. Nothing changes over great spans of time, the settings are the same, so why wouldn't mid-level evolution be reasonable? I'm not going to argue supermacroaminoevolution. The point is that you're completely rejecting something even though part of it works. That's wasteful, all we're trying to do i figure out how we got here, to give us an idea of what to do now that we're here, and throwing out useful theories is stupid.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Just because the engine runs, doesn't mean the whole car works. We see cars going down the road by the hundreds. This cars engine runs, so can we assume that it will also go down the road? No.
Last edited:
There is no car.
And if there is, it's a really big car. You're never going to get the whole thing to work.
And if there is, it's a really big car. You're never going to get the whole thing to work.
Cat Fuzz said:
If evolution was a rusty car with no tires....
If we're comparing a theory to a vehicle in terms of proof to design quality, then whatever condition that evolution car is in it's gonna make it down the road alot farther than the car with the creationism sticker.
Like Cope said, Macro Evolution is Micro Evolution on number chart with a bigger number line. Either way your dealing with Evolution.
Now we've already all agreed that Evolution can only suggest how things evolved before the oldest fossil. But if everything from that oldest fossil to the present fits the bill, why is applying the same idea to what came before such a stupid idea? Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.
The bible, which is a hotbed for several religious factions...none of which is remotely the oldest religion, says that the world was created by God. This of course all happened in a period of thousands, not millions, of years. Even though we know the world is much older than that.
Now how many of you have ever met God? Been in is presence? Saw the angels? Saw one angel? Prayed for something that came true only through divine intervention and not mere coindicence? Don't all rush at once.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Mister_Prophet said:
Last time I checked, cars were created by an intellegent designer. Well, at least most cars were. Yugos had to have come from an evolution of random scrap metal being tossed about.
this is a flawed analogy. microevolution IS evolution, the engine of a car is only part of a car.Cat Fuzz said:
edit: i should say, microevolution is different from evolution, however, most of what you refer to microevolution is not. many examples posted in this thread are not microevolution, but you seem to enjoy waving your hands and declaring it microevolution because you don't have any other explanation.
Last edited:
the way it is,
youl all need everything explained before youl admit it's true,so if you cant explain the proof of ware we came from,then it rules out the disbelief in God,cause you can't prove that God doesn't exist either.
So none of you will ever know the truth ,cause it aint gonna ever be proved,thats why all this athiest crap is a crop of flimzy minds, try as they may.
Thing is,is I am probably the most scrutenizeing,sceptacle, logical,distrusting allways analyzing, and would love science to lay it all out for me , and go by the facts person.
If I took like the easy way to believe (evolution until proved) but still think a human organism,floating around in the solar system by chance,looses the logical war for me.
Just too good to be true,and there are instances of things that have happened to people I know wich totaly convinced me there is a God,along with the knoledge of God from elementary school.
So if all you "humans"-flesh out there who are so fair and so good being athiests,why is it you want to remove other peoples choice of wich way to believe?
ie pictures of jesus
10 commandments etc etc
saying merry Christmass,gimmie a break shheez.
And on the flipside if I didn't believe in God and they taught even religion in school,or any PUBLIC display of God or whatever,I say to myself,"heh man I can't believ they think thats right" but to impose on it in any way is hardly the approach I would take.
Live and let live.......
I don't get the "rights" thing either,hell you drive by a church ,mabye see a cross too so WTF it's "public" you gonna go up to the church and take up a lawsuite?
Whats the difference if someone puts up a nativety seen,or if you drove by the church,rediculas if you ask me.
Athiests think about God ,more that religious folk do anyway because they have to be a minority,so going againt the popular opinion is gonna make you stick out more for thier opinion to get out there.
youl all need everything explained before youl admit it's true,so if you cant explain the proof of ware we came from,then it rules out the disbelief in God,cause you can't prove that God doesn't exist either.
So none of you will ever know the truth ,cause it aint gonna ever be proved,thats why all this athiest crap is a crop of flimzy minds, try as they may.
Thing is,is I am probably the most scrutenizeing,sceptacle, logical,distrusting allways analyzing, and would love science to lay it all out for me , and go by the facts person.
If I took like the easy way to believe (evolution until proved) but still think a human organism,floating around in the solar system by chance,looses the logical war for me.
Just too good to be true,and there are instances of things that have happened to people I know wich totaly convinced me there is a God,along with the knoledge of God from elementary school.
So if all you "humans"-flesh out there who are so fair and so good being athiests,why is it you want to remove other peoples choice of wich way to believe?
ie pictures of jesus
10 commandments etc etc
saying merry Christmass,gimmie a break shheez.
And on the flipside if I didn't believe in God and they taught even religion in school,or any PUBLIC display of God or whatever,I say to myself,"heh man I can't believ they think thats right" but to impose on it in any way is hardly the approach I would take.
Live and let live.......
I don't get the "rights" thing either,hell you drive by a church ,mabye see a cross too so WTF it's "public" you gonna go up to the church and take up a lawsuite?
Whats the difference if someone puts up a nativety seen,or if you drove by the church,rediculas if you ask me.
Athiests think about God ,more that religious folk do anyway because they have to be a minority,so going againt the popular opinion is gonna make you stick out more for thier opinion to get out there.
Last edited:
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
bobtheking said:
The way I understand it, micro-evolution is things like gene mutations, adaptations to environment, a red-tailed woodpecker suddenly having an off-spring of white tailed woodpeckers and thus propagating a new kind of woodpecker.
Macro-evolution is the concept that all life started from lifelessness by some chance and that some fish crawled up out of the water and eventually turned into cows, girraffes, horses, lizards, birds and humans.
If I remember right, every argument in this thread for evolution has been based on theories of micro-evolution. They are two seperate things.
Macro-evolution is based on an assumption that simply because we can observe species adapting and improving themselves that automatically means that zillions of years ago they must have been much, much simpler life forms. It is an assumption that cannot be proven. At best I consider it a stretch to make such assumptions.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
microevolution is a change in allele frequencies, most of the examples in this thread are not such changes. speciation is macroevolution, which has been observed as well, and what most of the examples in this thread fall under. obviously nothing as dramatic as you want, it takes millions of years, and we only have a few thousand years of barely documented history.Cat Fuzz said:
edit: examples of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Last edited:
On the contrary, fossil records demonstrate that life gets less complex the further back you go.Cat Fuzz said:
I don’t understand why some people dismiss the fossil record as some ad hoc, geologic mind game. If you come across a bed of rock and you have these layers of fossils embedded in it, chances are the oldest fossils are near the bottom. Sure, the folding of land can do weird things sometimes and flip stuff so the oldest layers are at the top, but that’s a fluke.
I mean, something doesn’t come along and insert a layer of rock strata within other layers. So if you go through the strata and find simpler life the deeper you go, it makes sense that life is getting more complicated and diverse the older it becomes.
Again, you don’t do evolution justice. You take an enormous period of time and ignore the impact that has on statistics. You oversimplify an extremely complex issue. We have some great fossil records, and the horse record is very robust, which is why I posted links to it. You can see how horses used to be these very small creatures and how much they’ve changed over eons.
If you accept micro-evolution, then there must be some specific thing that you cannot accept about macro-evolution; some sort of stumbling block. I’ve attempted to put into perspective the enormous attempts at a lifelike structure with all the primordial soup that was brewing long ago, but the statistical significance of unimaginable attempts is looked upon with skepticism.
We have incredibly simplistic life and pseudo-life all around us even today. Viruses only have 8 genes. They aren’t really a complete lifeform. They need a host to become a complete organism. Here you have an intermediate lifeform in your midst. It took a lot of tries to get to a virus. There were intermediates to an intermediate virus. And intermediates to those intermediates… and so on. If you keep going, you end up with goop in tide pools needing some form of energy such as volcanic heat or lightning to produce metamorphism.
If you accept micro-evolution, time must be your stumbling block.