no evolution for you...

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by msilverstein47, Dec 31, 2013.

  1. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    And you have to rub it in... :(
     
    Justin Z repped this.
  2. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hey, there. That is truth. Coppell was biased against Convey because he is a Yank. Had nothing to do with his level of skill. :D
     
  3. Motorcycle Gang

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Aug 17, 2013
    Miami, FL, USA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Except that there are plausible hypothesis out there each with some level of supporting evidence.

    And what you are doing is called making a "God of the Gaps" argument. Just because humans don't know the answer to something you are blindly inserting your god as the answer. It's an argument from ignorance, a non formal fallacy. Until we can document a single reason to believe in a supernatural creator, we can't insert that as an example. Whenever we used to that (as humans) the answer was always later found to be natural.

    By the way you are also confusing evolution with abiogenesis, two different topics. Almost everyone of any education accepts evolution, including almost every christian biologist on the planet, because evolution is fact backed up by over 400,000 peer reviewed papers spreading different branches of science.

    Lastly, your reasoning is post hoc. You were a christian first and decided to work up this argument. No one comes to believing in their god by this line of (flawed) deductive reasoning.
     
    HerthaBerwyn and Pønch repped this.
  4. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    sorry, buddy, but no soap.

    micro evolution, aka speciation, is an easy to understand and verifiable working principle; macro evolution, the development of new genera through natural selection and random mutation, is not verifiable, and, in fact, is not supported by evidence.

    to give you a needed heads-up, similarities in genetic information do not point in greater probative value to a common ancestry than to a common creator. and where did the genetic information arise in the first place. i understand that your reductionistic biases require you to call "God of the Gaps" whenever you are painted into a corner, but there's far more to the difficulties in explaining neo-Darwinian evolution than you seem to be aware of.

    specifically, there is virtually no "evidence" to establish a theoretical construct to explain the origin of life. beginning with Urey-Miller, all the wildly speculative attempts are flawed. the whole argument is rooted in Hume's contention that there aren't any miraculous/supernatural phenomena. he was wrong, of course, but his error stems simply from a misunderstanding.

    the misunderstanding lies in the fact that God created the Laws of Nature (natural law) and anything he does, whether it may appear supernatural or natural is part of his creative prerogative. i get it that Hume didn't understand that idea, but it's a simple one.
     
  5. Motorcycle Gang

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Aug 17, 2013
    Miami, FL, USA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. That is a creationist invention.

    The evidence for "macro" evolution is robust and supported by mountains of evidence. Twin-nested hierarchical patterns of endogenous retroviral markers in the genetic makeup of all primates necessitates a common ancestor.
    This becomes abundantly clear when looking at humans and chimpanzees specifically.


    Vestigal organs and pseudogenes destroy this claim. I posted this in the other thread but these are christian bilogists who made this page. I hope you will open your mind to the evidence http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-is-there-junk-in-your-genome-part-4


    Not knowing the answer to something is not being painted into a corner. And again, this is not evolution it is abiogenesis, a totally different topic.

    Show me some documented miracles or supernatural phenomena. And the Urey Miller experiment showed you can get organic material from non organic matter including 22 amino acids.
    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Miller-Urey_experiment.html

    And there have been more successful abiogenesis experiments since.

    Furthermore we are finding more and more clues all the time
    http://www.newscientist.com/article...-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html

    Demonstrate it.

    The ony thing you've demonstrated so far is ignorance of the data.
     
    Justin Z, Dyvel, Karloski and 1 other person repped this.
  6. Chesco United

    Chesco United Member+

    Jun 24, 2001
    Chester County, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm no biologist, but the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the length of time, AFAIK.
     
  7. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess this is a good thread for this.

    And here is the part that anti-evolutionist do not get on how the process works.

    https://www.economist.com/news/scie...up-people-amphibious-life-have-evolved-traits
     
  8. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What Urey and Miller did is cull out all the organic matter so that the environment in which they "grew" it wouldn't kill it outright. and everybody who has done any reading on the subject knows that the gas mix that they used was not representative of the early earth, so the experiment proved nothing.

    you may be able to "grow" organic matter from inorganic matter, but that's worlds away from creating Life, getting a cell, RNA, DNA, all of the stuff that is needed to go from molecules to reproducing entities.

    and, tell me all about how sexual reproduction "evolved".

    you can't, of course, but you believe it developed thru a non-directed process.

    that takes more faith than believing in a Creator.
     
  9. Dolemite

    Dolemite Member+

    Apr 2, 2001
    East Bay, Ca

    gotta love Stilton... still going at it in 2018. he's completely wrong and a total fool, but you gotta admire the dedication
     
    Dyvel repped this.
  10. Dolemite

    Dolemite Member+

    Apr 2, 2001
    East Bay, Ca
    i apologize for the total fool remark. stand by the rest
     
  11. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    thanks for the correction.

    now, in your spare time, tell us how sexual reproduction developed.
     
  12. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
  13. Dolemite

    Dolemite Member+

    Apr 2, 2001
    East Bay, Ca
    it's not my job to inform you. inform yourself. but you're too dogmatically tied to an idea. no amount of science or debate will make a difference. enjoy your life
     
  14. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    You do realise there are species that employ both sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction, right? It’s not as impossible a leap to go from one to another as you think, given both exist in various species.

    The thing that jumps out to me about your posts is that because you can’t explain something, all science must be in error. Because you can’t explain how sexual reproduction started, all the fossil and genetic evidence is suddenly null and void. What a ludicrous premise you are using.

    The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. You not only want to throw the baby out with the bath water, you also want to burn the house down.

    The second thing that jumps out to me is you do not hold the claims of creationism to the same standard you hold actual science. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against the claims of biblical creationists it is absurd to have to engage in these discussions. And it’s not just the fossil evidence, it’s genetics, earth sciences, archaeology, anthropology, zoology, astronomy, etc. Even biblical studies demonstrate you can’t take Genesis as historical or scientific - which of the two contradictory versions of the Flood integrated together in Genesis 6-9 should we accept as the one that supposedly happened about 2400 BCE (contrary to all evidence)? It’s just absurd that so much energy is wasted on such blatant nonsense that humans didn’t evolve from an ape-like ancestor.
     
  15. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've been busy.

    If you read that Wiki entry with any sort of academic acumen you discover that words like "it is thought", "suggests that" and "likely".

    How in the world do you actually think that those kinds of explanations prove anything? They don't. They are explanations that make sense if you make certain assumptions, namely that life-form PQR evolved from MNO, over a span of X number of years.

    If you are to believe that sexual reproduction "evolved", in higher forms of Life, you must believe that two systems developed in an random process yet fit together in such a manner as to allow species to reproduce. That's akin to believing that the plug that goes into the wall and the outlet happened by a happy accident.

    The science isn't there, kids.
     
  16. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    Science (unlike religion) recognizes the potential for new knowledge to need incorporation. There is infinitely more evidentiary reason to accept the transitional nature of life forms than there is to believe the religious explaination, that a Golden Cosmic Egg washed up out of the ocean and created life. ,
     
    fatbastard and roby repped this.
  17. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    Well...as all this happened quite some time ago nobody really knows.
     
  18. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    Science doesn’t generally prove things, it disproves hypotheses. That is how science operates. For example, it has conclusively disproved many stories and events in the Bible.

    I find it extremely ironic that someone who requires absolutely no evidence or “proof” for religious beliefs demands 100% proof for things science says, even though that is not how the scientific method works.
     
    fatbastard, song219, roby and 1 other person repped this.
  19. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    It doesnt take any evidence for the Religious explanation. Everyone knows that the world was created by Coyote Trickster.
     
    song219 repped this.

Share This Page