100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Problem With Evolution? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Biogenesis IS a form of evolution. No, it's not. Biogenesis is the study of how life originated, evolution is a theory on how life developed complexity. They are nothing alike and are not the same field of study. and Apples and Oranges ARE comparable organizisms... They are both fruit of a tree... and as did adam. all trees come from the same seed. Some simply evolved to oranges and some to apples. It's a figure of speech dude, not an argument. Maybe you should stop trying to sound so deep and wise and say something that has some intellectual weight? In my experience, people who have to try to sound wise, rarely are and rarely do. Being omnipotent means God knows where creation is at any given moment. Yet all time is available to him. Why would he even need to hurry? His now is from before we were aware to your current moment in now... and to the current moment of now for EVERY GENERATION OF MAN... farther into the future than you can imagine. The myths limit your ability to see... yet they are but a thin veil... God if far greater than any words in a book can describe. Still trying to sound deep, but saying nothing, I see. Your previous argument was that "Indeed for God to have created a physical universe he would have NEEDED to use such a tool as Evolution to bring it about. Else it would colapse under its own sudden begining and fragment." Now you have tried to shift the topic and claim that God created the universe slowly and have decided to pretend that I argued against this. It's actually kind of funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 02/02/12 07:24 AM
|
|
So your position is "Part of the theory is still accepted, so there! *sticks out tongue*"? Okay, if that's your argument, so be it. I just wouldn't want to try to defend that. Your statement used the word "rejected", when it should use the words "built upon", or "extended", or "added to". But you felt like being hyperbolic, I understand. You also referenced punctuated equilibrium as if it conflicted with Darwin's theory, it did not, it added to it to help explain events such as the Cambrian explosion. For us to reject something is very different than building upon, or adding to. I agree with spider Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. It is its own theory and really still in its infancy. There are elements of evolution within Abiogenesis. The more stable an inorganic structure the more likely it is to stick around long enough to gather enough nucleic acids to form long RNA chains and divide due to convection currents. Certain groupings can cause a failure to divide and that would be not be selected against, it would be a dead end and thus would not "reproduce". That is a generic description of one of the more popular models which can be seen here in the following youtube series by an award winning scientist. http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/a/0696457CAFD6D7C9/0/U6QYDdgP9eg Now you have tried to shift the topic and claim that God created the universe slowly and have decided to pretend that I argued against this. It's actually kind of funny. If you agree with him spider . . . you know you can just agree? Or if you think he is not digging deep enough you could take the thought . . you know . . . deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you have tried to shift the topic and claim that God created the universe slowly and have decided to pretend that I argued against this. It's actually kind of funny. If you agree with him spider . . . you know you can just agree? Or if you think he is not digging deep enough you could take the thought . . you know . . . deeper. I think that his reasoning is fallacious and an obvious attempt to sound deep. Which is basically what I said. How would I know if I agree with him or not? His argument has changed twice in as many posts. If I agree with something, I am entirely capable of saying "I agree". I've done it before, it is something that I can do on my own and I don't feel the need for your permission to do so and I don't need your coaching either. If I want to dig deeper into a subject, once again, I don't need your permission or coaching. Originally he said that God "needed" to use evolution to develop the complexity of life. This is a fallacious statement in itself, because the statement assumes an omnipotent god and then attempt to limit that god's power. Then he changed his script to say that "Time means nothing to God, he could create the universe slowly", which is an entirely different argument and one that I don't have any objection to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing too, that you believe that there was nothing morally wrong with the Moses and the Israelites committing genocide against Old Testament peoples like the Midianites, one could make a pretty good case about your being similarly mired in dogmatism. I don't see anything wrong with it. When read in context, it's actually easily justified morally. I rest my case. Anyone using religious dogma to justify the slaughter of children IS mired in dogmatism. -Kerry O. Anyone who is morally outraged by events he claims never happened has too much time on his hands. Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. I just think it's strange that people who don't want Evolution taught in the schools, who only want their Biblical version of Moral Truth to have a privileged place on that stage, suddenly get cold feet when bloodthirsty tales of Old Testament genocides get put on the table. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. So you think it would have been better to leave those children to die in the desert? I just think it's strange that people who don't want Evolution taught in the schools, who only want their Biblical version of Moral Truth to have a privileged place on that stage, suddenly get cold feet when bloodthirsty tales of Old Testament genocides get put on the table. -Kerry O. I think that's strange too. Who are those people? Are they around you right now? Are they telling you to hurt yourself or other people? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 02/02/12 02:55 PM
|
|
Changes that take place , occur WITHIN a species ONLY.
A Species CANNOT and WILL NOT EVER evolve into a whole OTHER species. EVER!! God made everything to reproduce after its own kind. REPEAT: GOD MADE EVERTHING TO REPRODUCE... AFTER... ITS.. OWN.. KIND !!! ONLY!!! And actually,regarding the changes that occur WITHIN a Species, the changes to adapt to ones environment ,shouldn't really even be called Evolution at all...but really should be called DEVOLUTION !!! Simply because ,everything is slowly Dying and DE-VOLVING, and not Evolving at all.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any other entropy fans out there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any other entropy fans out there? Too uncertain, random, and variable for me..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 02/02/12 05:13 PM
|
|
Violating the law The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A THEORY that VIOLATES TWO LAWS OF SCIENCE is in BIG TROUBLE. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biogenesis IS a form of evolution. No, it's not. Biogenesis is the study of how life originated, evolution is a theory on how life developed complexity. They are nothing alike and are not the same field of study. and Apples and Oranges ARE comparable organizisms... They are both fruit of a tree... and as did adam. all trees come from the same seed. Some simply evolved to oranges and some to apples. It's a figure of speech dude, not an argument. Maybe you should stop trying to sound so deep and wise and say something that has some intellectual weight? In my experience, people who have to try to sound wise, rarely are and rarely do. Being omnipotent means God knows where creation is at any given moment. Yet all time is available to him. Why would he even need to hurry? His now is from before we were aware to your current moment in now... and to the current moment of now for EVERY GENERATION OF MAN... farther into the future than you can imagine. The myths limit your ability to see... yet they are but a thin veil... God if far greater than any words in a book can describe. Still trying to sound deep, but saying nothing, I see. Your previous argument was that "Indeed for God to have created a physical universe he would have NEEDED to use such a tool as Evolution to bring it about. Else it would colapse under its own sudden begining and fragment." Now you have tried to shift the topic and claim that God created the universe slowly and have decided to pretend that I argued against this. It's actually kind of funny. Deep? Me? Please. Still trying to sound me. The study of Biogenesis is a step in the evolution of Mankind. With out it we will not evolve past thumping our chests and brandishing our nukes. Without the 'evolution' of the indgredients of the petri... Genesis does not occur. Even a germ can not grow without the aspect of time. Perhaps a mingling of fields of study would be of greater benefit that simply stating that the don't mix. Many new things would come. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Originally he said that God "needed" to use evolution to develop the complexity of life. This is a fallacious statement in itself, because the statement assumes an omnipotent god and then attempt to limit that god's power. Then he changed his script to say that "Time means nothing to God, he could create the universe slowly", which is an entirely different argument and one that I don't have any objection to. "
Wosers! You read a lot into that. changed what? God needed to use Evolution because Time makes it so in the world of Reality. Where did I change? Being Omni HE would KNOW that. However I must apologize to you for my inability to explain such a simple (yet complex)concept in terms deep enough for your understanding... I shall deepen more and attempt it again at a later time... When I am wiser in my language skills. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 02/03/12 09:33 AM
|
|
Violating the law The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A THEORY that VIOLATES TWO LAWS OF SCIENCE is in BIG TROUBLE. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html So nonsense, and non-science support your beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So how do you explain to kids how humans came to be.Do you tell them God created us or we evolved from other species?I guess the answer would be teach them both and let them decide.Aw wait now i get it,to simplify things it's much easier to say "God did it." right on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Fri 02/03/12 04:03 PM
|
|
See i've been missing the whole picture for all these years,God isn't a mythical being God is a "supplement" answer for "I don't know".Kind of like the word "singularity" Astronomers use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. So you think it would have been better to leave those children to die in the desert? Nice False Dichotomy, but just about what one expects from someone mired in dogmatism. I'm sure you and Moses could have found a better solution than abandoning innocents in the desert or running them through with weapons. You know, like NOT exterminating a peaceful people and justifying it on religious grounds in the first place. It's been said that a society's real character is demonstrated by how it treats people who can't fight back. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sat 02/04/12 10:38 AM
|
|
Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. So you think it would have been better to leave those children to die in the desert? Nice False Dichotomy, but just about what one expects from someone mired in dogmatism. I'm sure you and Moses could have found a better solution than abandoning innocents in the desert or running them through with weapons. You know, like NOT exterminating a peaceful people and justifying it on religious grounds in the first place. While it's true that there were other options than killing the children or leaving them to die in the desert, the Israelites couldn't leave the city alone, that would have left an army to their back. They couldn't have adopted the children, they were an army on the move, they couldn't afford to take on more mouths to feed and people to care for. It's been said that a society's real character is demonstrated by how it treats people who can't fight back. The Canaanites were not a peaceful people. They practiced human sacrifice and that whole area was impassable by outsiders due to their aggression. It's almost like you are defending the inbreed hill people in the "Hills Have Eyes". After the Canaanite civilizations were destroyed, trade opened up between Africa and Asia, allowing for the progress of civilization. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AdventureBegins
on
Sat 02/04/12 08:28 PM
|
|
Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. So you think it would have been better to leave those children to die in the desert? Nice False Dichotomy, but just about what one expects from someone mired in dogmatism. I'm sure you and Moses could have found a better solution than abandoning innocents in the desert or running them through with weapons. You know, like NOT exterminating a peaceful people and justifying it on religious grounds in the first place. While it's true that there were other options than killing the children or leaving them to die in the desert, the Israelites couldn't leave the city alone, that would have left an army to their back. They couldn't have adopted the children, they were an army on the move, they couldn't afford to take on more mouths to feed and people to care for. It's been said that a society's real character is demonstrated by how it treats people who can't fight back. The Canaanites were not a peaceful people. They practiced human sacrifice and that whole area was impassable by outsiders due to their aggression. It's almost like you are defending the inbreed hill people in the "Hills Have Eyes". After the Canaanite civilizations were destroyed, trade opened up between Africa and Asia, allowing for the progress of civilization. Aye... Evolution occured and the human race advanced. Question: Would such 'evolution' have come about without the intervention of the Jews in such a way as to cause the death of children... and BLAME it on their God in their history books (as extreeme Islam is doing now? Or would mankind eventually have 'evolved' among the Canaanites to the point were trade become open? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. So you think it would have been better to leave those children to die in the desert? Nice False Dichotomy, but just about what one expects from someone mired in dogmatism. I'm sure you and Moses could have found a better solution than abandoning innocents in the desert or running them through with weapons. You know, like NOT exterminating a peaceful people and justifying it on religious grounds in the first place. While it's true that there were other options than killing the children or leaving them to die in the desert, the Israelites couldn't leave the city alone, that would have left an army to their back. They couldn't have adopted the children, they were an army on the move, they couldn't afford to take on more mouths to feed and people to care for. It's been said that a society's real character is demonstrated by how it treats people who can't fight back. The Canaanites were not a peaceful people. They practiced human sacrifice and that whole area was impassable by outsiders due to their aggression. It's almost like you are defending the inbreed hill people in the "Hills Have Eyes". After the Canaanite civilizations were destroyed, trade opened up between Africa and Asia, allowing for the progress of civilization. Aye... Evolution occured and the human race advanced. Question: Would such 'evolution' have come about without the intervention of the Jews in such a way as to cause the death of children... and BLAME it on their God in their history books (as extreeme Islam is doing now? Or would mankind eventually have 'evolved' among the Canaanites to the point were trade become open? Why would it have anything to do with God "intervention"? God created a body, a being able to adapt to it's surroundings through adaptation. And through adaptation we then have evolving. We originally were more "primate" like then we are now. Our bodies would have been made the survive in the environment. Without houses and buildings we're exposed to the environment more. Our skin would have had to be rougher to keep us protected, we may have had more body hair to keep warm in cooler areas. And so on and so on. It's called adaptation, call it evolution if you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but YOU, a habitually staunch defender of biblical inerrancy, claim they DID happen and that the slaughter of those children was not only morally justified, but was also in their best interests since they would have died in the desert anyway without the care of their slaughtered parents. So you think it would have been better to leave those children to die in the desert? Nice False Dichotomy, but just about what one expects from someone mired in dogmatism. I'm sure you and Moses could have found a better solution than abandoning innocents in the desert or running them through with weapons. You know, like NOT exterminating a peaceful people and justifying it on religious grounds in the first place. While it's true that there were other options than killing the children or leaving them to die in the desert, the Israelites couldn't leave the city alone, that would have left an army to their back. They couldn't have adopted the children, they were an army on the move, they couldn't afford to take on more mouths to feed and people to care for. It's been said that a society's real character is demonstrated by how it treats people who can't fight back. The Canaanites were not a peaceful people. They practiced human sacrifice and that whole area was impassable by outsiders due to their aggression. It's almost like you are defending the inbreed hill people in the "Hills Have Eyes". After the Canaanite civilizations were destroyed, trade opened up between Africa and Asia, allowing for the progress of civilization. Aye... Evolution occured and the human race advanced. Question: Would such 'evolution' have come about without the intervention of the Jews in such a way as to cause the death of children... and BLAME it on their God in their history books (as extreeme Islam is doing now? Or would mankind eventually have 'evolved' among the Canaanites to the point were trade become open? Why would it have anything to do with God "intervention"? God created a body, a being able to adapt to it's surroundings through adaptation. And through adaptation we then have evolving. We originally were more "primate" like then we are now. Our bodies would have been made the survive in the environment. Without houses and buildings we're exposed to the environment more. Our skin would have had to be rougher to keep us protected, we may have had more body hair to keep warm in cooler areas. And so on and so on. It's called adaptation, call it evolution if you wish. I was not talking about Biological evolution. Rather the evolution of spirit that allows civilization, peace and prosperity to flourish. Evolution is very compatable with faith. It occurs on many more levels than just the physical changes within the body. Spritual evolution has occured at least seven times in mankinds past. (I beleive it is occuring right now Globally). As proof I offer one such Spritual Evolutionary Line - that created by the Advent of Jesus... Would you not say his advent caused a spritual evolution in mankind. The question I asked is... Would the Canaanites have 'evolved' spirtually (therefore not needing to be slaughtered) if the Jews and not intervened and killed them all? |
|
|
|
|
