Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Thu 05/24/12 02:14 PM Edited by RKISIT on Thu 05/24/12 02:31 PM
The reason i told Howzit he was full of crapm cause he left out alot in his post.he didn't say that neanderthals and humans walked together and mated.He didn't mention that hominids are fossils that show the evolution of neanderthals.He keeps pumping his DNA theory thinking it leads to his proof.Problem is he seems to not realize that humans came from neanderthals which we have very similar DNA with.Theres also is the possibility that other Neanderthal like people walked the earth cause of how by race our bone structures are different. People who study skeletal remains can identify a race by distinct differences in their bone structures.Why would God do that?He just used vague DNA crap to make his claim.There is alot more to evolution then just DNA. Now with that typed i'm going to play Diablo 3.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Thu 05/24/12 05:23 PM
It's just sad to see science that was once labeled evil by christians is now being used to try and prove their myth is an existing myth. Some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians, get out of here with this crap. Don't you have anything better to do than to spread lies and misinformation? I think it would have been more useful if he had specified the time period and the subset of Christians. I thought he was talking about the last 50 years in certain parts of the US. I think he's mistaken, because those same Christian communities who were attacking science, say, 40 years ago, for the most part, are still attacking science. And all the while there are other communities of Christians that have embraced more science - the entire time. I suppose there may be some discourse communities of anti-evolutionists who have shifted their approach a bit to embrace more of the science (while preserving their anti-evolutionist position)... but I only see that as a 'good thing'. Tennessees Butler Act...haha

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Thu 05/24/12 10:57 PM
The reason i told Howzit he was full of crapm cause he left out alot in his post.he didn't say that neanderthals and humans walked together and mated.He didn't mention that hominids are fossils that show the evolution of neanderthals.He keeps pumping his DNA theory thinking it leads to his proof.Problem is he seems to not realize that humans came from neanderthals which we have very similar DNA with.Theres also is the possibility that other Neanderthal like people walked the earth cause of how by race our bone structures are different. People who study skeletal remains can identify a race by distinct differences in their bone structures.Why would God do that?He just used vague DNA crap to make his claim.There is alot more to evolution then just DNA. Now with that typed i'm going to play Diablo 3. Of course Neanderthals and humans mated, that is because Neanderthals are human, and therefore could mate with other humans. Take Australia, if Aborigines continue to breed with other humans, and eventually you find that the independent Aboriginal race has disappeared due to reducing numbers and interbreeding, you would end up in a few hundred years with the same situation as the Neanderthals. This just proves that races sometimes die off.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Thu 05/24/12 11:00 PM
I am really not a big fan of having these conversations devolve into a battle of bashing religion, or really anything. In fact I want to apologize to howsit for myself being snarky earlier in the thread. We can argue our positions without that level of discourse. Thanks for that, I didn't take it personally, when I come across stuff like that I just like to highlight it because I can , LOL

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Thu 05/24/12 11:42 PM Edited by howzityoume on Fri 05/25/12 12:09 AM
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html Evolution has made predictions, and they have come true. Scientifically literate, modern day creationists like to pick apart the whole of the tapestry of accepted beliefs that fall under the umbrella of 'the theory of evolution'. I find this to be more logical than insisting, without explanation why, that the entire theory be accepted or rejected as a whole. Sometimes the evidence for one aspect of evolution doesn't really apply to another aspect; and even when it does, it can be very difficult for sincerely critical non-experts to understand and appreciate why. If I was a creationist, I wouldn't see that collection of predictions as evidence for the whole of the theory of evolution, but, at best, would connect each example with some sub-set of the theory of evolution. Edit: I said the above after skimming the first 3 examples on that page, and based on what I had previously read of 'examples of predictions based on evolution'. Having now read the entire page, I'm really impressed by much of it. I was reading through some of those arguments, and I think the problem with evolutionists is that they find difficulty getting into the creationists mindset. I found all the evidence put forward in the first few pages unconvincing, all pointing to creationism as well as evolution. For example, here's a quote, showing that they didnt even consider creation as an option, because creation would immediately explain why two creatures of similar shape and ability would have the most similar proteins. To assume common descent instead of common intelligent creator (that repeats the best design instead of using random designs every time he creates an organism) is merely an assumption. Humans and chimps use their hands and brains better than other organisms, any logical engineer would assume an intelligent designer would have huge overlaps of major portions of the design of two inventions with similar function. Imagine two cars with slightly differing engine sizes (1.6L and 1.8L) being produced by one factory in completely different ways, each being more functional and less functional in certain areas. No, the factory comes up with the best combination of functional features, a basic core design, and then moulds that design around the differences. This is intelligent design. This is DNA. Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). On the contrary, the chance of two very similar organisms having a unique genetic feature common to both, is very high if you consider an intelligent designer, their statistics are nonsensical when a creator is considered. And as I said to rskit, both the creation of matter and the creation of life itself are statistically impossible processes, they just do not spontaneously occur. For this very reason, scientists should at least consider creationism as an empirically possible alternative. The following quote is a strong argument that favours evolution, but I have come across it before and there is a simple explanation for similar virusses found in similar chromosomal patterns: similar weakpoints. Chimps are therefore susceptible to the same retrovirus insertions. Once inserted, they are passed on genetically to the next generation. Of the 300000 retrovirusses in humans we share seven or more with chimps, this small amount of shared retroviruses just points to similar susceptibility in our closest design match. In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000). The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 04:12 AM Edited by RKISIT on Fri 05/25/12 04:52 AM
Howzit i understand why you think a creator is involved because science hasn't figured out how the molecules send protein with the important information for the developement of life forms.When they do though will you still think a creator is envolved? It's basically what your saying you just like to detail it more. Actually i think a few generations will come and go before they figure it out so forget about the question i asked.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 09:00 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 09:17 AM
And as I said to rskit, both the creation of matter and the creation of life itself are statistically impossible processes, they just do not spontaneously occur. For this very reason, scientists should at least consider creationism as an empirically possible alternative. What is this assertion based on? Why does matter need to be created? (hint: is someone creating ice when water turns into ice?)

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:17 AM Edited by howzityoume on Fri 05/25/12 10:24 AM
What is this assertion based on? Why does matter need to be created? (hint: is someone creating ice when water turns into ice?) Sorry, I'm not following the question? Matter exists and it came from somewhere. Ice already existed as matter, it was water before, so I don't get your example. Wikipedia: The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. Mass and energy in the universe remain absolutely constant: Wikipedia The nineteenth century law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In the nineteenth century, mass and energy were considered as being of quite different natures. Since Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that energy has an equivalent mass (see mass in special relativity), and mass has an equivalent energy, one speaks of a law of conservation of mass-energy as an updated version of the nineteenth century law. All particles, both massive such as protons and massless such as photons, respectively have energy and mass equivalents. . The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. Whether we believe in God or no God, Einstein's theory of special relativity was broken, matter came from nothing. Instead of the combination of mass/energy remaining constant, it increased to current levels even though we do not observe or understand how its possible for matter to create itself, and physics relies on the 100% observable and reliable law of conservation of mass-energy.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:24 AM
What is this assertion based on? Why does matter need to be created? (hint: is someone creating ice when water turns into ice?) Sorry, I'm not following the question? Matter exists and it came from somewhere. Ice already existed as matter, it was water before, so I don't get your example. Wikipedia: The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. Mass and energy in the universe remain absolutely constant: Wikipedia The nineteenth century law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In the nineteenth century, mass and energy were considered as being of quite different natures. Since Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that energy has an equivalent mass (see mass in special relativity), and mass has an equivalent energy, one speaks of a law of conservation of mass-energy as an updated version of the nineteenth century law. All particles, both massive such as protons and massless such as photons, respectively have energy and mass equivalents. . The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. Whether we believe in God or no God, Einstein's theory of special relativity was broken, matter came from nothing. i don't believe in the big bang theory, i believe that the universe is just a big recycler. maybe multiple big bangs, but not one big bang that started everything. Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:27 AM
Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. True, I believe the universe is ancient too, but how do you think that mass or energy first appeared trillions of years ago? Science relies on the fact that we cannot create energy or mass out of nothing, in a closed environment, the total ALWAYS remains constant.(Its a scientific law)

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Fri 05/25/12 10:27 AM Edited by RKISIT on Fri 05/25/12 10:32 AM
The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 05/25/12 10:28 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 05/25/12 10:29 AM
The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. This is an assertion without any facts to support it. If energy can become matter (and we know it can empirically) and energy has always existed, then just like water turns into ice needs no creator to make it happen, energy turning into matter needs no creator. Your argument is an argument from ignorance, you are really saying that you cannot understand how it could be otherwise, thus it cannot be otherwise. Science makes no such assumptions. (Its a scientific law) Science, even the laws, are descriptive, not proscriptive.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:32 AM
this can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass. Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:33 AM
Mass can be converted into energy, but then later it can be turned back into mass again. that is why i think the universe recycles everything and could be trillions of years old. True, I believe the universe is ancient too, but how do you think that mass or energy first appeared trillions of years ago? Science relies on the fact that we cannot create energy or mass out of nothing, in a closed environment, the total ALWAYS remains constant.(Its a scientific law) i don't have that answer, that seems to me to be a question that can never really be answered. i don't really question where or when the universe started, that is just to complex and something we don't have the knowledge to answer right now. everything they think is just a guess, and will be for a long time to come.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:35 AM
this can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass. Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol there is no proof that it came from nothing. just a speculation from scientists, like the god theory. if it fits, it must be true. I don't believe in either, by the way...

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:36 AM
The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. This is an assertion without any facts to support it. If energy can become matter (and we know it can empirically) and energy has always existed, then just like water turns into ice needs no creator to make it happen, energy turning into matter needs no creator. Your argument is an argument from ignorance, you are really saying that you cannot understand how it could be otherwise, thus it cannot be otherwise. Science makes no such assumptions. (Its a scientific law) Science, even the laws, are descriptive, not proscriptive. Your whole argument crashes down with your one single statement "energy has always existed". My argument is simply "where did that energy originate?" You seem to have missed my point.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 05/25/12 10:39 AM
The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. Ummmm....no. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates that law. Now if you said "Conservation of Mass and Energy", you would be correct.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 05/25/12 10:40 AM
The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. This is an assertion without any facts to support it. If energy can become matter (and we know it can empirically) and energy has always existed, then just like water turns into ice needs no creator to make it happen, energy turning into matter needs no creator. Your argument is an argument from ignorance, you are really saying that you cannot understand how it could be otherwise, thus it cannot be otherwise. Science makes no such assumptions. (Its a scientific law) Science, even the laws, are descriptive, not proscriptive. Your whole argument crashes down with your one single statement "energy has always existed". My argument is simply "where did that energy originate?" You seem to have missed my point. i think it makes more sense to believe energy has always existed, rather than it came from nothing. name one thing that comes from nothing, please...

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:40 AM
this can be argued with the theory that our universe is expanding according to science. By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass. Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol there is no proof that it came from nothing. just a speculation from scientists, like the god theory. if it fits, it must be true. I don't believe in either, by the way... Sorry I don't get the argument that matter or energy just always existed. There had to be an origin.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Fri 05/25/12 10:41 AM
The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. This is an assertion without any facts to support it. If energy can become matter (and we know it can empirically) and energy has always existed, then just like water turns into ice needs no creator to make it happen, energy turning into matter needs no creator. Your argument is an argument from ignorance, you are really saying that you cannot understand how it could be otherwise, thus it cannot be otherwise. Science makes no such assumptions. (Its a scientific law) Science, even the laws, are descriptive, not proscriptive. Your whole argument crashes down with your one single statement "energy has always existed". My argument is simply "where did that energy originate?" You seem to have missed my point. i think it makes more sense to believe energy has always existed, rather than it came from nothing. name one thing that comes from nothing, please... Exactly, that is my point you are making for me. The enrgy came from somewhere, I ask you ...where?