Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution/Creation debate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 6:30:56 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Archaeopteryx seems to indicate otherwise.
It could indicate a lot of things, tell me what does it seem to indicate to you?

That a dinosaur was starting to fly despite your claim that such wasn't possible.
quote:

quote:

Huh? Bisexual reproduction developed in the ocean in organism that released sperm and egg cells into the water. Based on the species that do so alive today it is likely the original organism had both "male" and "female" sex organs and only later did specialization occur.
I wasn't talking about when it was suppose to happen, I talking about the all those "specializations" that that were supposed to happen after. As I said; after the development of bisexual reproduction "every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other". That would mean that would have to happen thousands, if not millions of times to get to where we are to day. Maybe you think that is reasonable but it seems highly unlikely to be.

Do you think organs got terribly complicated overnight? Have you ever seen how fish mate? how about snakes?
quote:

quote:

This is Abiogenesis. Unless you are arguing that life has always existed there was a beginning.
Call it what you like but yes, there was a beginning. I thought that was part of what we were discussing. You seem to believe the beginning happened in an electrified mud puddle by its self and I believe that it took a little more intelligent design than that.

No. We both know there was a beginning. You simply wish that some sky fairy poofed it into being.
quote:

quote:

What I find odd about your arguments is how they are straight out of the standard creationist playbook.
Although I do believe in creation, I am not a Creationist, Creationism has a set core of beliefs, much of which I don't have much truck with, such as the earth being only five thousand years old.

Not all creationists claim the earth is 6k years old and not all that believe that admit it. However your arguments so far have come straight out of standard creationist arguments.

As a matter of fact they are so standard there is a website set up with all the answers all ready cataloged.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/13/2014 6:32:56 AM >

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 361
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 6:38:03 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I wasn't talking about when it was suppose to happen, I talking about the all those "specializations" that that were supposed to happen after. As I said; after the development of bisexual reproduction "every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other". That would mean that would have to happen thousands, if not millions of times to get to where we are to day. Maybe you think that is reasonable but it seems highly unlikely to be.


Actual evolution doesn't work like that, this is the crocoduck theory of hillariousness.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 362
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 8:12:54 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
after the development of bisexual reproduction "every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other".





_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 363
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 10:20:51 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How is this not a form of anthropomorphism?

Is there an argument here for why it is?

Hint: No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How does this not attribute human characteristics to some 'unseen reality?' How is this different from proclaiming the existence of a god?

Is there an argument here for why it does?

Hint: No.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/13/2014 10:23:32 AM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 364
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 10:23:37 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		You don't feel that trying to characterise the random activities of natural forces as the work of a person (unless you're an ancient Egyptian or Hindu, Gods are always people) who either has it in for you or wants to protect you if you do as He says is in any way a form of anthropomorphism, then?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 365
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 10:26:10 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

trying to characterise the random activities of natural forces as the work of a person

I never did anything of the kind.

K.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 366
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 12:20:58 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		So how else would you describe the practice of trying to hang a mask on the unknown if it isn't anthropomorphism, then? You do that every time you go to church, or pray.

< Message edited by Moonhead -- 2/13/2014 12:27:55 PM >

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 367
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 12:34:39 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So how else would you describe the practice of trying to hang a mask on the unknown if it isn't anthropomorphism, then? You do that every time you go to church, or pray.

What mask? And what makes you think I'm a churchgoer? You're just full of assumptions today.

K.





< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/13/2014 12:41:38 PM >

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 368
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 12:41:11 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So how else would you describe the practice of trying to hang a mask on the unknown if it isn't anthropomorphism, then? You do that every time you go to church, or pray.

Welcome to the Kirata merry go round where he will now deny every thing he has previously written without actually admitting he is.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 369
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 12:44:08 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Welcome to the Kirata merry go round where he will now deny every thing he has previously written without actually admitting he is.

Funny how some people can never seem to quote me actually saying the things they claim I said.

K.





< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/13/2014 12:46:09 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 370
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:18:39 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How is this not a form of anthropomorphism?

Is there an argument here for why it is?

Hint: No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How does this not attribute human characteristics to some 'unseen reality?' How is this different from proclaiming the existence of a god?

Is there an argument here for why it does?

Hint: No.

K.


Ah, the clumsily played non-answer answer. Still waiting, Kirata. Anytime. Why is it that attributing rational mind to an "unseen reality" is not anthropomorphizing? Why is it not a god by another name? You made the assertion. You invented the rational unseen. Justify your philosophy if you can.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 371
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:19:50 PM   
graceadieu


Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

Then one day I was asked, how long did it take for birds to evolve? I said thousands of years. Were there predators during that time? Sure, there were predators. Then how did the "proto-birds" exist long enough develop flight?


Uh, the same way any other organism survives predators....

quote:

I thought although scientifically birds could have evolved, realistically, fat chance.


Well, there's extensive fossil evidence.

quote:

What about bisexual reproduction? With asexual reproduction Evolution would seem reasonable but with bisexual reproduction that means every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other. Again scientifically it could happen but realistically, fat chance.


That's not how population genetics works. The individual with the "advance" (genetic mutation) will still be able to reproduce with the other members of their species, passing it along to at least some of his or her kids. If it's actually an "advance" - that is, if it improves an individual's ability to survive and reproduce - that individual will be more likely to have more kids, and those kids will have more kids, until the gene spreads throughout the species.

quote:

Finally, what about "the spark of life", it has always seemed a bit sketchy to me. Chemicals mixing in a mud puddle struck by lightening and suddenly life. Whereas human scientists working under laboratory conditions have not duplicated it


They have, more or less. Back in the 50s, scientists found if they take the chemical mixture that existed on the early Earth and zap it with electricity (lightening) a bunch, the organic compounds that form the basis of life spontaneously form. And then, another experiment in the 60s or 70s found basically that if you take those compounds and do some natural process to it (I don't recall off the top of my head), they spontaneously form into self-replicating genes.

Now, since scientists don't have millions of years to do their experiments, going from A to B to C to cell hasn't yet been done in a lab setting, but every indication is that if you continue the process from "soup" to organic compounds to genes for long enough, eventually you'll get to cells.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 372
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:23:41 PM   
graceadieu


Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.
For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.
[

So, evolution?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 373
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:24:09 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		And then you gotta deal with epigenomes and recessive and dominant gene pairings as well as homozygotic and heterozygotic alleles in those genes.

So, just like Mendel, within those things you can sort of predict what is going to happen.  And the evolution of things is like that as well.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to graceadieu)
Profile   Post #: 374
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:32:10 PM   
egern


Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has always struck me as likely to be no less a made up story than Genesis. If life arose once, why not more than once, in different forms in different niches? I could see all plants having a common ancestor, for example, but while natural selection works fine to explain speciation it seems increasingly inadequate when called upon to account for the phyla and kingdoms.

And if you actually understood biochemistry you would have no doubt that there was a single origin for all life on earth. For instance all life on Earth shares essentially the same DNA to amino acid codon correspondence which is not something that would occur with separate origins.




That is how life originated and developed.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 375
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:33:42 PM   
egern


Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And if you actually understood biochemistry you would have no doubt that there was a single origin for all life on earth. For instance all life on Earth shares essentially the same DNA to amino acid codon correspondence which is not something that would occur with separate origins.

My apologies. It was just a crazy idea of mine, not something that would ever occur to anyone who knew what they were talking about.


So you went and found one contrarian. Big fucking deal.

Now for an injection of reality.
All life shares:
The same metabolic mechanism
The same genetic coding mechanisms including the same genetic code
The same way of doing all the basic functions of life.

How could all of that be possible if we did not all share a common ancestor?

The very possibility for horizontal transfer of genetic material, one of the arguments used by your quote, requires a universal common ancestor.



Or is it just that according to circumstances in which life developed it had to be along those lines?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 376
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:34:41 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I wasn't talking about when it was suppose to happen, I talking about the all those "specializations" that that were supposed to happen after. As I said; after the development of bisexual reproduction "every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other". That would mean that would have to happen thousands, if not millions of times to get to where we are to day. Maybe you think that is reasonable but it seems highly unlikely to be.


First of all it's not like the changes actual evolution is talking about are so different that an animal can't mate with the species that gave them birth. Evolution doesn't involve crocodiles giving birth to ducks, it just plain doesn't and never has.

Second if two crocodiles were to somehow give birth to two ducks those ducks still wouldn't be able to give birth to a viable species. While the minimum number to make a species viable does vary, 2 is ridulously low.

That's right, those Bible stories involve an unservivable level of inbreeding!

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 377
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:37:28 PM   
egern


Posts: 537
Joined: 1/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

some scientists believe that we could be a part of a very huge computer simulation, and there for we were created by a software publisher.

That would explain an awful lot, particularly if we're in a Microsoft product.


The smile of the day :-) thanks

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 378
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 1:47:32 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

some scientists believe that we could be a part of a very huge computer simulation, and there for we were created by a software publisher.

That would explain an awful lot, particularly if we're in a Microsoft product.

The smile of the day :-) thanks


The Matrix runs on Windows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8yrOAjfKM

(in reply to egern)
Profile   Post #: 379
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/13/2014 2:10:07 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I wasn't talking about when it was suppose to happen, I talking about the all those "specializations" that that were supposed to happen after. As I said; after the development of bisexual reproduction "every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other". That would mean that would have to happen thousands, if not millions of times to get to where we are to day. Maybe you think that is reasonable but it seems highly unlikely to be.


First of all it's not like the changes actual evolution is talking about are so different that an animal can't mate with the species that gave them birth. Evolution doesn't involve crocodiles giving birth to ducks, it just plain doesn't and never has.

Second if two crocodiles were to somehow give birth to two ducks those ducks still wouldn't be able to give birth to a viable species. While the minimum number to make a species viable does vary, 2 is ridulously low.

That's right, those Bible stories involve an unservivable level of inbreeding

GS . . . MnM's concepts are just too embarrassingly misinformed to bother with a reply. Obviously, his understanding of evolution is terribly lacking.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 380
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.107