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  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 2:50:18 PM   
GotSteel


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

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Yep, typical Evolutionist rebuttal, "the evidence is all there but you are too stupid to understand it".


"the evidence is all there but you are too stupid to understand it"....Get that a lot do you?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 461
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 6:16:47 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 462
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 6:56:00 PM   
Kirata


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Archaeopteryx is undeniably a dinosaur

Archaeopteryx falls into the class Aves, clade Avialae. In other words, BIRDS (see here and here). The classification has been challenged (see for example here from 2011), but the consensus view has held (see Britannica, updated 2013).

Are you one of those crazy bird deniers?

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/17/2014 7:08:32 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 463
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 7:50:14 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: thursdays
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Call it what you will, so far it is a choice between an "electrified mud puddle" and "some sky fairy", I'm going with the "sky fairy", because as I said, we both know that all the combined intelligence of science has not figured out how an "electrified mud puddle" could have done it.

That covers it.
Let's set aside the vast, vast body of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to god.
No, instead, let's take a closer look at the vast, vast lack of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to God.
;-)

Prove he exists first outside the confines of your cranium.
Why? I don't need to prove God's existence, to show that Evolution is a flawed model of the world around us.
;-)

You said "hand it over to God"

How can you hand anything over to something that doesn't exist.

Prove its existence and then we can hand everything over.

< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 2/17/2014 7:53:35 PM >


_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 464
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 7:52:42 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Prove he exists first outside the confines of your cranium.

He can't Hilly.

Men (general sense) have been trying to do that for over 2 millenia and not a single person has ever succeeded (yet).

Miles would rather believe in creationist theory that has absolutely no evidence whatsover, backed up by strange faerie storied badly translated by bad writers bound up in a book of untruths.
His mind is too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there.

You might find it easier to convince him that the sun goes round the earth.

Actually, for thousands of years many have had the existence of God proven to them, perhaps it is your mind that is "too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there"?
;-)


For thousands of years, many knew that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a giant turtle.

Your arguments are childish.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 465
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:02:20 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
For thousands of years, many knew that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a giant turtle.

A Terry Pratchett fan Hilly??

Methinks Miles has been reading too many faerie stories too.
And he still hasn't come back with any tangible proof of his claims beyond what is inside his cranium.



< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 2/17/2014 8:03:46 PM >

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 466
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:17:46 PM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Archaeopteryx is undeniably a dinosaur

Archaeopteryx falls into the class Aves, clade Avialae. In other words, BIRDS (see here and here). The classification has been challenged (see for example here from 2011), but the consensus view has held (see Britannica, updated 2013).

Are you one of those crazy bird deniers?

Birds are dinosaurs.

Is this going to be another subject about which you don't know jack but want to start an argument only to retreat into snark and the merry go round?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 467
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:23:03 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles



quote:

Actually, for thousands of years many have had the existence of God proven to them, perhaps it is your mind that is "too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there"?
;-)


For thousands of years, many knew that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a giant turtle.

Your arguments are childish.


HW you are far too generous in your comments. The argument is far worse than childish - it is inane gibberish, the kind of one sided self serving crap that can only be the result of a hermetically sealed ideologically driven mental process that masquerades as thought. It is a parody of thought and a pretty pathetic parody at that.

Pure drivel.

_____________________________



(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 468
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:30:11 PM   
Paladinagain


Posts: 23
Joined: 11/14/2011
Status: offline
Actually.............the "BIG Bang" scenario proves the existence of God and creationism, as it proves that the entire universe came from nothing.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 469
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:45:34 PM   
GotSteel


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
The proper term is "Sexual Reproduction" as opposed to "Asexual reproduction".
Thanks, I appreciate that. I was using the term to emphasize the need for two, a male and a female for reproduction each time Evolution came up with a new "branch" but I will discontinue the practice, if as you have said, it "implies ignorance of the subject matter."


Yes somebody just had to explain sex to you.....ignorance is the kind way to put it.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 470
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:46:44 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain

Actually.............the "BIG Bang" scenario proves the existence of God and creationism, as it proves that the entire universe came from nothing.

Where do you get that insane idea that the big bang theory has anything whatsoever to do with an ethereal omnipotent being that lives somewhere skywards or in people's heads and "created" the universe in 6 days???
It sure as fuck does not prove the existence of any sort of "god".


(in reply to Paladinagain)
Profile   Post #: 471
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 8:49:41 PM   
GotSteel


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Your arguments are childish.


Don't insult children like that.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 472
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 9:05:21 PM   
GotSteel


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
what is the answer to my question, how does Evolution account for thefact that a male and a female must be born at the same place and time to continue the newly evolved each time the tree of Evolution branched?


You're question has already been answered several times in the thread, the answer is your "fact" is not a fact. Evolution does not work like that.

P.S. In my state children are required to understand evolution better than you by the age of 12.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 473
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 9:07:40 PM   
GotSteel


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

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain
Actually.............the "BIG Bang" scenario proves the existence of God and creationism, as it proves that the entire universe came from nothing.


Lol at God is nothing, atheist high five.

< Message edited by GotSteel -- 2/17/2014 9:08:04 PM >

(in reply to Paladinagain)
Profile   Post #: 474
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 9:15:55 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
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

Ever heard of inbreeding? You should be quite familiar with it.
Thanks for the barely veiled insult and I return the compliment.
quote:

I mean you throw all these biological terms around. Do you not realize that siblings born with the same trait will likely pass that trait on if they breed?
Animals and plants aren't nearly as fastidious as we about such things.
Back to the subject at hand, what do you think happened? What happened every time the tree of Evolution branched? Did suddenly hundreds of the new branch appear? Because as GotSteel was so kind in pointing out; "while the minimum number to make a species viable does vary, 2 is ridulously low." So how did that happen? Personally, it seems to strain credulity to believe that there was a male and a female born every time the tree of Evolution branched but GotSteel says it would take more than that.
I tried not to "throw all these biological terms around" for you.
;-)



Don't worry about throwing biological terms around me. It's what my undergraduate work and graduate work were both in.

I'll try to simplify it so you can understand it.

The advantage doesn't have to happen in the first generation, nor does it need to be a dominant trait.
This gives a new allele time to disperse through a species. (remember, were playing with tens of millions of years here, not 60 centuries).

Let's have a population of animals all of whom who can digest 1 type of tree leaf (A1) and a few of them can digest 2 kinds because of a slightly different enzyme in their stomach (A2).

Tree species 1 dies out due to pests, drought or disease in this area.

Only the few will survive. There is a good chance they will also be morphologically different as well as genetic changes rarely only have a single effect. We have a permanent change in the species.

If tree species 1 persists in other areas, you now have 2 genetically and morphologically different subspecies of the herbivore.

This is especially common on islands where intense inbreeding among small populations will heighten any genetic differences from the parent species.

Remember, change is typically slow. This seems to be one of the problems that Biblical Literalists have with the theory. It typically takes more than 6000 years and a lot of them cannot comprehend numbers as large as a Million.


quote:

By the way, your comment earlier on asexually reproducing higher animals was dead wrong.
Some species of lizards reproduce via parthenogenesis (no males involved). Due to the fact that there is no mixing of the gametes (think of mixing a bag of scrabble letters to make new words) they must live in ultra stable environments or they won't last long.
Parthenogenesis is an advantage only in an ultra stable environment with high predation pressures as it is a way to double potential reproductive activity without doubling the population and pushing the organism past the carrying capacity of said environment.
Ah, thanks? By the way, I would get my money back from the college that gave you that particularly bad education.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 475
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 9:19:15 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Actually, for thousands of years many have had the existence of God proven to them, perhaps it is your mind that is "too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there"?
;-)


Where??
I don't know of any proof of god anywhere.
Without spouting from the book of lies and deceit, where is your proof???
Can you provide any sort of evidence at all??
A reputable source for a link?
Anything????
You're funny, you know that.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 476
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 9:48:00 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
"Evolution" doesn't have to account for this as it is a principle and requirement that only exists in your mind. Biology and 'evolution' work differently. A single gene mutation in either parent is passed to an offspring if that half of the particular gene ends up part of the descendent's genes (50/50 chance, one from male, one from female parent, thus SEXUAL reproduction). That generation passes the altered gene to it's descendents (again 50/50 chance) and so on. If the new coding alters individual chances of reproduction and viable offspring who reproduce (+ or -) it affects the chance it increases or decreases in the population. MOST mutations don't offer advantages, in fact most result in still births. Of the very few that convey a phenotype advantage, random death before reproduction probably 'disappears' most. The few that survive long enough to be tested for competitive advantage (Multiple offspring who, in the case of recessives, breed with similar gene partners) are selected FOR and their descendents have a better chance of survival to reproduction. NO male and female at the same generation required, only that the gene stay in the game and multiple descendents eventuate to compete against the previous coding of the species without the mutation.
Conventional theory points out that in most cases small populations geographically or otherwise reproductively isolated from larger numbers of the species select for novel genetic advantages faster. Large groups interbreeding may suppress new recessive mutations which then have little chance of either being expressed and thus conveying reproductive advantage. Or the species genetic variation increases with out a new species emerging. (But with potential for doing so if small numbers find themself isolated in different environments that select for it.) And altered environments offer altered chances a novel phenotype may be more competitive. Better adaptions do better, poorer ones are selected OUT, independently of which variation arose most recently.

What do YOU call it when accounting for ALL genetic populations displaying drift (Change in gene frequency and exact genes in the group) over time? Every single trial or longitudinal study (such as examination of historical population remains compared to later populations) of either asexual (Bacteria undergoing Mitosis or budding higher organisms) or sexual reproduction (Meiosis I and II) shows random drift, much from mutation. Evolution just takes that fact and looks at it's consequences of competition for resources, predator avoidance, mate selection, successful parenting and everything else affecting individual survival through it's reproductive success to the next generation. If you maintain populations Don't drift, we are done here, you aren't conversant with observed reality.
Really? Okay let's talk about "observed reality". How much cross species reproduction do you see in the world around you? Tell me how the world got that way through Evolution? All this mumbo jumbo you have spouted here does not address that. You can talk about inner-species variation over millions of years all you want, that does not make for a new species. What really makes a new species is it's inability to mate with another species and according to Evolution that would have to have happened millions of times if not billions of times to get where we are today. Each time a new species, over your "billions" of years, came into existence, there was a requirement of at least two, male and female of that new species, for that species to survive and you can call it a "requirement that only exists in your mind" all you want but just take your head out of your textbooks for a moment and take a look around at "observed reality" and you will see that is the way it works in reality and not in your fictionalized world of Evolution.
;-)

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 477
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 10:08:32 PM   
Kirata


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Birds are dinosaurs.

Is this going to be another subject about which you don't know jack but want to start an argument only to retreat into snark and the merry go round?

Not at all. I'm willing to admit that you're a primate.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 478
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 10:12:51 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
That's what I like about Evolutionists, their vivid imaginations. It's a fossil of an animal that once existed, nothing more. All this starting to fly, is only in your mind. If it had been a ostrich or an emu fossil you had found, you would say the same thing about it, except we would know it wouldn't be true.

Archaeopteryx is undeniably a dinosaur with numerous uniquely bird characters including adaptations for flight. What do you think it was?
I already told what it was; "It's a fossil of an animal that once existed, nothing more."
quote:

quote:

Do I believe organs got complicated over night? Quite frankly, yes I do. Again it's one of the reasons I see Evolution as bogus. Have you looked at Evolution's simple cell that started all this lately? Science has found that it's not so simple any more, in fact I could ask, do you think those simple cells got terribly complicated overnight?
Then you have no idea of the broad range of sexual organs getting progressively more complicated as time goes on.
Seriously?
quote:

quote:

Call it what you will, so far it is a choice between an "electrified mud puddle" and "some sky fairy", I'm going with the "sky fairy", because as I said, we both know that all the combined intelligence of science has not figured out how an "electrified mud puddle" could have done it.

That's called the argument from ignorance. In short just because you don't know how something happened doesn't mean it couldn't have.
I never said it couldn't have happened but that if it did happen it would have taken a lot more intelligence to do it than what mankind has come up with so so far and since it seems to take intelligence to do it....
quote:

Your stuff is right out of the standard creationist playbook. I guess that puts the lie to those denials of yours.
First I would have had to make denials to put lie to and is this your sad attempt to divert us from your knowledge and use of the Evolutionist playbook you posted?
;-)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 479
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/17/2014 10:14:50 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
Bless you and your faith.

Species creation doesn't happen all at once, it's a gradual thing - With reproduction between the old and new species gradually getting less likely to succeed as they evolve.

I know it's upsetting, but the vast vast vast bulk of the evidence - You know, like 1000 to 1, points to evolution by natural selection as a practical, real thing.

When people first started utilizing evolution by human selection four thousand years ago, your shonky witchdoctors were claiming the world was flat, and burning men of science.

Tell ya what... I'll go with the science, you go with your witchdoctor.

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   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

0.109