australopithecus
Active Member
Now, before I start I am by no means a science expert so if I've gotten anything wrong then by all means correct me
Creationist 1:
Without God none of you would be alive. And don't give me all this crap about evolution. Without God none of you would be alive
Me:
You call evolution crap yet I can say with 100% certainty that you know nothing about the subject and are not willing to learn, so by all means take your bronze age world view and do with it what you will, so long as you're fully aware that you're wrong even if you don't believe you are.
Not that God and evolution are mutually exclusive by any means. There are plenty of Christian evolutionary biologsts.
C1
Ok, just think about this for a second.....
It has been proven that when a species evolves it becomes extinct. Since we are thought to be evolved from monkeys, why can we see them in the local petting zoo?
Just a question.
Me:
>>>It has been proven that when a species evolves it becomes extinct.<<<
No it hasn't. Where is the source for this claim?
>>>Since we are thought to be evolved from monkeys, why can we see them in the local petting zoo?<<<
Because man didn't evolve from modern monkeys. All primates; man, chimps gorillas, orangutans, and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Your analogy is the same as saying "I'm decended from my grandparents, so why are they still alive?" It's illogical and shows a deep ignorance on thne subject of evolution.
C1:
In every evolution book I've ever read. Try reading The Blind Watchmaker.
Ok, you got me there, so explain how sky and land got seperated. I've never read anything about that. Explain how single celled organisms got on Earth, since that is a common explanation for how everything got created. They couldn't have just shown up here in the middle of the "Big Bang Theory"
Oh, by the way, pay attention to the word THEORY. If you don't know what it means then that could be a problem in your life.
Me:
>>>Ok, you got me there, so explain how sky and land got seperated. I've never read anything about that.<<<
Probably because it's a ridiculous question. The land and sky were never joined so how can they be seperated? Sky is just atmosphere which is gas bound gravitationally to the Earth.
>>>Explain how single celled organisms got on Earth, since that is a common explanation for how everything got created. They couldn't have just shown up here in the middle of the "Big Bang Theory"<<<
What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution? Nothing, is the correct answer. Big Bang is physics, evolution is biology. They have nothing to do with each other. To answer your question, Abiogenesis. Organic molecules bind to create monomers, then polymers which in turn gave rise to RNA then DNA and simple protocells which were subject to natural selction and mutation
>>>Oh, by the way, pay attention to the word THEORY. If you don't know what it means then that could be a problem in your life.<<<
No, clearly you don't know what the word theory means in the scientific sense. There is no greater rank in science than theory. It does not mean guess or idea as is used commonly outside of science.
Also atoms are just a theory, so are germs, and cells and gravity and magnets. Why aren't you tell me these thoings are false too?
C1:
Atoms, germs, cells, gravity and magnets are logical. God created them. THEY'VE been proven. And I'm only saying that evolution is stupid, but you've pushed me deeper and deeper into it. I'm ending it, just to keep everyone happy.
Me:
No, you're running away like all creationists do when confronted with reason. And for the record nothing has been proven because science deals in evidence no proof. That said evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is as much question over evolution's validity as there is over whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. And we've seen evolution happen which is more than can be said of Biblical spontaneous generation.
The debate then degraded into her insulting me and infering that because I'm an ex-Christian then I must be an unfaithful person and just plain bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round 2.
Creationist 2:
the man made fantasy. evolution is a theory like creationism. origins cannot be definitevly proven. logic 101. none of us were there to see it so any claims must be taken on faith. evidence is vital support, but is often ruined by bias. oh, on that note, can anyone explain away irreducable complexity?(pardon the spelling) i always woundered if evolution actually answered that yet. send me a message if anyone knows. i dont think i will be able to find the answer if its posted in heere.lol
Me:
>>>the man made fantasy. evolution is a theory like creationism. origins cannot be definitevly proven.<<<
Science deosn't deal in proof just evidence, and all evidence validates evolutionary theory. Creationism isn't a theory as it lack evidence.
>>>logic 101. none of us were there to see it so any claims must be taken on faith. evidence is vital support, but is often ruined by bias.<<<
We've observed evolution. MRSA and Nylonase for example. There is no bias in the scientific method. if something is wrong, then it's wrong. We move on and correct it.
>>>oh, on that note, can anyone explain away irreducable complexity?(pardon the spelling) i always woundered if evolution actually answered that yet.<<<
Irreducuable complexity has been observed nowhere in nature. Ever. It's a ploy by the ID movement to try and validate Intelligent design but it got thrown out with the Dover/Kitzmiller trial.
C2:
about the mrsa and ect... what you are describing is "micro-evolution" either genetic defects that are ultimately harmful and result in death for the organisim and the genetic chain, or part of a cycle. like darwin's famous finch. the birds beak changed sizes in a cycle with the seasons, and returning to normal. there has never been a recorded change from one species to another.
while there may be no bias in the method itself there is bias in how we interprit the data we get from it. you say God doesn't exist and that evolution is true, so you see the data and interprit it in favor of evolution. Chrisitans are guilty of the same thing sorry to say. the fact is every person on this planet has a bias and it effects everyhting we do, incluing using the scientific method.
the flagella, for instance. take out any single part of it and the whole thing is useless and would be abandoned by natural selection. similar cases in things like the giraffe. it has valves in its neck so that the blood doesnt rush to its head when it takes a drink. no valves, dead giraffe. genetics too. one piece of genetic code is off and it turns to cancer. cells too. any part of the average cell fails and the whole cell cannot function and dies.
sorry to say not all evidence supports evolution. example: entropy, the odd rotation of some planets, the size of the sun as apposed to the required age of the earth, the complexity thing, lack of dust on the moon, lack of further evolution for mankind, lack of further evolution for any species, the irionic fact that carbon dating can only be trusted for about 6000 years, the fact that any "Evolutionary chages" recorded to date are genetic defects(coparable to cancer), hoaxes, or small adaptations that dont amount to any major change and are quickly reversed, and most of the laws of thermodynamics all go against evolution for starters. then i could get into things like morals and so on. but im tired and going to bed. ill pray for ya anthony. youre a cool guy and i really dont want you to go to Hell(i know you dont believe in it so dont say it). ill pray for GOd to send you someone to talk with you face to face. until then i hope to talk again soon, its preetty fun. May God bless you all
Me:
>>>about the mrsa and ect... what you are describing is "micro-evolution" either genetic defects that are ultimately harmful and result in death for the organisim and the genetic chain, or part of a cycle. like darwin's famous finch. the birds beak changed sizes in a cycle with the seasons, and returning to normal. there has never been a recorded change from one species to another.<<<
No, respectfully, you are wrong. Micro and macro are the same thing, evolution. Genetic mutations do not happen in cycles and the vast majority of mutaions are not harmful or beneficial but completely neutral and useless. There has been recorded speciation events. Nylonase is a new species, it is not variation within a species.
>>>the flagella, for instance. take out any single part of it and the whole thing is useless and would be abandoned by natural selection. similar cases in things like the giraffe. it has valves in its neck so that the blood doesnt rush to its head when it takes a drink. no valves, dead giraffe. genetics too. one piece of genetic code is off and it turns to cancer. cells too. any part of the average cell fails and the whole cell cannot function and dies.<<<
The flagella example was completely disproved during the Dover/Kitzmiller trial by several biologists.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#archflag
Giraafe necks are not proof of irreducable complexity either.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html
As for your cells, well to be honest I don't know, I'm not a biologist however I'm sure if you search any peer reviewed litterature I'm sure you'll find plenty of papers on the subject.
>>>sorry to say not all evidence supports evolution. example: entropy, the odd rotation of some planets, the size of the sun as apposed to the required age of the earth, the complexity thing, lack of dust on the moon, lack of further evolution for mankind, lack of further evolution for any species, the irionic fact that carbon dating can only be trusted for about 6000 years, the fact that any "Evolutionary chages" recorded to date are genetic defects(coparable to cancer), hoaxes, or small adaptations that dont amount to any major change and are quickly reversed, and most of the laws of thermodynamics all go against evolution for starters. then i could get into things like morals and so on<<<
Entropy does not invalidate evolution. Thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution it applies to the movment of heat, not biological process. Even if it did, however it would not disprove evolution as the earth is not a closed system. We get heat and energy from the sun.
The sun, planets...all astrophysics and cosmology. Nothing to do with biology. The suns size has been constant for 4 billions years, what does that prove? There is plenty of dust on the moon. Watch the moon landing videos.
Lack of further evolution for mankind? Are you kidding me? There are several very well documented occurences of new human mutations. There are people in Europe who can see part of the UV spectrum. There are people with a mutation that makes their bones denser and pretty much unbreakble along with denser muscle structure. There are people in Africa who are immune to HIV. How are these detrimental genetic mutations?
Nobody uses Carbon dating to messure further back more than 6000 years. They use radiometiric dating.
If genetic mutations dont serve a beneficial purpose or are detrimental the a species then yes, they disapear because those with that mutation are less likely to survive and reproduce.
haoxes prove nothing other than some people are stupid and some people are greedy.
Thermodynamics, again, disproves nothing because we're in an open system with the sun.
Morals are easily explainable. Altruistic behaviour helps a community to be stable and a stable community more more likely to survive and reproduce whilst a community with unstable behaviour is more likely not die out. Any communal species observes what we would call 'moral' behaviour. Monkeys, apes, merecats, dolphins...ect.
>>>ill pray for ya anthony. youre a cool guy and i really dont want you to go to Hell<<<
If God does exist and is intelligent enough to create everything then he must be a scientist, and I'm sure any objective scientist would relaise that without proof there is no way I would believe in something.
Me:
Resen, may I suggest you stop listening to Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, or Ray Comfort or which ever one of those scienitifcally illiterate and unknowledgable fools you seem to be getting your info from. It's the same arguements that have been repeated disproven time and time again, but yet creationsists think that if they say them often enough then they become true by default. they wont.
http://pandasthumb.org/ and http://www.talkorigins.org/ are very good resources when it comes to looking into what evolution is. By all means take a look, it will clear your points up.
This ones ongoing. I'll post more as and when.
Creationist 1:
Without God none of you would be alive. And don't give me all this crap about evolution. Without God none of you would be alive
Me:
You call evolution crap yet I can say with 100% certainty that you know nothing about the subject and are not willing to learn, so by all means take your bronze age world view and do with it what you will, so long as you're fully aware that you're wrong even if you don't believe you are.
Not that God and evolution are mutually exclusive by any means. There are plenty of Christian evolutionary biologsts.
C1
Ok, just think about this for a second.....
It has been proven that when a species evolves it becomes extinct. Since we are thought to be evolved from monkeys, why can we see them in the local petting zoo?
Just a question.
Me:
>>>It has been proven that when a species evolves it becomes extinct.<<<
No it hasn't. Where is the source for this claim?
>>>Since we are thought to be evolved from monkeys, why can we see them in the local petting zoo?<<<
Because man didn't evolve from modern monkeys. All primates; man, chimps gorillas, orangutans, and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Your analogy is the same as saying "I'm decended from my grandparents, so why are they still alive?" It's illogical and shows a deep ignorance on thne subject of evolution.
C1:
In every evolution book I've ever read. Try reading The Blind Watchmaker.
Ok, you got me there, so explain how sky and land got seperated. I've never read anything about that. Explain how single celled organisms got on Earth, since that is a common explanation for how everything got created. They couldn't have just shown up here in the middle of the "Big Bang Theory"
Oh, by the way, pay attention to the word THEORY. If you don't know what it means then that could be a problem in your life.
Me:
>>>Ok, you got me there, so explain how sky and land got seperated. I've never read anything about that.<<<
Probably because it's a ridiculous question. The land and sky were never joined so how can they be seperated? Sky is just atmosphere which is gas bound gravitationally to the Earth.
>>>Explain how single celled organisms got on Earth, since that is a common explanation for how everything got created. They couldn't have just shown up here in the middle of the "Big Bang Theory"<<<
What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution? Nothing, is the correct answer. Big Bang is physics, evolution is biology. They have nothing to do with each other. To answer your question, Abiogenesis. Organic molecules bind to create monomers, then polymers which in turn gave rise to RNA then DNA and simple protocells which were subject to natural selction and mutation
>>>Oh, by the way, pay attention to the word THEORY. If you don't know what it means then that could be a problem in your life.<<<
No, clearly you don't know what the word theory means in the scientific sense. There is no greater rank in science than theory. It does not mean guess or idea as is used commonly outside of science.
Also atoms are just a theory, so are germs, and cells and gravity and magnets. Why aren't you tell me these thoings are false too?
C1:
Atoms, germs, cells, gravity and magnets are logical. God created them. THEY'VE been proven. And I'm only saying that evolution is stupid, but you've pushed me deeper and deeper into it. I'm ending it, just to keep everyone happy.
Me:
No, you're running away like all creationists do when confronted with reason. And for the record nothing has been proven because science deals in evidence no proof. That said evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is as much question over evolution's validity as there is over whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. And we've seen evolution happen which is more than can be said of Biblical spontaneous generation.
The debate then degraded into her insulting me and infering that because I'm an ex-Christian then I must be an unfaithful person and just plain bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round 2.
Creationist 2:
the man made fantasy. evolution is a theory like creationism. origins cannot be definitevly proven. logic 101. none of us were there to see it so any claims must be taken on faith. evidence is vital support, but is often ruined by bias. oh, on that note, can anyone explain away irreducable complexity?(pardon the spelling) i always woundered if evolution actually answered that yet. send me a message if anyone knows. i dont think i will be able to find the answer if its posted in heere.lol
Me:
>>>the man made fantasy. evolution is a theory like creationism. origins cannot be definitevly proven.<<<
Science deosn't deal in proof just evidence, and all evidence validates evolutionary theory. Creationism isn't a theory as it lack evidence.
>>>logic 101. none of us were there to see it so any claims must be taken on faith. evidence is vital support, but is often ruined by bias.<<<
We've observed evolution. MRSA and Nylonase for example. There is no bias in the scientific method. if something is wrong, then it's wrong. We move on and correct it.
>>>oh, on that note, can anyone explain away irreducable complexity?(pardon the spelling) i always woundered if evolution actually answered that yet.<<<
Irreducuable complexity has been observed nowhere in nature. Ever. It's a ploy by the ID movement to try and validate Intelligent design but it got thrown out with the Dover/Kitzmiller trial.
C2:
about the mrsa and ect... what you are describing is "micro-evolution" either genetic defects that are ultimately harmful and result in death for the organisim and the genetic chain, or part of a cycle. like darwin's famous finch. the birds beak changed sizes in a cycle with the seasons, and returning to normal. there has never been a recorded change from one species to another.
while there may be no bias in the method itself there is bias in how we interprit the data we get from it. you say God doesn't exist and that evolution is true, so you see the data and interprit it in favor of evolution. Chrisitans are guilty of the same thing sorry to say. the fact is every person on this planet has a bias and it effects everyhting we do, incluing using the scientific method.
the flagella, for instance. take out any single part of it and the whole thing is useless and would be abandoned by natural selection. similar cases in things like the giraffe. it has valves in its neck so that the blood doesnt rush to its head when it takes a drink. no valves, dead giraffe. genetics too. one piece of genetic code is off and it turns to cancer. cells too. any part of the average cell fails and the whole cell cannot function and dies.
sorry to say not all evidence supports evolution. example: entropy, the odd rotation of some planets, the size of the sun as apposed to the required age of the earth, the complexity thing, lack of dust on the moon, lack of further evolution for mankind, lack of further evolution for any species, the irionic fact that carbon dating can only be trusted for about 6000 years, the fact that any "Evolutionary chages" recorded to date are genetic defects(coparable to cancer), hoaxes, or small adaptations that dont amount to any major change and are quickly reversed, and most of the laws of thermodynamics all go against evolution for starters. then i could get into things like morals and so on. but im tired and going to bed. ill pray for ya anthony. youre a cool guy and i really dont want you to go to Hell(i know you dont believe in it so dont say it). ill pray for GOd to send you someone to talk with you face to face. until then i hope to talk again soon, its preetty fun. May God bless you all
Me:
>>>about the mrsa and ect... what you are describing is "micro-evolution" either genetic defects that are ultimately harmful and result in death for the organisim and the genetic chain, or part of a cycle. like darwin's famous finch. the birds beak changed sizes in a cycle with the seasons, and returning to normal. there has never been a recorded change from one species to another.<<<
No, respectfully, you are wrong. Micro and macro are the same thing, evolution. Genetic mutations do not happen in cycles and the vast majority of mutaions are not harmful or beneficial but completely neutral and useless. There has been recorded speciation events. Nylonase is a new species, it is not variation within a species.
>>>the flagella, for instance. take out any single part of it and the whole thing is useless and would be abandoned by natural selection. similar cases in things like the giraffe. it has valves in its neck so that the blood doesnt rush to its head when it takes a drink. no valves, dead giraffe. genetics too. one piece of genetic code is off and it turns to cancer. cells too. any part of the average cell fails and the whole cell cannot function and dies.<<<
The flagella example was completely disproved during the Dover/Kitzmiller trial by several biologists.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#archflag
Giraafe necks are not proof of irreducable complexity either.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html
As for your cells, well to be honest I don't know, I'm not a biologist however I'm sure if you search any peer reviewed litterature I'm sure you'll find plenty of papers on the subject.
>>>sorry to say not all evidence supports evolution. example: entropy, the odd rotation of some planets, the size of the sun as apposed to the required age of the earth, the complexity thing, lack of dust on the moon, lack of further evolution for mankind, lack of further evolution for any species, the irionic fact that carbon dating can only be trusted for about 6000 years, the fact that any "Evolutionary chages" recorded to date are genetic defects(coparable to cancer), hoaxes, or small adaptations that dont amount to any major change and are quickly reversed, and most of the laws of thermodynamics all go against evolution for starters. then i could get into things like morals and so on<<<
Entropy does not invalidate evolution. Thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution it applies to the movment of heat, not biological process. Even if it did, however it would not disprove evolution as the earth is not a closed system. We get heat and energy from the sun.
The sun, planets...all astrophysics and cosmology. Nothing to do with biology. The suns size has been constant for 4 billions years, what does that prove? There is plenty of dust on the moon. Watch the moon landing videos.
Lack of further evolution for mankind? Are you kidding me? There are several very well documented occurences of new human mutations. There are people in Europe who can see part of the UV spectrum. There are people with a mutation that makes their bones denser and pretty much unbreakble along with denser muscle structure. There are people in Africa who are immune to HIV. How are these detrimental genetic mutations?
Nobody uses Carbon dating to messure further back more than 6000 years. They use radiometiric dating.
If genetic mutations dont serve a beneficial purpose or are detrimental the a species then yes, they disapear because those with that mutation are less likely to survive and reproduce.
haoxes prove nothing other than some people are stupid and some people are greedy.
Thermodynamics, again, disproves nothing because we're in an open system with the sun.
Morals are easily explainable. Altruistic behaviour helps a community to be stable and a stable community more more likely to survive and reproduce whilst a community with unstable behaviour is more likely not die out. Any communal species observes what we would call 'moral' behaviour. Monkeys, apes, merecats, dolphins...ect.
>>>ill pray for ya anthony. youre a cool guy and i really dont want you to go to Hell<<<
If God does exist and is intelligent enough to create everything then he must be a scientist, and I'm sure any objective scientist would relaise that without proof there is no way I would believe in something.
Me:
Resen, may I suggest you stop listening to Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, or Ray Comfort or which ever one of those scienitifcally illiterate and unknowledgable fools you seem to be getting your info from. It's the same arguements that have been repeated disproven time and time again, but yet creationsists think that if they say them often enough then they become true by default. they wont.
http://pandasthumb.org/ and http://www.talkorigins.org/ are very good resources when it comes to looking into what evolution is. By all means take a look, it will clear your points up.
This ones ongoing. I'll post more as and when.