Sport Bikes banner

21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
The only people who believe there are 6 kinds of evolution are creationists. Only the last two "meanings of the word evolution" have anything to do with the actual theory of evolution, and it's debatable whether or not there should be a distinction between those two. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address some of your questions to the best of my abilities.

moresoever575 said:
1. Where did matter come from?
2. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Both of these are unknown and probably unknowable. They're certainly unknowable until we manage to create a unified theory of physics. Neither the theory of evolution nor the Big Bang theory attempts to answer either of these questions. The second question in particular is probably more philosophical than scientific.

3. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
What I believe you're trying to do here is make an argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is commonly stated as "The total entropy of any isolated system increases over time, approaching a maximum value." One must remember, however, that it is equally accurate to state the law as "A system operating in a cycle cannot produce a positive heat flow from a colder body to a hotter body." As you can see, this has very little to do with the entirely unscientific concept of organisation. Indeed, organisation is a completely arbitrary concept. (laws quoted from wikipedia)

5. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
Why is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. There are several competing theories as to how life originated, as well as several theories as to general times and places. None of the theories are necessary to evolutionary theory, and none are anywhere near as well supported as the theory of evolution.

6. " " did life learn to reproduce itself?
Why is, once again, a philosophical question. When, where, and how are largely unknowable, as evolutionary theory requires that reproduction start before organisms we could possibly find any trace of today existed. Of course, the exact mechanism by which reproduction began is largely irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as interesting as it would be to know.

5. Macroevolution- the changing from one kind to another (dog to cat, horse to house, fly to human)
I see you subscribe to the "kinds" definition of macroevolution, whereby all creatures can be grouped into distinct kinds. Can we agree that if this is true, man and non-man primates are two different kinds? Consider this fossil:



Found in Kenya in 1972, this skull is the most complete Homo Habilis skull ever discovered. It demonstrates features found in both modern man and modern apes. Creationists are divided over whether this skull belonged to an ape or a man; Duane Gish was originally of the opinon that it was a man, then changed his mind. Other skulls, such as Peking man and Java man are the subject of similar disagreement. If creatures can truly be grouped into distinct kinds, why is it that there is considerable disagreement as to where the boundary between one kind and another lies?
 

·
Nihongo Hanaseruzo!
Joined
·
1,465 Posts
moresoever575 said:
Give me one example of how scientific research has helped benefit the Big Bang and/or evolution!!!
A. We have observed that the universe appears to be constantly expanding.
I'd say thats at least one very basic example as to how scientific research has supported the Big Bang.

B. We have shown that the human genome is 99% similar to that of primates, indicating very strongly that we have come from a common ancestor.

Our tax dollars are used to purchase textbooks that have been known for tens and hundreds of years to have false, untestable beliefs in them.
You asked me for examples, now I'm gonna ask you for some. Which "false, untestable beliefs" are you talking about here?


A few questions if I may:
1. Where did matter come from?
2. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
3. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
To these questions the honest answer is "we don't really know yet". All we do know is that they had to be there. But if you're gonna use those questions as some kinda disproof for evolution, then I'd toss the question of "If god just created everything...where did he come from?" If your idea is that everything complex has to have some kind of creating force. Wouldn't this stand for god as well?

5. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
6. " " did life learn to reproduce itself?
These we can answer...or at least we have probable answers (i.e. theories)
There are a bunch out there...but basically the main idea is that over an extremely long period of time (billions of years), non-living atomic structures came into contact with each other in such a way as to produce what we'd now look at and call "life". I'm not a scientist...but I can understand the basic gist of it. You'd have to look at some books on evolutionary theory to get the full story.

SCIENCE IS DEFINED AS BEING TESTABLE AND OBSERVABLE WITHIN A CONTROLLED STATE, E.G. LABORATORY.
There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution":

1. Cosmic Evolution- the origin of time, space, and matter
2. Chemical Evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution- the origin of stars and planets
4. Organic Evolution- the origin of life from inanimate matter
5. Macroevolution- the changing from one kind to another (dog to cat, horse to house, fly to human)
6. Microevolution- variations within kinds (ONLY THIS ONE HAS BEEN OBSERVED)

THE FIRST FIVE HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. IF YOU THINK THEY HAVE, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Observed directly? No. How are we going to be there to observe life forming? Kind of a dumb question. The question is whether or not we have run experiments and done SCIENTIFIC research that strongly points to the likelihood of evolution in all these forms. The answer to that is yes. We can look out into space and see stars forming, planets forming, stuff like that. And I just explained the "life from nonlife" idea basically.

The thing that bugs me here, is how you say "dog to cat, horse to house, fly to human". NOWHERE in evolutionary theory does it talk about ANYTHING like that! Saying something like that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. The only thing evolutionary theory says is that Man and primates had a COMMON ANCESTOR!!! The same way that we have different kinds of bears (polar, grizzly, black) which are all adapted to their environment, yet all likely had a common ancestor.

Maybe we should start a new thread for Intelligent Design? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
R.Brosnan said:


Found in Kenya in 1972, this skull is the most complete Homo Habilis skull ever discovered. It demonstrates features found in both modern man and modern apes. Creationists are divided over whether this skull belonged to an ape or a man; Duane Gish was originally of the opinon that it was a man, then changed his mind. Other skulls, such as Peking man and Java man are the subject of similar disagreement. If creatures can truly be grouped into distinct kinds, why is it that there is considerable disagreement as to where the boundary between one kind and another lies?

First off, the fact that a skull was found in the ground doesn't mean that it is the missing link to mankind. For all we know, the fossil was once an ape who had no offspring, or a man who had no offspring, or either who had offspring. I think this can be a lot related to trying to date the fossils to the layer and the layer to the fossils (please note that the geologic colume has never been found in all the Earth); circular reasoning does nothing for advancement. It's a lot like "which was first, the egg or the chicken?" which the Bible answers in the book of Genesis when "God created the fowl of the air".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Once you take the leap to redefine the meaning of "theory" it's not so much farther to redefine the definition of Evolution. This kind of backwards circular logic is endemic among creationists...

Look, the world is flat. It's flat everywhere you've ever been. This proves that it is flat everywhere. Sure there are some humps and hills, but they're just a part of the divine mystery. Such a perfectly flat world could only have been created by a magnificent and mysterious Bulldozer. The existence of this great Bulldozer proves the Book of Bob the Builder is true. The Book of Bob the Builder proves the world is flat. Isn't it a marvelous bulldozer to have created such a perfectly flat world!

Now we'll pass the plate. The Divine Bulldozer uses a lot of diesel!
 

·
KH, Rest In Peace Brother
Joined
·
20,852 Posts
I'd the moment of slience in schools, people could prey if they wanted to...if not they just sat there quietly for a few mins.
 

·
The Ugly TwatWaffle
Joined
·
8,369 Posts
"We don't need prayer in schools, we need the tossed salad man in schools! That'll straighten the kids out. 'Jimmy you got a D you know what YOU gotta do...' 'NOOOOO!!! I don't wanna toss the salad, I don't wanna toss the salad! I'mma read, I'mma learn to reeeeeeeeeeeead!" hahahah
 

·
The Ugly TwatWaffle
Joined
·
8,369 Posts
Ghost2 said:
I see the Muslim taking off there stinky ass shoes and praying in the bathroom.. So should prayer be allowed anywhere in a public school?
Was the stinky ass shoes comment REALLY necessary? I mean c'mon bro, pull it out of your ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
ThePhorest said:
A. We have observed that the universe appears to be constantly expanding.
I'd say thats at least one very basic example as to how scientific research has supported the Big Bang.
I know some immature peep is going to say "what's a matter? Can't handle the heat?", but. . . One question at a time please. If you'd like to get more personal answers, please, PM me.

First, the six evolution ideas are adopted by creationist because they break down the facets of evolution, e.g. planetary, chemical, cosmic, etc. listed above. Evolutionist believe that if one is true (microevo) then the others are "guilty by association". Never once have we seen an ape turn human, a fly turn to a mouse, nor a dog turn to a cat. The first five are purely religious in that you have to believe the cosmos, planets, chemical, etc. came from the Big Bang or God or some other force. So, lets examine the BB theory.

(Please provide a source for galactic expanding AND how it ties to evolution.)

Lets get to the source of evolution. Most textbooks average "18 to 20 billion years ago" all matter was condensed in a tiny dot "smaller than a period on this page" Source:prentice Hall General Science, 1992, pg.61

That's a lot of matter in such a small space. One crowded dot!! And, it will happen again in "80 to 100 billion years." Source: Prentice Hall Earth Science, 1991, pgs. 36-37.

(I have numerous sources for science textbooks varying the BB from 4.5, 16.5, 18, and 20 billion years. None are consistent.)

Anyways, this dot was spinning extremely fast when all of a sudden, it exploded. The law Conservation of Angular Momentum states that when an object explodes and/or pieces come off of its original source, those fragments will spin in the same direction as when it was attached. Why then are there two if not three planets within our own solar system spinning backwards from the other six (Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto, although not yet, if ever, observable). Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have moons spinning in both directions. Not only that, but numerous galaxcies are spinning both clockwise and counter-c-w. Even if a force caused these planets, let alone galaxcies, to change their initial rotation, why haven't or why aren't they destoyed. Sunlight destroys everything, houses, cars, animals, humans. The only thing on this earth the can harness the suns energy is a plant. The atmosphere is even changed by the suns energy.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends toward disorder.

Evolutionists believe that by adding energy, the 2nd LofT can be overcome.
1. The Universe is a closed system. It does not receive energy from outside sources, and if it did...
2. Adding energy is destructive w/out a complex mechanism to harness that energy. Only chlorophyll has been proven to be able to harness this energy.

ThePhorest said:
To these questions the honest answer is "we don't really know yet". All we do know is that they had to be there. But if you're gonna use those questions as some kinda disproof for evolution, then I'd toss the question of "If god just created everything...where did he come from?" If your idea is that everything complex has to have some kind of creating force. Wouldn't this stand for god as well?
I completely agree!! We don't know where God came from, but atleast he left us a manual we can go by. We don't know where the DIRT came from, so we'll just wing it.

Here are the two theories:
In the beginning God... and In the beginning BB (matter)
I believe the God think sounds more influential, where as others believe in the beginning "DIRT". If the DIRT thing is true, then atleast I lived a halfway moral life than most, there was no point to life, and when I'm gone, dust to dust.

(Devil's Advocate) Could it be that God did create everything that Genesis talks about (by the way, some theologians believe that Moses didn't write all of Genesis but that is was written by up to ten different individuals, based on the variations in writing style.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
moresoever575 said:
The law Conservation of Angular Momentum states that when an object explodes and/or pieces come off of its original source, those fragments will spin in the same direction as when it was attached. Why then are there two if not three planets within our own solar system spinning backwards from the other six (Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto, although not yet, if ever, observable). Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have moons spinning in both directions. Not only that, but numerous galaxcies are spinning both clockwise and counter-c-w.
Seriously????

I mean in all the respect I can offer, are there no varying velocities or collisions in your version of comprehending the concept of the "Big Bang"?

Beyond that, what does the truth or fiction of the "Big Bang" have to do with the existance or non-existance of God?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
moresoever575 said:
Give me one example of how scientific research has helped benefit the Big Bang and/or evolution!!!
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/pub/bigbang/file8.html

European particle accelerator that is under construction by CERN
(European Organization for Nuclear Research)

particles are shot at eachother at nearly the speed of light , and when they collide the trajectory of the energy emissions are recorded. This will allow scientists to study how the universe was formed.


moresoever575... just be a little more open minded. Intelligent design... sure, maybe...
I believe in the purity and understanding of science, and I can believe the possibility of intelligent design... Don't take the bible so literally, it is a guide to how we should live, written 2000 years ago, in a language and context that people of that age could understand...


It is alright to be passionate about something, just keep an open mind.

You are no more right than everyone else...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
moresoever575 said:
First, the six evolution ideas are adopted by creationist because they break down the facets of evolution, e.g. planetary, chemical, cosmic, etc. listed above. Evolutionist believe that if one is true (microevo) then the others are "guilty by association".
No. This is not true, and saying that it is will not make it true. The theory of evolution deals solely with the development of life, and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about. The tieing of evolution to other, completely unrelated theories such as the Big Bang is done solely by creationists. No one who actually believes in evolution will provide evidence for one as evidence for another.

moresoever575 said:
(Please provide a source for galactic expanding AND how it ties to evolution.)

Lets get to the source of evolution. Most textbooks average "18 to 20 billion years ago" all matter was condensed in a tiny dot "smaller than a period on this page" Source:prentice Hall General Science, 1992, pg.61

That's a lot of matter in such a small space. One crowded dot!! And, it will happen again in "80 to 100 billion years." Source: Prentice Hall Earth Science, 1991, pgs. 36-37.

(I have numerous sources for science textbooks varying the BB from 4.5, 16.5, 18, and 20 billion years. None are consistent.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

There's an entire section on evidence for an expanding univers and the Big Bang in general. All of this, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. They are completely seperate, unrelated theories.

Incidentally, textbooks are often a poor source of information, especially if they are intended for students below the college level or general college courses.

moresoever575 said:
Anyways, this dot was spinning extremely fast when all of a sudden, it exploded.
This is a gross mischaracterisation of Big Bang theory.

moresoever575 said:
The law Conservation of Angular Momentum states that when an object explodes and/or pieces come off of its original source, those fragments will spin in the same direction as when it was attached. Why then are there two if not three planets within our own solar system spinning backwards from the other six (Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto, although not yet, if ever, observable). Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have moons spinning in both directions. Not only that, but numerous galaxcies are spinning both clockwise and counter-c-w.
This is a gross mischarecterisation of Newton's laws, and you draw completely incorrect conclusions from it. There is no seperate law of Conservation of Momentum, rather it is a specialised restatement of Newton's first law. Conservation of momentum requires merely that the total momentum of a system remain constant. Let's pretend there's a simplified Universe that only consists of two parts, A and B. If, prior to the Big Bang, the angular momentum of the Universe was x, the sum of the angular momentums of the two bodies a and b must equal x, represented by the simple algebraic equation a+b=x. As is obvious, there are an infinite number of solutions to this equation, including many that have a negative momentum for one body, meaning it would spin opposite to the other body and to the preBang body.

moresoever575 said:
Even if a force caused these planets, let alone galaxcies, to change their initial rotation, why haven't or why aren't they destoyed. Sunlight destroys everything, houses, cars, animals, humans. The only thing on this earth the can harness the suns energy is a plant. The atmosphere is even changed by the suns energy.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends toward disorder.

Evolutionists believe that by adding energy, the 2nd LofT can be overcome.
1. The Universe is a closed system. It does not receive energy from outside sources, and if it did...
2. Adding energy is destructive w/out a complex mechanism to harness that energy. Only chlorophyll has been proven to be able to harness this energy.
Apparently this didn't get through the first time, so I'll try again. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with the arbitrary concepts of order and disorder. The word entropy as used in the most common way of stating the Second Law does not mean the same thing as the word entropy in common speech. Evolutionists do no believe that the Second Law can be overcome, evolutionists believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable to thermodynamics and cannot be applied to situations that have absolutely no relation to thermodynamics, such as the theory of evolution.


moresoever575 said:
Here are the two theories:
In the beginning God... and In the beginning BB (matter)
The word theory is like the word entropy, in that when used in relation to science it has a different meaning then when used in common speech. While both of these could be called theories in the common usage, "In the beginning God" does not fit the scientific definition of a theory. Of course, "In the beginning BB" is a gross mischaracterisation of Big Bang theory, as Big Bang theory does not and cannot currently describe the shape of the universe prior to 10^-33 seconds or so. Perhaps a unified theory of physics will change that, but for now we can not hope to describe mathematically "the beginning."
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top