Poll: How did human life come about?

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,079
30,012
146
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.
No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Another word that you have made up. Macro/Micro evolution is not a concept in evolutionary science. It is a concept created by creationists, who can no longer deny the realities of waht they call "microevolution," but must still find some ground to deny the majority of evidence that still remains.

Here's a suggestion: When you attempt to debate a field that you have little exposure to, it is best to actually read the literature within that field, rather than rely on prepared talking points and arguments conveniently prepared (and imagined) for you by your fellow creationists/ID wanks.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,079
30,012
146
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.
No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.
Bull freaking spit. Many advances in biology simply would not have occurred if not for evolutionary theory (you can call it "macro" if you wish, I make no such distinction). I speak from personal experience, having applied the theory, done the experiments and made the observations myself.


Yes...apparently Crono chooses to remain ignorant of how diabetics have survived for decades because of insulin isolated from pigs. apparently, what he calls "macroevolution" is not medically viable. Once again, he displays unabashed ignorance towards a topic he chooses to debate.
 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,079
30,012
146
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Leros,

How dare you speak such rational thought in a thread about religion.

To equate rational thought to certain areas of science, is the ultimate oxymoron.


care to elborate? or is this another comment downloaded via your aluminum cap?
 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Wow... so a day was already 24 hours before the earth even existed? That's amazing.

I'd better be careful arguing with your powerful intellect....

And what would make you think otherwise? Moreover, how long do you think the period was?

It could have been any length of time. FYI: the Hebrew word "yom" used in the passage does not necessarily mean "day." It can also mean "interval" or "age."
Another mistranslation from Genesis 1 (just to get us started) is that the Hebrew word "bara" means "created" when it actually means "filled" or "fattened."
I suppose that these are the issues one gets when one insists on a supposedly literal interpretation of a text that was originally written in a poetic language.

However, I'm more interested in how anyone could believe that a 24 hour day could exist before the first day ever occurred. You're claiming science, while basing your argument off a very unscientific premise, i.e. that time is not relative. Could you explain that?

I'll quote myself from another thread.

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Evolution will never ever be compatible with the Bible or Christianity. Theistic Evolution is just a lame attempt at giving evolution some sort of credit among the "religious" community by slapping on a word that suggests divine intervention by God. However, the weak "evidence" behind theistic evolution (and evolution as a whole) demonstrates how little thought was put into it.



The first thing that must be established in any form of evolution is that it takes a long time. Theistic Evolution supporters turn to 2 Peter 3:8 to "validate" their claims.

2 Peter 3:8 (King James Version)

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Looking past the fact that 2 Peter 3:8 is taken far out of context, there is one inherent flaw in the assumption. The verse quoted states that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years..." The word "as" is critical in that it identifies a simile, not a mathematical equation of "one equals one thousand and vice versa." God is indicating that he is above his creation and thus outside of time. In Revelation 22:20, the Lord says "...Surely I come quickly." Obviously, he could not have been referencing time as we see it, but as he sees it. It has been two thousand years since his ascension which is a lot of time to us; but to the Lord, it's just another tick on the clock.

Of course, if you wish to apply 2 Peter 3:8 to Genesis 1, you must also apply it throughout the Bible. You cannot just pick and choose where you want the verse to apply. This is obviously a ludicrous idea, as it is would render impossible the greater part of the Bible (Christ in the tomb for three thousand years!?) and makes absolutely no sense at all.



But let us assume, merely for the purpose of debate, that the seven days of creation really were long periods of time. It is a well known fact among evolutionists that their theory requires large amounts of time for its effects to be carried out. This number is up in the millions and billions of years. What is being inferred here is that one thousand years is far too little time for full evolutionary effects to occur. However, I will play along; and in our little example, one day is equal to one thousand years as "proven" by 2 Peter 3:8.

Now I'm sure many of you are aware that in biology there is a term called symbiosis which describes a relationship between two organisms in which at least one of them benefits. This process is very prominent throughout nature. According to Genesis, on the third day of creation God made the plants. As just stated, many different plants and animals are involved in a symbiotic relationship. That is to say they cannot survive without one another. The first animals were created on the fifth day, two days after the plants. Day-age theorists would have that mean at least (Remember that evolution requires much more time than what has been given; we merely use this low amount due to the passage above) two thousand years. Do tell me, will you, how those plants could have survived past the creation week without their symbiotic partner to spread their seed. Two thousand years without the ability to repopulate, and yet they are still here!

Genesis 1 also makes it very clear that each day was broken into two periods: day and night. With our one thousand year days, how could the plants and animals have survived a 500 year period of light and a 500 year period of darkness? It is vital for a very large amount of organisms (especially the flora) to receive light, which is required for photosynthesis, energy, health, and whatnot. Without the ability to make food for 500 years, how could they have survived? Also, how did these same not die from gross over-exposure to the light?



The conclusion is that Theistic Evolution is not possible according to the Biblical account of creation. The people who wish to twist 2 Peter 3:8 out of context and give it a literal meaning are incorrect.

Also note that the Hebrew word for day [yôm] which has several different meanings, including "age", is used 2301 times in the OT. Whenever used with the terms "evening" or "morning" it always indicates a 24-hour day.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,079
30,012
146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.

It is also anti-science. Of course, you're displaying the fallacy of assuming that the biblical interpretation of God is the accurate interpretation of God. There are millions upon millions of people in this world with strong religious beliefs that do not get involved in such a debate, as their interpretation is vastly different. To say that Christianity is the one true religion is horseshit. You have to accept which version is true (to say that the gnostics and their ilk were wrong simply ignores the fact that they were eliminated and their ideas ignored--not because they were wrong, but because they didn't gibe with the Romans that wanted to make Christianity the state religion, for their own purposes). Of course, there are far older religions that still survive today.

Could you reiterate?


Yes, I crammed a lot in there and glossed over some points, But what is it that you need to hear? I felt that if I went too into this argument, that it would go beyond the topic of this thread.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,079
30,012
146
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?


It's a HUGE problem...in world that is 10,000 years old. ~4.5 billion years is a pretty solid age though
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
I also want to point out that the term "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. The point of science, and the scientific revolution, was to attempt to explain the world and the universe using natural laws rather than supernatural forces. Falling back on religion as an explanation is the very antithesis of good science.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,079
30,012
146
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.


You're not going to find a creationist "intellectual" that understands what RNA is...or has even heard of it. Probably written off as something crated by the government....
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?


It's a HUGE problem...in world that is 10,000 years old. ~4.5 billion years is a pretty solid age though
yeah that's true. Ignoring fossil, carbon dating, other forms of radioactive dating, ice core samples, magnetic shift lines and just general evidence, i suppose calling the Earth 10000 years old would pose quite a bit of a problem for us crazy evolutionists
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
I'm just curious, of the people supporting Creationism, how many have actually taken at least 1 college level evolution course? Not the superficial headnod it gets in intro biology but an actual course dedicated to the theory of evolution.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Vic
Wow... so a day was already 24 hours before the earth even existed? That's amazing.

I'd better be careful arguing with your powerful intellect....

And what would make you think otherwise? Moreover, how long do you think the period was?

It could have been any length of time. FYI: the Hebrew word "yom" used in the passage does not necessarily mean "day." It can also mean "interval" or "age."
Another mistranslation from Genesis 1 (just to get us started) is that the Hebrew word "bara" means "created" when it actually means "filled" or "fattened."
I suppose that these are the issues one gets when one insists on a supposedly literal interpretation of a text that was originally written in a poetic language.

However, I'm more interested in how anyone could believe that a 24 hour day could exist before the first day ever occurred. You're claiming science, while basing your argument off a very unscientific premise, i.e. that time is not relative. Could you explain that?

I'll quote myself from another thread.

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Evolution will never ever be compatible with the Bible or Christianity. Theistic Evolution is just a lame attempt at giving evolution some sort of credit among the "religious" community by slapping on a word that suggests divine intervention by God. However, the weak "evidence" behind theistic evolution (and evolution as a whole) demonstrates how little thought was put into it.



The first thing that must be established in any form of evolution is that it takes a long time. Theistic Evolution supporters turn to 2 Peter 3:8 to "validate" their claims.

2 Peter 3:8 (King James Version)

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Looking past the fact that 2 Peter 3:8 is taken far out of context, there is one inherent flaw in the assumption. The verse quoted states that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years..." The word "as" is critical in that it identifies a simile, not a mathematical equation of "one equals one thousand and vice versa." God is indicating that he is above his creation and thus outside of time. In Revelation 22:20, the Lord says "...Surely I come quickly." Obviously, he could not have been referencing time as we see it, but as he sees it. It has been two thousand years since his ascension which is a lot of time to us; but to the Lord, it's just another tick on the clock.

Of course, if you wish to apply 2 Peter 3:8 to Genesis 1, you must also apply it throughout the Bible. You cannot just pick and choose where you want the verse to apply. This is obviously a ludicrous idea, as it is would render impossible the greater part of the Bible (Christ in the tomb for three thousand years!?) and makes absolutely no sense at all.



But let us assume, merely for the purpose of debate, that the seven days of creation really were long periods of time. It is a well known fact among evolutionists that their theory requires large amounts of time for its effects to be carried out. This number is up in the millions and billions of years. What is being inferred here is that one thousand years is far too little time for full evolutionary effects to occur. However, I will play along; and in our little example, one day is equal to one thousand years as "proven" by 2 Peter 3:8.

Now I'm sure many of you are aware that in biology there is a term called symbiosis which describes a relationship between two organisms in which at least one of them benefits. This process is very prominent throughout nature. According to Genesis, on the third day of creation God made the plants. As just stated, many different plants and animals are involved in a symbiotic relationship. That is to say they cannot survive without one another. The first animals were created on the fifth day, two days after the plants. Day-age theorists would have that mean at least (Remember that evolution requires much more time than what has been given; we merely use this low amount due to the passage above) two thousand years. Do tell me, will you, how those plants could have survived past the creation week without their symbiotic partner to spread their seed. Two thousand years without the ability to repopulate, and yet they are still here!

Genesis 1 also makes it very clear that each day was broken into two periods: day and night. With our one thousand year days, how could the plants and animals have survived a 500 year period of light and a 500 year period of darkness? It is vital for a very large amount of organisms (especially the flora) to receive light, which is required for photosynthesis, energy, health, and whatnot. Without the ability to make food for 500 years, how could they have survived? Also, how did these same not die from gross over-exposure to the light?



The conclusion is that Theistic Evolution is not possible according to the Biblical account of creation. The people who wish to twist 2 Peter 3:8 out of context and give it a literal meaning are incorrect.

Also note that the Hebrew word for day [yôm] which has several different meanings, including "age", is used 2301 times in the OT. Whenever used with the terms "evening" or "morning" it always indicates a 24-hour day.

Your logic is circular and flawed. Like I said, this is what happens when you try to interpret "literally" something that was originally written poetically. IMO, it doesn't matter whether you're for or against religion, making these arguments just makes you sound stupid, because the only way to do so is to come to your conclusions first, then find evidence with which to support them.

Plus, the idea that "theistic evolution" (as you call it) requires the Judeo-Christian God and a particular "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible is assinine in the extreme. That's a pretty straw man you've created there. Please beat it off in private, eh?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

why is entropy a problem with evolution?
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
I have a 2mb PDF that I need hosted. It's from a book about evolution. Covers some misconceptions, gives experimental results and such. This is purely scientific, nothing like Dawkins. Can I email this to someome to host? I'm on an old crappy mac and i dont remember my ftp login info for my own host.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

why is entropy a problem with evolution?
I'm waiting for this explanation as well.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.


Learn to think and phrase a concept/argument in your own words.... copying and pasting someone else' work just shows that you don't understand it enough yourself to adequately put forth the argument.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

why is entropy a problem with evolution?
I'm waiting for this explanation as well.
Something about nature going to disorder (entropy) and the formation of complexity/order violates entropy.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.

Good grief what a terrible argument. Let me illustrate with a little analogy.

Suppose there is an archer standing in the middle of a large grass field. In his hands are his bow and arrow.

Suppose also that with him were two people: Mr. Evolution and Mr. Creation.

Now, for the sake of this illustration, Mr. Evolution ties a blindfold over the eyes of the archer, and he instructs the archer to spin around as many times as he sees fit, and then to incline his bow and arrow skyward, and fire.

So the archer does this. He completes half a dozen pirouettes or so, and he launches his arrow out into the field where it lands smartly, sticking out of the ground.

At this event, Mr. Creation leaps into action! Running over to where the arrow rests, he promptly produces some paint and a brush, and he quickly paints a target perfectly around where the arrow has landed.

"My word!" exclaims Mr. Creation, "He's hit the bullseye! The archer blindly fired his arrow in a random direction, and yet it has hit the bullseye! Praise God! Surely God has guided this arrow to its perfect place of rest! It is so astronomically improbable that he could've hit the bullseye by chance that we MUST conclude there was divine intervention."

"Good grief" mumbles Mr. Evolution, "the arrow had to land somewhere. You're the one that ran over and painted a target around it. There was nothing special about that spot until you became so enthralled by it."

And so the lesson is complete. The argument offered here by RapidSnail equivalently paints a "target" around life as we know it, and then begins to fallaciously calculate the odds that chance and natural processes could've produced it. The fact is that something was inevitable, and now in retrospect and glorified navel-gazing the simple minded creationist is incredulous to the fact that it happened.

EDIT: And if you like, I can demonstrate an event with a probability that will literally DWARF those offered in your linked article, and I could complete it within a single day instead of the millions of years provided for evolution.

See also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html for a more thorough trouncing of this inane argument.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.

Good grief what a terrible argument. Let me illustrate with a little analogy.

Suppose there is an archer standing in the middle of a large grass field. In his hands are his bow and arrow.

Suppose also that with him were two people: Mr. Evolution and Mr. Creation.

Now, for the sake of this illustration, Mr. Evolution ties a blindfold over the eyes of the archer, and he instructs the archer to spin around as many times as he sees fit, and then to incline his bow and arrow skyward, and fire.

So the archer does this. He completes half a dozen pirouettes or so, and he launches his arrow out into the field where it lands smartly, sticking out of the ground.

At this event, Mr. Creation leaps into action! Running over to where the arrow rests, he promptly produces some paint and a brush, and he quickly paints a target perfectly around where the arrow has landed.

"My word!" exclaims Mr. Creation, "He's hit the bullseye! The archer blindly fired his arrow in a random direction, and yet it has hit the bullseye! Praise God! Surely God has guided this arrow to its perfect place of rest! It is so astronomically improbable that he could've hit the bullseye by chance that we MUST conclude there was divine intervention."

"Good grief" mumbles Mr. Evolution, "the arrow had to land somewhere. You're the one that ran over and painted a target around it. There was nothing special about that spot until you became so enthralled by it."

And so the lesson is complete. The argument offered here by RapidSnail equivalently paints a "target" around life as we know it, and then begins to fallaciously calculate the odds that chance and natural processes could've produced it. The fact is that something was inevitable, and now in retrospect and glorified navel-gazing the simple minded creationist is incredulous to the fact that it happened.
I think they call that teh texas sharpshooter
 

RapidSnail

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2006
4,257
0
0
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.
Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.
I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
So 40% of ATOTers are stupid, frightening numbers.
40% of the people that have voted in the poll. Let's not generalize here.
I would not describe any ATOT poll as accurate, or even something to consider seriously.

BTW, I still have not answered the poll. I would choose either option 2 or 3, however, the word "God" remains undefined, and I await its definition beyond some "literal" interpretation of the Christian Bible and a timeline established by an Anglican priest some 400 years ago. For example, what about the Hindu concept of God, the Brahman, or "Divine Reality," which is the universe itself made conscious as its own creator, whose "days" are 4.32 billion years, and who lives for 100 years of such days (or 311 trillion years), dies and is reborn? How should I answer the poll is we define "God" that way? And how would the poll answers here change among everyone else in that case?
 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
"How did human life come about?"

God farted, blowing a dingle berry out into space. That dingle berry is our universe.

Wouldn't a happened in the first place if He hadn't been partying for a week and taken a shower.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |