Here's my argument about people who don't believe in evolution:

[nonAtlas]

Too bad but you haven't explained where

came from.

Who created it? Obviously someone did, as we know systems do not tend toward greater sophistication. And quite obviously all the ingredients in the proven-impossible fantasy of macroevolution had to come from somewhere. The matter; the energy; the place; the laws of science that had to be suspended for a period long enough to let so long a process occur.

Get back to me when you manage to come up with a serious response.

[user1245464]

All the while being manipulated by an outside intelligence striving for a desired outcome. And that is like the "beginning of life on earth" how again??

I love hearing arguments like this. Since scientists performed the experiment, it is obvious that some outside intelligence is required to produce the same results every time, right? I mean, it's not like amino acids can be subject to large amounts of pressure without human intervention, because atmospheric pressure, sea level pressure, and pressure from asteroid impacts do not exist. Obviously.

In any case, my original post had nothing to do with God or outside intelligence. I was simply making an informative statement about an experiment that took place.

[QuicksandATL]

Huh? If he doesn't believe what he says, then why did he go on national TV and say that? If you watch the video Stein faults evolution because it doesn't explain everything, even when it isn't suppose to or when there are other branches of science that have already explained the subject.

Evolution just isn't supported by atheists, so right there you are wrong. I can turn your claim around and say that ID proponents have a lot of explaining to do before they can clam an Intelligent Designer exists. There is not one shred of evidence that one does, the only thing that ID has is the god of gaps fallacy.

But I like evolution and accept it. What I don't accept is that it could happen by blind natural forces.

Another problem with claiming that everything in the universe must be explained 100% before evolution can be considered valid is that such a claim is impossible. Someone could always argue that there are still unsolved mysterious that haven't been found yet, so everything isn't completely explained.

Even if ID was a valid alternative to our origins, how does it work? What process did the designer use? So far ID has not even answered these basic questions, except to propose that the designer used some unknown method that is tantamount to magic.

It is taken out of context because it is a pathetic attempt by wherever you got that from to make it appear that Dawkins is admitting that he thinks that the Cambrian explosion was due to a supernatural agent. I have the book The Blind Watchmaker at home and nowhere in that passage of the book does he even seriously suggest such a scenario. He explains the reason as to why an explosion of life seemed to appear during the Cambrian. (Such an explosion took at least ten million years, so the intelligent designer must have took its time.)

It was relevant because in an earlier post someone thought that Dawkins had admitted that aliens made life on earth. I attempted to explain to this person that Stein used dishonest tactics to make it appear that Dawkins was advocating something when he really wasn't. This is an extremely common tactic among creationists, which is why I mentioned it earlier. Just because you approve of such actions doesn't make them right.

I know it's difficult to accept that the spokesman for ID, who is supposed to be a great intellectual, is in reality a buffoon. But that is the way things are, and trying to be a Ben Stein apologist just shows how ignorant or dishonest Stein truly is.

I'm not a Ben Stein apologist, I'm a fairness apologist.

[QuicksandATL]

All the while being manipulated by an outside intelligence striving for a desired outcome. And that is like the "beginning of life on earth" how again??

It's also worth noting that amino acids don't turn into RNA, and RNA just doesn't turn into DNA.

[TheAsianMan]

It's also worth noting that amino acids don't turn into RNA, and RNA just doesn't turn into DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_virus

[Black_Spit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_virus

brb editing wikipedia

[JAGERBOY]

brb editing wikipedia

brb scrolling down to bottom of wikipedia page to find the real sources.

[TheAsianMan]

brb editing wikipedia

i hope your joking cause at your age you should know this from college.


p.s. please tell me your joking =(

[Arbex]

Too bad but you haven't explained where



came from.

Who created it? Obviously someone did, as we know systems do not tend toward greater sophistication. And quite obviously all the ingredients in the proven-impossible fantasy of macroevolution had to come from somewhere. The matter; the energy; the place; the laws of science that had to be suspended for a period long enough to let so long a process occur.

Get back to me when you manage to come up with a serious response.

When you stop believing in fairy tales and have a slight understanding of the world, I'll start taking you seriously.

[William McC]

When you stop believing in fairy tales and have a slight understanding of the world, I'll start taking you seriously.

Way to slip the question there, scaredy cat.

[TheAsianMan]

Too bad but you haven't explained where



came from.

Who created it? Obviously someone did, as we know systems do not tend toward greater sophistication. And quite obviously all the ingredients in the proven-impossible fantasy of macroevolution had to come from somewhere. The matter; the energy; the place; the laws of science that had to be suspended for a period long enough to let so long a process occur.

Get back to me when you manage to come up with a serious response.

dont you find it ironic that macroevolution is a fantasy?

[QuicksandATL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_virus

Sorry, I wanted RNA turning into DNA, not a DNA enzyme turning into DNA.

[PickItUp]

When you stop believing in fairy tales and have a slight understanding of the world, I'll start taking you seriously.

...and until then, I will dodge the burden of answering your questions directly.

[IronButt]

+

TIME

=

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot
We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed
the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!

[JAGERBOY]

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot
We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed
the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!

Who is "we" that Allah is referring to? Did he have helpers when created the universe? Are there several gods?

[drew101]

99.9%? Really?

Evolution is not the same as gravity. Its concepts, studies, theories, etc. are not similar. Gravity has nothing to do with the discussion.

And I didn't say evolution was right or wrong, I said it had holes in it. That's it.

Them holes are them missing links... (among other things).

A chain with missing links is ****! I mean, TOTAL ****!

[DaCougarMech]

Them holes are them missing links... (among other things).

A chain with missing links is ****! I mean, TOTAL ****!

a delicious analogy

much befitting your reputation

[Rune]

Sorry, I wanted RNA turning into DNA, not a DNA enzyme turning into DNA.

An enzyme is a protien that catalyzes a reaction genius. What a DNA enzyme is I have no idea, so quit talking out of your ass on a subject you clearly do not have any knowlege of.

It(Reverse transcriptase) transcribes RNA to DNA - i.e it takes RNA, and makes it into DNA. You know, because the two chemicals have slightly different coding systems, but I'm sure you already knew all this.

[drew101]

I like your point...but there is an even simpler way of stating it.

The simple minded bible thumpers know that humans came last...after the animals...as the bible tells them so.

That being said, animals has eyeballs, lungs, and other organs WAY before we were even created. So by default, the technology behind the eyeball or the lung developed with other organisms, and we as humans selected (through evolution) the best combination of organs and and other things calculated by our DNA.

Bam, evolution proven.

THIS IS THE MOST BRILLIANT PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC STUFF I HAVE EVER READ!

And I love the last part: "BAM! EVOLUTION PROVEN!"

Oh my oh my!

5 days ago, I could actually remember things!

[DaCougarMech]

Sorry, I wanted RNA turning into DNA, not a DNA enzyme turning into DNA.

da fuk?

where the hell did u read that the dna enzyme turns into dna?

[TheAsianMan]

Them holes are them missing links... (among other things).

A chain with missing links is ****! I mean, TOTAL ****!

alright dude... here something even you can understand.

there are transitional fossil example, horses are probably one of the most complete. NOW the reason why its not a complete smooth transition is because of how fossil is form. Fossilization is rare and usually happen because of a catastrophic event or chance (minerals rich mudslides covered body, die and was covered by mud before body fully decompose etc...)


lets use your lifetime as a metaphor, you obviously know that your look change as you get older form a smooth transition. NOW look at the pictures of you in your life time. Because the pictures of you was not taken every day but rather by months or years, your look change from one picture to another. Now sometime there is a big difference ex. from baby to adolescence, or a small difference 40-50 years old. Sometime there are no pictures for years and the change in look is dramatic. Now imagine that every time these picture are taken is a rare fossilization.

compare it to the evolution of HORSES



Notice that the change from miohippus to merychippus happen pretty quickly, this can be explain by a change in environment of mainly forest to Savannah and grassland just like how a picture of yourself as a baby look alot different than you are as a teenager.

[drew101]

When you stop believing in fairy tales and have a slight understanding of the world, I'll start taking you seriously.

When evolution is proven to be a FACT, we'll start talking to you seriously! Ok?

[drew101]

alright dude... here something even you can understand.

there are transitional fossil example, horses are probably one of the most complete. NOW the reason why its not a complete smooth transition is because of how fossil is form. Fossilization is rare and usually happen because of a catastrophic event or chance (minerals rich mudslides covered body, die and was covered by mud before body fully decompose etc...)


lets use your lifetime as a metaphor, you obviously know that your look change as you get older form a smooth transition. NOW look at the pictures of you in your life time. Because the pictures of you was not taken every day but rather by months or years, your look change from one picture to another. Now sometime there is a big difference ex. from baby to adolescence, or a small difference 40-50 years old. Sometime there are no pictures for years and the change in look is dramatic. Now imagine that every time these picture are taken is a rare fossilization.

compare it to the evolution of HORSES



Notice that the change from miohippus to merychippus happen pretty quickly, this can be explain by a change in environment of mainly forest to Savannah and grassland just like how a picture of yourself as a baby look alot different than you are as a teenager.

Some of us REALLY did come from monkeys!!!

[DaCougarMech]

When evolution is proven to be a FACT, we'll start talking to you seriously! Ok?

it's a theory

which means it uses facts to explain something

facts are simple observations

theories are explanations of facts

[Rune]

Who created it?

The egg? Meosis.

Obviously someone did, as we know systems do not tend toward greater sophistication.

The Universe did, via gravitation, and nuclear fusion. But I'm sure those are just fantasies as well, we certianly don't have any evidence that that happened... oh, wait, we do.. and lots of it!

And quite obviously all the ingredients in the proven-impossible fantasy of macroevolution had to come from somewhere.

The matter;

Already there.

the energy;

Same place all the energy on this planet came from.. the Sun.

the place;

Again, already there.

the laws of science that had to be suspended for a period long enough to let so long a process occur.

Evolution doesn't violate any scientific laws.

[Rune]

When evolution is proven to be a FACT, we'll start talking to you seriously! Ok?

It's a fact to all but a handful a insane religious fundamentalists. You want to jump all over some kind of theory of abiogenesis, fine, there's not 150 years of scientific inquiry to back it up yet, but evolution is just as much a fact a quantum mechanics is.

[Push]

this is off topic but i dont know if it deserves its own thread so im posting it here. evloution believes we all have a common ancestor am i right? that all life came from 1 single form of life and thats why we all posess some of the same generic materials?

is it possible that the reason we all have similarities is because we share a common creator? instead of a common ancestor?

[Galt]

Sorry, I wanted RNA turning into DNA, not a DNA enzyme turning into DNA.

People lived longer back then because sin had not fully taken effect, soon after peoples life-spans quickly dwindled. Obviously I cannot prove this to be fact, but I accept it as fact because I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. (no non-Atlas)

Yes I am sure. I said the average lifespans were between 365 and age 969.

Hint for the slow: the mean of 365 and 969 is not 969.

lol just wanted to quote all of these together

win

[DaCougarMech]

this is off topic but i dont know if it deserves its own thread so im posting it here. evloution believes we all have a common ancestor am i right? that all life came from 1 single form of life and thats why we all posess some of the same generic materials?

is it possible that the reason we all have similarities is because we share a common creator? instead of a common ancestor?

it's not the most sensical solution

considering we can trace descent and branching of traits like branching paths, it's like saying you and your cousin were handmade to have similar traits

take zoology or plant biology some time

[Push]

it's not the most sensical solution

considering we can trace descent and branching of traits like branching paths, it's like saying you and your cousin were handmade to have similar traits

take zoology or plant biology some time

okay man cheers ill see if i can find some books on them tomorrow.

im just not ruling out the possibility that life started with a creator and since then we have "micro"evolved as the environment deems necessary. it solves the question of where did all the matter/laws etc come from if a superior bein is involved.

any books you recommend on zoology and plant biology?