a flying clown
First Prev
of 7
Next Last
shadow

Moulton, UK

#1 Nov 4, 2011
a flying clown 168 million years ago created the very first ants on earth. prove me wrong?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#2 Nov 4, 2011
Russel's teapot.

Just because we cannot prove something does not exist is no reason to believe it does.

In other words there is no reason to suppose that your flying clown exists or has ever existed so I don't need to consider it at all.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3 Nov 4, 2011
shadow wrote:
a flying clown 168 million years ago created the very first ants on earth. prove me wrong?
About on par with "the first man was magically poofed into existence out of a pile of dirt".

Pretty pathetic as a logical "argument".

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#4 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
a flying clown 168 million years ago created the very first ants on earth. prove me wrong?
The entire universe was created last Tuesday exactly as is, including our false memories of everything prior to last Tuesday. Light was created mid-flight to give the universe the appearance of 14 billion years of age.

We can speculate and make up stuff until the cows come home. Until then we can go with the Theories that actually have scientific evidence to back them up, such as Evolution and The Big Bang. If you discover evidence to support your clown ants idea you are welcome to present it.
BEE BOO
#5 Nov 5, 2011
SO, What if the universe popped into existence as it is instantly. Everything would begin to work in some way shape form or fashion. How would we know if it was 6000 years old or if it was much older because everything appeared all at once? If things began and then started to work in a different way then we would have a set of laws that are nothing more than numbers that really don't have a lot of meaning,because our estimate of the proportions and length of what we know as time would be only based on how things are perceived now.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Nov 5, 2011
BEE BOO That is also known as "Last Thursdayism". The claims of YEC's ultimately comes down to this. When faced with the scientific evidence that the Earth is old they will sometimes claim that the Earth was "created old". The light from stars was formed on the way, the radiometric dates were set in the rocks etc..
BEE BOO
#7 Nov 5, 2011
Why does it have to be last thursday? Why can't it be this present instant? Present life is the only thing we can be sure of if our idea of time is what we see as just a period in history.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#8 Nov 5, 2011
BEE BOO wrote:
Why does it have to be last thursday? Why can't it be this present instant? Present life is the only thing we can be sure of if our idea of time is what we see as just a period in history.
Sure, why not. It is a reducto ad absurdium fallacy that the YEC's are using. Last Thursdayism just has a nice ring to it. For more on Last Thursadyism:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Last_Thurs...
shadow

Moulton, UK

#9 Nov 5, 2011
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
About on par with "the first man was magically poofed into existence out of a pile of dirt".
Pretty pathetic as a logical "argument".
theres an even more bigger fairytale than that, remember the one that says everything came about by accident? and how suddenly all the proteins on earth just suddenly appeared and miraculously formed together perfectly for life on earth? magic!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#10 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
theres an even more bigger fairytale than that, remember the one that says everything came about by accident?
THis would be a LIE!

Cosmology, astronomy, physics do not depend on "accidents". Indeed they are all involved in the study of things happening according to well documented and understood laws of the Cosmos
shadow wrote:
<quoted text>and how suddenly all the proteins on earth just suddenly appeared
This would be a LIE!

Chemistry, including organic chemistry, do not depend on "suddenly appeared". How chemicals combine and form follow very well documented and understood chemical processes. The formation of proteins from complex organic compounds is one of these:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/...

(it only took about three seconds to find this article for you)
shadow wrote:
<quoted text>and miraculously formed together perfectly for life on earth? magic!
Life formed on Earth. True. Just because YOU ignore or don't understand the science does NOT mean that science doesn't have some pretty good ideas about how it occurred and has quite a lot of logic, reason, research and empirical evidence to support it's conclusions.

IOW magic not required. Magic stays firmly with you bronze age FAIRY TALE cultists.

BTW why do you "fundamentalist christian creationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#11 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
a flying clown 168 million years ago created the very first ants on earth. prove me wrong?
We don't need to. All you need to do is come up with a falsifiable concept.
shadow

Moulton, UK

#12 Nov 5, 2011
"Cosmology, astronomy, physics do not depend on "accidents". Indeed they are all involved in the study of things happening according to well documented and understood laws of the Cosmos"

In other posts you have said life is a matter of chance, and was an accident with no purpose behind it and now you are saying some kind of god directed all of this with directed laws in place, and it was not accidental? You are a theist then? Make up your mind.

"How chemicals combine and form follow very well documented and understood chemical processes"

It is impossible that all the chemicals magically arranged themselves in such perfect conditions unless some kind of intelligence was involved. You obviously do not understand nature, we have never seen the building blocks of life - proteins merge completey together like we have on earth, no scientist has been able to demonstrate such a thing.

There are about 200,000 such proteins. The chance of getting all 200,000 by accident is almost nil. It is a miracle, how they suddenly all merged together to form life on earth.

According to Hoyle the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000000000. Yes it is magic if you believe in that one.

It doesn't add up. And that link has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of proteins that you pasted in, you obviously did not read it. The origin of life on earth is a mystery - no scientist claims to have the answer, please don't pretend you have it.

Francis Crick, in his book Life Itself wrote:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

You clearly are not an honest man MIDutch.

So boring you can not debate what is at hand so you have to use personal attacks and use caps. Ok then, here was your comment which was a LIE about me:

"BTW why do you "fundamentalist christian creationists" LIE so much?"

I am not a fundamentalist, or a Christian, infact I oppose religion more than anything probably even more than yourself, I have always disliked Christianity, and I do not believe in any religious god I am just honest enough to admit that the origin of life did not come about by mere chance. I have never read the Bible or any other religious book. You seem to know more about the bible than me quoting etc in your other posts. Calling me a "fundamentalist christian" when I am NOT a Christian - you like LIEING don't you? Yes LIE LIE LIE. Stop it. Stop making LIES about users just to attack them. ty.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#13 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
theres an even more bigger fairytale than that, remember the one that says everything came about by accident? and how suddenly all the proteins on earth just suddenly appeared and miraculously formed together perfectly for life on earth? magic!
I am not aware of that one.

I am aware of the hypothesis of abiogenesis which involves life developing through chemical processes, chemicals being what they are, these processes are non-random.
shadow

Moulton, UK

#14 Nov 5, 2011
yes and where did these chemicals come from? and why?
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#15 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
It is impossible that all the chemicals magically arranged themselves in such perfect conditions unless some kind of intelligence was involved.
How exactly did you determine that it was impossible? What exactly does "perfect" mean? What was the mechanism that this enigmatic "intelligence" of yours used? What evidence do you have of this intelligence? If life required intelligence to form, then what formed your intelligence? Then what formed that? Then what formed that?
shadow wrote:
You obviously do not understand nature,
So far, it is you who obviously does not understand nature.
shadow wrote:
we have never seen the building blocks of life - proteins merge completey together like we have on earth, no scientist has been able to demonstrate such a thing.
This is hardly surprising. For one thing it is likely a complicated process. For another, we know from geology that the Earth's conditions around when life first formed were very different than they are today. There was no free oxygen for example. And if abiogenesis is dependent upon those initial conditions, that would explain why it is not a common occurrence today. So at this moment scientists are attempting to recreate those conditions in the lab. The problem is that the variables are so numerous it's difficult to pin them down, so this research may take a while.

Recreating the beginning of life is by no means a simple thing.
shadow wrote:
There are about 200,000 such proteins. The chance of getting all 200,000 by accident is almost nil. It is a miracle, how they suddenly all merged together to form life on earth.
Actually it is not possible to calculate the probabilities because of the numerous variables involved which are not fully understood. So your claim is false. Also not your qualifier "almost" implies there is still a chance. Now consider the fact the universe as vast as ours, with TRILLIONS of stars and TRILLIONS of planets, the chances of unlikely things happening are increased due to the fact there are so many planets in the universe, all with their own chemical processes; if life is possible at all, then there's no reason it could not happen somewhere.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#16 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
According to Hoyle the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000000000. Yes it is magic if you believe in that one.
It doesn't add up. And that link has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of proteins that you pasted in, you obviously did not read it. The origin of life on earth is a mystery - no scientist claims to have the answer, please don't pretend you have it.
You're right, it does not add up. Hoyle, like you, was speaking out of his area of expertise. He was not a biologist or biochemist and made baseless assumtions in his calculations, therefore his argument made from incredulity is invalid.
shadow wrote:
Francis Crick, in his book Life Itself wrote:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
Nevertheless, life IS here. So the HONEST thing to do would be to attempt to gain as much knowledge as possible, and do our best to figure things out.

Rather than just dismiss it as just being too hard and just say "Oh sod it! Goddidit with magic!"
shadow wrote:
You clearly are not an honest man MIDutch.
Let's get things straight here - you don't understand science in the slightest, yet here you are running your mouth off as if you know stuff when your astounding ignorance is all but clear to everyone except yourself.

You are not honest. So please don't blow up the irony meters.
shadow wrote:
So boring you can not debate what is at hand so you have to use personal attacks and use caps. Ok then, here was your comment which was a LIE about me:
"BTW why do you "fundamentalist christian creationists" LIE so much?"
I am not a fundamentalist, or a Christian, infact I oppose religion more than anything probably even more than yourself, I have always disliked Christianity, and I do not believe in any religious god I am just honest enough to admit that the origin of life did not come about by mere chance. I have never read the Bible or any other religious book. You seem to know more about the bible than me quoting etc in your other posts. Calling me a "fundamentalist christian" when I am NOT a Christian - you like LIEING don't you? Yes LIE LIE LIE. Stop it. Stop making LIES about users just to attack them. ty.
Well considering the fact that we know creationists lie all the time, and it would not be the first time that a creationist has come on here pretending not to be one and be "open-minded to both sides", AND the fact that you HAVE invoked an intelligent cause (with no evidence) AND the fact that all you have done is repeat bogus creationist arguments from the get-go, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to think you are just another lying creationist for Jesus.

Personally though, I think you're just a contrarian, due to your fondness for not just creationist apologetics but also new-age woo. In the end you are just another anti-science BS artist who pretends to know a lot more than he does, whose jumped straight into the lion's den with a bunch of people who have been involved with this shite for years.

When you come up with something new, we'll let you know.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#17 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
yes and where did these chemicals come from? and why?
That would be involved with the formation of the planet itself.

Note how each time you get an answer, you do not address that and then proceed to move the goalposts backwards each time. Eventually we'll get back to the beginning of the universe itself and you'll claim that abio and evolution are wrong because we don't know exactly how the Big Bang started.

Yet as a typical anti-science hypocrite, you'll still have no objections to gravity...
shadow

Moulton, UK

#18 Nov 5, 2011
So far, it is you who obviously does not understand nature. "

it is not possible to understand nature, the other dude in this thread thinks hes worked it all out.

"If life required intelligence to form, then what formed your intelligence? Then what formed that?"

theres no formation or start of this energy it always existed. you can read about this in two books, one called cosmic life force by fred hoyle and another one called evolution from space. the intelligence is not seperate from the cosmos. it is in everything. life - energy - activity - movement. this is not theism or religion or a religious god.

" with TRILLIONS of stars and TRILLIONS of planets, the chances of unlikely things happening are increased due to the fact there are so many planets in the universe,"

you just need to think why though. why did life start on earth, why are the conditions on earth perfect - this means able to survive for life on earth, whilst no other planet has this, think about what makes up the earths atmosphere, by chance ???just the correct balance of nitrogen and oxygen occured so life could manifest itself in forms on earth?? by chance? remember if the balence of nitrogen and oxygen was just slightly out there would be very little life on earth. and related this is why many scientist actually have supported a fine tuned universe.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#19 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
So far, it is you who obviously does not understand nature. "
it is not possible to understand nature, the other dude in this thread thinks hes worked it all out.
Since I've never made that claim, why are you being so dishonest? Especially after berating MIDutch for the same?

Hypocrisy much, shades?
shadow wrote:
"If life required intelligence to form, then what formed your intelligence? Then what formed that?"
theres no formation or start of this energy it always existed.
Evidence?

Thought so.
shadow wrote:
you can read about this in two books, one called cosmic life force by fred hoyle and another one called evolution from space. the intelligence is not seperate from the cosmos. it is in everything. life - energy - activity - movement. this is not theism or religion or a religious god.
Yeah, heard this kinda new-age QM deism bollox before. Something tells me Hoyle wouldn't subscribe to it much either.

But scientifically speaking, the only verifiable evidence of intelligence known is on planet Earth.

Though even that's questionable at times...
shadow wrote:
" with TRILLIONS of stars and TRILLIONS of planets, the chances of unlikely things happening are increased due to the fact there are so many planets in the universe,"
you just need to think why though. why did life start on earth, why are the conditions on earth perfect - this means able to survive for life on earth, whilst no other planet has this, think about what makes up the earths atmosphere, by chance ???just the correct balance of nitrogen and oxygen occured so life could manifest itself in forms on earth?? by chance? remember if the balence of nitrogen and oxygen was just slightly out there would be very little life on earth.
Actually the record of the Earth's previous atmosphere is recorded in ancient rock. That's why I pointed out to you that back when life first started, there was no free oxygen. So you are already making the mistake that our current nitrogen/oxygen mix is essential for life. Oxygen is absorbed by the Earth, so it is only when carbon-dioxide breathing plants became quite prevalent on Earth (releasing more oxygen into the atmosphere) that free oxygen became available. A few hundred million years ago we had more oxygen in the atmosphere, enabling insects to grow to much larger sizes than they do today. However that would not be a good thing for humans as we would eventually succumb to oxygen poisoning (as any good deep-sea diver will tell you).
shadow wrote:
and related this is why many scientist actually have supported a fine tuned universe.
Not scientifically they haven't. It's more of a big hit with philosophers and (for obvious reasons) creationists.

But if the universe was REALLY fine-tuned, there'd be life EVERYWHERE. We would have life on Mars. We would have floating creatures feeding on the atmosphere of Jupiter, giant space slugs living off the minerals in our asteroid belt, and mynocks flying through space feeding off solar energy. But we don't. Life appears to be quite restricted in fact. It seems more that life has adapted to the universe, not the universe adapted for life.
shadow

Moulton, UK

#20 Nov 5, 2011
"Since I've never made that claim, why are you being so dishonest?"

This is so old, you think using the word "dishonest" is an insult? It might be to a religious fundi, yet you yourself seem to have an obsession with it. One of your holy sins is it? Even so.

is your name "the other dude" - no it isn't so why are you saying I made that claim about you when I didn't why are you being so dishonest.

"Evidence? "

how about the laws of thermodynamics? matter aka energy never created or destroyed, science shows us that energy has to always exist. what do you think is inside atoms? sub-atomic particles, what is driving those. field energy. quantum mechanisms time after time has disproven materialism:

"
An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less 'substance' than we might believe." - Paul davies.

"Yeah, heard this kinda new-age QM deism bollox before. Something tells me Hoyle wouldn't subscribe to it much either. "

Hoyle was an early proponent of that idea, it is not deism, he authored the book cosmic life force, he clearly did subscribe to it.

you keep dodging these questions, why did life start on earth? You still have not explained why the atmosphere changed to free oxygen either, why life at all? what caused this religious big bang of yours. why. why did that happen. why do chemicals exist? why?

"But if the universe was REALLY fine-tuned, there'd be life EVERYWHERE"

it is everywhere. just neodarwinists such as yourself do not want there to be and have not been exposed to the evidence. see here:

http://www.panspermia.org/neodarw.htm

there is evidence for life on mars

http://www.panspermia.org/marslife.htm

http://www.panspermia.org/genesborn.htm

genes older than earth

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min DanFromSmithville 16,519
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min It aint necessari... 40,879
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 201,798
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 1 hr Fear-God 71
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 301
Sun could not have formed as thought 21 hr Creationtruth 1
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Fri MIDutch 24
More from around the web