Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
90,121 - 90,140 of 115,412 Comments Last updated 43 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#95214 Jul 11, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Some very good points Chimney, but alot of what foreigners see is Hollywood exaggeration. My entire education was at schools in the US, and there were many. In my personal experiences I have not witnessed such "drama" as is portrayed by Hollywood. Sure, you've got the subdivisions such as jocks, geeks, stoners, and such, but you've also got the majority who are students interested in learning and are not bothered at all by these groups. There is peer pressure to a certain extent, but I don't think it's any different from other countries.
Other contributing factors such as increase in violence, population, available communications, etc. should also be considered. It's a very complex environment which certainly deserves more attention from the scientific community. If some of these troubled teens look to religion as a crutch, then all the power to them. Maybe it's the best solution for them, but as SBT believes, it is still not a reason to push creationalism in school. Religion should be an individual belief, and not part of an academic agenda. I would not go to a church to seek knowledge on quantum mechanics, and I would not go to school to seek the word of God.
Maybe so, but I even recall US exchange students at my high school in NZ and they were surprised at how inclusive it was. We noted how they were quite superficial in their concerns. I don't mean they were superficial people, but its a quality. Too much makeup on the girls, hard to explain. We were sports mad, but the first "jock" I ever met who was into working out to "build his pecs" rather than improve his rugby or swimming or sprinting like we were was an American exchange student. Maybe he was planning to impress everyone when he returned home.

I would suggest that the exaggerated hollywood version still reveals an underlying truth about school in the USA. Admittedly, I do not have first hand experience, but I do know what Americans notice once they are out of that environment.

But I won't belabour the point any more. The underlying one was that SBT's claims that the alienation and lack of meaning that he sees driven by evolution and "atheism" are due to different factors.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#95215 Jul 11, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
Other contributing factors such as increase in violence, population, available communications, etc. should also be considered. It's a very complex environment which certainly deserves more attention from the scientific community. If some of these troubled teens look to religion as a crutch, then all the power to them. Maybe it's the best solution for them, but as SBT believes, it is still not a reason to push creationalism in school. Religion should be an individual belief, and not part of an academic agenda. I would not go to a church to seek knowledge on quantum mechanics, and I would not go to school to seek the word of God.
I guess this part of your post really hits my point directly. What are the real factors at play here?

BTW I am not a militant atheist and have no problem with people believing what they like. I just object to corrupting science teaching with religious dogma.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#95216 Jul 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And right here is where I gave up. If you actually think your silly "soup to man" idea is what is driving kids to murder and suicide, then I'll have to relegate you to the clueless bin. It is patently absurd to think that ToE or evolution itself is foremost in the minds of teenagers, you're so far off the mark it isn't even worth discussing. I doubt you'd find 1 out of 1000 who would even mention the concept as significant.
So when the bullets are flying, or engine number 1 (of 1) quits in the mountains I call out "Carl, Richard, I need some help here" or "Oh magical clock in the cockpit, maker of all things, how about some jet fuel today, and I will worship you the rest of my days". Absurd isn't it? In those time's we cut right to the quick. That's a place that only God can fill.

Teens have other escapes, all of them bad, sex, drugs or worse. Be honest, they are missing THE answer and its not Bil/yrs Godless materialism framed in evolution and pushed in the schools and media. The Framers of our country would be sick to see where this country is right now and where it's going. That's why they inserted "Creator" in the Constitution, we have abandoned it and are paying the terrible price.

So if we agree that there is a Deity, we must search for the true one. God has put the desire to know the truth about such things in every heart. So where do we go? Carl? Richard? a clock?

All the anti-Bible posters here have been reading too much hate mail and need to read more Scripture before they judge, get on-line where the answers are. Look at the signs of the times, its no time to dally.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95217 Jul 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So when the bullets are flying, or engine number 1 (of 1) quits in the mountains I call out "Carl, Richard, I need some help here" or "Oh magical clock in the cockpit, maker of all things, how about some jet fuel today, and I will worship you the rest of my days". Absurd isn't it? In those time's we cut right to the quick. That's a place that only God can fill.
Sez you.
SBT wrote:
Teens have other escapes, all of them bad, sex, drugs or worse.
All of them bad? No other choices? It must be a very sad and lonely place where you live.
SBT wrote:
Be honest, they are missing THE answer and its not Bil/yrs Godless materialism framed in evolution and pushed in the schools and media.
What is the answer for you may not be the answer for others.
SBT wrote:
The Framers of our country would be sick to see where this country is right now and where it's going.
Perhaps. More likely, they would be amazed that we have managed to hold on to our democracy this long.
SBT wrote:
That's why they inserted "Creator" in the Constitution, we have abandoned it and are paying the terrible price.
It was a sly and generic term. If they wanted to say "God" or the "Christian God" or the "God of the Bible", they would have said so.
SBT wrote:
So if we agree that there is a Deity, we must search for the true one. God has put the desire to know the truth about such things in every heart. So where do we go? Carl? Richard? a clock?
We have not agreed.
SBT wrote:
All the anti-Bible posters here have been reading too much hate mail and need to read more Scripture before they judge, get on-line where the answers are. Look at the signs of the times, its no time to dally.
And perhaps you should do the same. How the hell do you know how much bible I or anyone else has read?

Still judging, I see.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#95218 Jul 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So when the bullets are flying, or engine number 1 (of 1) quits in the mountains I call out "Carl, Richard, I need some help here" or "Oh magical clock in the cockpit, maker of all things, how about some jet fuel today, and I will worship you the rest of my days". Absurd isn't it?
Agreed
In those time's we cut right to the quick. That's a place that only God can fill.
But this is also absurd.
Teens have other escapes, all of them bad, sex, drugs or worse. Be honest, they are missing THE answer and its not Bil/yrs Godless materialism framed in evolution and pushed in the schools and media.
Why not? Godless materialism seems to work just fine for the mentally balanced. And NOTHING works fine for the mentally unbalanced. In any case, evolution is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence, not a front for godless materialism.
The Framers of our country would be sick to see where this country is right now and where it's going.
Indeed, they were largely men of the Enlightenment. Jefferson, Franklin, and others thought any literal belief in the Bible was primitive superstition, though they accepted the possibility of a Deity. And they framed the Constitution along the lines of Enlightenment philosophers like Hobbes, Hume, Locke, and Voltaire, also not believers in Genesis etc.
So if we agree that there is a Deity, we must search for the true one.
But we don't agree. There might be, might not. But if there is, its certainly not that delusion of ancient goat herders that you worship. See, agreement is always difficult when you are arguing about a conjectural being who might not even exist and offers no evidence for His existence let alone his "true nature". Good grief, even those who follow the Bible have split into thousands of sects.

That's where faith in untestable conjectures will get you. Nowhere.
All the anti-Bible posters here have been reading too much hate mail and need to read more Scripture before they judge, get on-line where the answers are. Look at the signs of the times, its no time to dally.
I have read plenty of scripture. Its interesting as a mythical and semi historical text. Hopeless as a description of any realistic Deity and worse as a manual for morality (genocide is OK if GOD told you to do it! Hooray!), utterly meaningless in terms of providing a good purpose for human existence, and inferior in almost every way to the rational and humanistic moral approach developed by the Ancient Greeks at almost the same time.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95219 Jul 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess this part of your post really hits my point directly. What are the real factors at play here?
BTW I am not a militant atheist and have no problem with people believing what they like. I just object to corrupting science teaching with religious dogma.

Rabid automatic systematic denial and contempt for scientific knowledge because they see it as a personal threat on their belief.
The southern baptist is not much different than the taliban in their rejection of science.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95220 Jul 11, 2013
"Such a scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Our universe is expanding and becoming increasingly dilute, and the high-entropy future will be one in which space is essentially empty. But quantum mechanics assures us that empty space is not a quiet, boring place; it’s alive and bubbling with quantum fluctuations—ephemeral, virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. According to a theory known as the “inflationary universe scenario,” all we need is for a tiny patch of space to be filled with a very high density of dark energy—energy that is inherent in the fabric of space itself. That dark energy will fuel a spontaneous, super-accelerated expansion, stretching the infinitesimal patch to universal proportions.

Empty space, in which omnipresent quantum fields are jiggling back and forth, is a natural, high-entropy state for the universe. Eventually (and we’re talking about a really, really big eventually) the fluctuations will conspire in just the right way to fill a tiny patch of space with dark energy, setting off the ultra-fast expansion. To any forms of life arising afterward, such as us, the inflation would look like a giant explosion from which the universe originated, and the quiescent background—the other universes—would be completely unobservable. Such an occurrence would look exactly like the Big Bang and the universe we experience.
The most appealing aspect of this idea, Chen and I have argued, is that over the vast scale of the entire universe, time is actually symmetric and the laws truly don’t care about which direction it is moving. In our patch of the cosmos, time just so happens to be moving forward because of its initial low entropy, but there are others where this is not the case. The far past and the far future are filled with these other baby universes, and they would each think that the other had its arrow of time backwards. Time’s arrow isn’t a basic aspect of the universe as a whole, just a hallmark of the little bit we see. Over a long enough period of time, a baby universe such as ours would have been birthed into existence naturally. Our observable universe and its hundred billion galaxies is just one of those things that happens every once in a while, and its arrow of time is just a quirk of chance due to its beginnings amid a sea of universes.

Such a scenario is obviously speculative, but it fits in well with modern ideas of a multiverse with different regions of possibly distinct physical conditions. Admittedly, it would be hard to gather experimental evidence for or against this idea. But science doesn’t only need evidence, it also needs to make sense, to tell a consistent story. We can’t turn eggs into omelets, even though the laws of physics seem to be perfectly reversible, and this brute fact demands an explanation. It’s intriguing to imagine that the search for an answer would lead us to the literal ends of the universe."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#95223 Jul 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed
<quoted text>
But this is also absurd.
<quoted text>

Indeed, they were largely men of the Enlightenment. Jefferson, Franklin, and others thought any literal belief in the Bible was primitive superstition, though they accepted the possibility of a Deity. And they framed the Constitution along the lines of Enlightenment philosophers like Hobbes, Hume, Locke, and Voltaire, also not believers in Genesis etc.
<quoted text>
Abbreviated for space
<quoted text>
I have read plenty of scripture. Its interesting as a mythical and semi historical text. Hopeless as a description of any realistic Deity and worse as a manual for morality (genocide is OK if GOD told you to do it! Hooray!), utterly meaningless in terms of providing a good purpose for human existence, and inferior in almost every way to the rational and humanistic moral approach developed by the Ancient Greeks at almost the same time.
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age, but your "mountains of evidence" is where it fails, and falls apart so badly in debate that your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago. They used lots of excuses, the attendees don't understand, the other side uses trickery, and on and on. The entire animal kingdom is our evidence, advances in DNA study pushed your side into a total dependence on mutations, so we are all mutations? When I was a kid, a mutation was something ugly and bad, now everyone and everything is a mutation, Dawkin's mutation proof is found here;



For evo to work you need a real mechanism, not words and pictures, they have none. It only gets worse as more study is done at the cell level. Unapologetically, a belief in classic evolution is anything but science. Many scientists of high stature and great contribution have rejected evolution outright for years. Popularity doesn't make anything true.

As for our Constitutional framers being Deists, we know a small minority were, and they respected the Bible and supported open use. But the majority were committed Christians, along he line of Washington or even more openly devout, the name of Christ openly invoked in prayer. The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths. One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.

Our motto, "In God We Trust" is based on the Bible, we have been blessed as the greatest Nation on Earth, devising the best inventions and innovations, feeding parts of the planet and training more, have the most prosperous people and our brave military saving the world from slavery more than once as a "Christian Nation", apart from the philosophies you cited. You are mistaken in your characterizations and our history.

The sick practices of the nations Israel displaced in Canaan are well documented, offering children in fire, widespread child abuse and more thats unprintable here. God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95224 Jul 11, 2013
SBT, a mutation was ugly when you were a kid only because you did not know what a mutation was.

You watched to much bad science fiction.

Your video is an example of editing after the fact. It proves nothing. Why don't you try again with real science?

Oh wait, real science is on our side.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#95225 Jul 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
REMOVED FOR SPACE. BUT REALLY YOU AREN'T MISSING ANYTHING. SEE HIS POST IF YOU MUST.
No debate in this country? Well gosh, I wonder what this whole forum is. Is this the cooking forum? Anyone got a recipe for shrimp fettuccine alfredo?

I wonder what all the other forums debating evolution are or what about the debate you had with head of a university and 8 million scientists? What about the public discussion by politicians.

Seems to me you are lying or you are a complete idiot isolated from reality.

Lets see, there is an ever growing body of scientific literature describing experiments, observations, and discoveries that all support evolution. Golly gee whiz guy, all things should fall apart so well.

Well you all don't understand and you do use trickery. I agree with you on that. Your whole schpiel on mutations is misunderstanding and trickery. Advances in the study of DNA confirm what we know about evolution and opened up whole new treasures troves of information we didn't know. ERV's, chromosome fusions, genomic sequencing, transgenesis, epigenetics, and on and on and on.

There is a solid mechanism for evolution and there has been since Darwin proposed it. While classical evolution is science we have moved way beyond what Darwin and his contemporaries were capable of knowing. You have to catch up. You are way, way, way, way, way behind.

Funny, 98 percent of scientists are known to support and accept evolution. Sure a few have cast it aside to one degree or another, but not one of them, I MEAN NOT ONE OF THEM, has offered anything that is a viable refutation of the science.

It wasn't a minority of the founders, but keep trying. The Nazi teach you guys that if you lie and keep repeating it, it becomes the truth. That revisionism may take yet. Keep clicking those heels together Dorothy.

Oh yes, the United States has and is made up mostly of various Christian sects, but the majority were not and have never been fundamentalist, literalists.

The rest is just rambling apologetics and justification for lies.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#95226 Jul 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age, but your "mountains of evidence" is where it fails, and falls apart so badly in debate that your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago. They used lots of excuses, the attendees don't understand, the other side uses trickery, and on and on. The entire animal kingdom is our evidence, advances in DNA study pushed your side into a total dependence on mutations, so we are all mutations? When I was a kid, a mutation was something ugly and bad, now everyone and everything is a mutation, Dawkin's mutation proof is found here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zaKryi3605gXX
For evo to work you need a real mechanism, not words and pictures, they have none. It only gets worse as more study is done at the cell level. Unapologetically, a belief in classic evolution is anything but science. Many scientists of high stature and great contribution have rejected evolution outright for years. Popularity doesn't make anything true.
As for our Constitutional framers being Deists, we know a small minority were, and they respected the Bible and supported open use. But the majority were committed Christians, along he line of Washington or even more openly devout, the name of Christ openly invoked in prayer. The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths. One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.
Our motto, "In God We Trust" is based on the Bible, we have been blessed as the greatest Nation on Earth, devising the best inventions and innovations, feeding parts of the planet and training more, have the most prosperous people and our brave military saving the world from slavery more than once as a "Christian Nation", apart from the philosophies you cited. You are mistaken in your characterizations and our history.
The sick practices of the nations Israel displaced in Canaan are well documented, offering children in fire, widespread child abuse and more thats unprintable here. God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.
If you wish to defeat your opponent, it is desirable, no paramount, that you have the best intelligence available to you. Battles have been lost and armies destroyed simply because information was missing, outdated, or wrong.

Guy, you appear to believe a whole lot of untrue statements and misinformation. Do you really think, that God wants you follow the Commandments and express your adoration by bearing false witness and hiding behind willful fictions? Do you really think that this will win your argument? Historically, only blind luck has ever saved an aggressor with the paucity of factual information that you bring to the table.

If I were you, I would be ashamed to post the nonsense you post. I can understand being led astray if you don't understand the science, but you claim otherwise and have taken every opportunity to tell us about your affiliations. It may come to pass that evolution as I understand it now will be refuted or replaced with a better explanation of the facts, but in the mean time, I don't have to lie to support my side. Shame on you.

“saved From jesus”

Level 1

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#95227 Jul 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If you wish to defeat your opponent, it is desirable, no paramount, that you have the best intelligence available to you. Battles have been lost and armies destroyed simply because information was missing, outdated, or wrong.
Guy, you appear to believe a whole lot of untrue statements and misinformation. Do you really think, that God wants you follow the Commandments and express your adoration by bearing false witness and hiding behind willful fictions? Do you really think that this will win your argument? Historically, only blind luck has ever saved an aggressor with the paucity of factual information that you bring to the table.
If I were you, I would be ashamed to post the nonsense you post. I can understand being led astray if you don't understand the science, but you claim otherwise and have taken every opportunity to tell us about your affiliations. It may come to pass that evolution as I understand it now will be refuted or replaced with a better explanation of the facts, but in the mean time, I don't have to lie to support my side. Shame on you.
The best intelligence available to them HAS been used....and 100 years from now, they'll still be using it...well, the few that might still be left.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#95228 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age, but your "mountains of evidence" is where it fails, and falls apart so badly in debate that your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago. They used lots of excuses, the attendees don't understand, the other side uses trickery, and on and on. The entire animal kingdom is our evidence, advances in DNA study pushed your side into a total dependence on mutations, so we are all mutations? When I was a kid, a mutation was something ugly and bad, now everyone and everything is a mutation, Dawkin's mutation proof is found here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zaKryi3605gXX
For evo to work you need a real mechanism, not words and pictures, they have none. It only gets worse as more study is done at the cell level. Unapologetically, a belief in classic evolution is anything but science. Many scientists of high stature and great contribution have rejected evolution outright for years. Popularity doesn't make anything true.
As for our Constitutional framers being Deists, we know a small minority were, and they respected the Bible and supported open use. But the majority were committed Christians, along he line of Washington or even more openly devout, the name of Christ openly invoked in prayer. The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths. One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.
Our motto, "In God We Trust" is based on the Bible, we have been blessed as the greatest Nation on Earth, devising the best inventions and innovations, feeding parts of the planet and training more, have the most prosperous people and our brave military saving the world from slavery more than once as a "Christian Nation", apart from the philosophies you cited. You are mistaken in your characterizations and our history.
The sick practices of the nations Israel displaced in Canaan are well documented, offering children in fire, widespread child abuse and more thats unprintable here. God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.
SbT there is far too much baloney here for me to answer on mobile.

I will answer just themost salient point for now. The mechanism of evolution is known and understood. So well in fact that the same logic can be formulated and employed in genetic algorithm programs. The whole point of Darwin's book was to expalin the mechanism he had arrived at. He did not invent the idea of evolution, he won fame for being the first to desribe how it worked.

So perhaps its time you brushed up on that instead of continuing your criticisms of something you dont quite understand . If that sounds harsh, sorry, but you reveal your ignorance with that claim..

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#95229 Jul 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No debate in this country? Well gosh, I wonder what this whole forum is. Is this the cooking forum? Anyone got a recipe for shrimp fettuccine alfredo?
Advances in the study of DNA confirm what we know about evolution and opened up whole new treasures troves of information we didn't know. ERV's, chromosome fusions, genomic sequencing, transgenesis, epigenetics, and on and on and on.
There is a solid mechanism for evolution and there has been since Darwin proposed it. While classical evolution is science we have moved way beyond what Darwin and his contemporaries were capable of knowing. You have to catch up. You are way, way, way, way, way behind.
I'm sorry to be the one to enlighten you, but to say that Darwin's views of microbiology and genetics are 'proven' show that it's not me that's behind. Darwin was into the 'Pangenesis' theory, where he thought the environment could add genetic information within that living generation, and pass it on. He was wrong, that has to happen for evolution to work, right?

Since Crick, we now know Darwin was mistaken,(he even had bears jumping into water and becoming whales - good imagination for sure!), but once you push the ship of macro-evolution away from the dock (mistaking it for mirco-evolution, as Darwin did), with a 90 year start,(Crick, and interrupted by Medel,)-

http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_1.htm

even good science couldn't stop it. Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), postulated that the structures are so complex and the data so extensive that evolution has no chance to cause major CHANGES to life at all. Hence he wrote the book "Panasperma", being not attached to evolutionary Dogma, that the information may have come here on space ships, why;

1. You have tremendous data storage @ the chemical level for compaction.(they think about 3 GB of code for humans),smaller than any drive that man can build. By accidents -

2. You have a language convention between the data and the machines,(a triple code-interesting, but language convention requires intelligence, you can't run apps in the wrong basic), by accidents -

3. You have no write-heads in a cell, only READING heads.(a functional apparatus of high complexity and perfect efficiency)- by accidents

4. You have a replicating system in the cell and an archive (mDNA & RNA). What an accident!

Man has only lately the technology to OBSERVE what's going on, some wrongfully calling the complexity of life 'accidents' via a mechanism's that has never been replicated in the lab, even after thousands of generations of fruit fly's failed to get mutation driven evolution to work in a positive way. It didn't work because there's no mechanism to get it to work, so just write words, draw pictures, tell stories and attack the other view.

"For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so man is without excuse."

Will and still holds true.

The definition of 'science' is - it must be testable, repeatable, verifiable and observable. That's illogical from 1-4 above, and from experience. So evolution gains its illogical trump card of non-reason, how?- try to be the only game in town. Wrong, there is another competing and better answer.

And yes, they issued warnings not to face to face public debate our side,(I saw copies of their mass mailings), it got too embarrassing for them, so they choose to stand off and mock instead.

Level 1

Since: Jul 13

San Juan Capistrano, CA

#95230 Jul 12, 2013
The biggest questions I have about evolution are the genetic mutations that started the first vascular systems, the heart, organs like that. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be a genetic mutation from a parent that is beneficial to the species, and then for the parent to pass that mutation down to offspring. My question is, how did the first vascular system begin? It would have been a long and drawn out process to create an entire vascular system for an organism. If it started off slowly, just one little piece of the vascular system at a time, did the organism know that in a few million years it would have an entire vascular system? And did the other essential organs develop this way too? Being essentially useless for millions of years before they were fully developed? This has never made sense to me. How can you go from a prokaryotic cell to an organism with a beating heart. Another thing I have wondered is when would it be beneficial for a marine animal to begin to develop the traits of a land animal? Evolution teaches that the traits that an organism acquires during evolution must be beneficial for the animal keep that trait. Land and sea animals are VASTLY different, so for a sea animal to poke its head out of the water everyday, then air breathing lungs begin to develop over millions of years, just seems preposterous to me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 13

San Juan Capistrano, CA

#95231 Jul 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
SbT there is far too much baloney here for me to answer on mobile.
I will answer just themost salient point for now. The mechanism of evolution is known and understood. So well in fact that the same logic can be formulated and employed in genetic algorithm programs. The whole point of Darwin's book was to expalin the mechanism he had arrived at. He did not invent the idea of evolution, he won fame for being the first to desribe how it worked.
So perhaps its time you brushed up on that instead of continuing your criticisms of something you dont quite understand . If that sounds harsh, sorry, but you reveal your ignorance with that claim..
The biggest questions I have about evolution are the genetic mutations that started the first vascular systems, the heart, organs like that. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be a genetic mutation from a parent that is beneficial to the species, and then for the parent to pass that mutation down to offspring. My question is, how did the first vascular system begin? It would have been a long and drawn out process to create an entire vascular system for an organism. If it started off slowly, just one little piece of the vascular system at a time, did the organism know that in a few million years it would have an entire vascular system? And did the other essential organs develop this way too? Being essentially useless for millions of years before they were fully developed? This has never made sense to me. How can you go from a prokaryotic cell to an organism with a beating heart. Another thing I have wondered is when would it be beneficial for a marine animal to begin to develop the traits of a land animal? Evolution teaches that the traits that an organism acquires during evolution must be beneficial for the animal keep that trait. Land and sea animals are VASTLY different, so for a sea animal to poke its head out of the water everyday, then air breathing lungs begin to develop over millions of years, just seems preposterous to me.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95232 Jul 12, 2013
ArchAdam949 wrote:
The biggest questions I have about evolution are the genetic mutations that started the first vascular systems, the heart, organs like that. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be a genetic mutation from a parent that is beneficial to the species, and then for the parent to pass that mutation down to offspring. My question is, how did the first vascular system begin? It would have been a long and drawn out process to create an entire vascular system for an organism. If it started off slowly, just one little piece of the vascular system at a time, did the organism know that in a few million years it would have an entire vascular system?
Why is it every fundie on here assumes evolution to be goal-directed?
ArchAdam949 wrote:
And did the other essential organs develop this way too? Being essentially useless for millions of years before they were fully developed? This has never made sense to me.
Since we're all born with 125-175 mutations, you included, if you haven't personally noticed any of them being particularly detrimental or beneficial as compared to your fellow humans then it could be possible that a number of those aren't really doing much for you right now. But there they remain until they become a problem, in which case they're selected out of the gene pool, or a benefit in which case they will be co-opted for a new function.
ArchAdam949 wrote:
How can you go from a prokaryotic cell to an organism with a beating heart.
How can you go from a single cell to a fully-grown human?
ArchAdam949 wrote:
Another thing I have wondered is when would it be beneficial for a marine animal to begin to develop the traits of a land animal?
When they're short on water. Seen lungfish?
ArchAdam949 wrote:
Evolution teaches that the traits that an organism acquires during evolution must be beneficial for the animal keep that trait.
No it doesn't.
ArchAdam949 wrote:
Land and sea animals are VASTLY different, so for a sea animal to poke its head out of the water everyday, then air breathing lungs begin to develop over millions of years, just seems preposterous to me.
If they are "vastly different" then why are dolphins and whales very similar to mammals? So similar in fact that they ARE mammals? Do you know WHY they are called mammals?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95233 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
So when the bullets are flying, or engine number 1 (of 1) quits in the mountains I call out "Carl, Richard, I need some help here" or "Oh magical clock in the cockpit, maker of all things, how about some jet fuel today, and I will worship you the rest of my days". Absurd isn't it? In those time's we cut right to the quick. That's a place that only God can fill.
Teens have other escapes, all of them bad, sex, drugs or worse. Be honest, they are missing THE answer and its not Bil/yrs Godless materialism framed in evolution and pushed in the schools and media.
Since Christians accept evolution I know not of what you're referring with this "Godless materialist evolution". If you mean that evolution doesn't mention God then I point out that neither does the Godless materialist gravity. Note how gravity, also a scientific concept is just as materialistic.
SBT wrote:
The Framers of our country would be sick to see where this country is right now and where it's going. That's why they inserted "Creator" in the Constitution, we have abandoned it and are paying the terrible price.
I certainly don't recall the word "Creator" in the US Constitution. Also isn't it great that the same word also does not necessarily necessitate intelligence and therefore can be accepted by non-theists also? A bit like hydrogen and oxygen creating water, no intelligence required.
SBT wrote:
So if we agree that there is a Deity
If we agree. But we don't have to.
SBT wrote:
we must search for the true one. God has put the desire to know the truth about such things in every heart. So where do we go? Carl? Richard? a clock?
Why obviously we go to you, your favourite religious book, and refer to how you interpret it rather than anyone else.

Well, except for the fact that you don't know more about God than anyone else on the entire planet does, period. Assuming such an entity exists.
SBT wrote:
All the anti-Bible posters here have been reading too much hate mail and need to read more Scripture before they judge, get on-line where the answers are. Look at the signs of the times, its no time to dally.
Well I stopped taking scripture seriously when it spoke of talking lizards and donkeys, flat Earth, and the existence of plants before sunlight. Then the book's advertising crew had a poor habit of threatening anyone who disagreed with their baseless religious opinions with eternal torment but Jesus loves us amen. Understandably some people found that whole outlook rather primitive.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95234 Jul 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
I agree Evolution is certainly the science philosophy of this age, but your "mountains of evidence" is where it fails, and falls apart so badly in debate that your side published warnings not to debate in this country a dozen years ago. They used lots of excuses, the attendees don't understand, the other side uses trickery, and on and on. The entire animal kingdom is our evidence, advances in DNA study pushed your side into a total dependence on mutations, so we are all mutations? When I was a kid, a mutation was something ugly and bad, now everyone and everything is a mutation, Dawkin's mutation proof is found here
Yes, mutations are ugly to you because you never understood evolution. Just a pinch of the evidence is here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
SBT wrote:
For evo to work you need a real mechanism, not words and pictures, they have none.
You appear to be projecting. Your position is invisible Jewmagic. Ours at least has mechanisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechan...

So where you lying when you said there were no mechanisms or lying when you claimed to know enough about evolution to critique it? Or lying when you said your criticisms had any scientific relevance considering your magic position.
SBT wrote:
It only gets worse as more study is done at the cell level. Unapologetically, a belief in classic evolution is anything but science. Many scientists of high stature and great contribution have rejected evolution outright for years. Popularity doesn't make anything true.
Funny thing is it's popular mostly with scientists. So our high stature scientists outnumber yours.

And of course Christianity being (just about) the world's most popular religion doesn't make it true, right?
SBT wrote:
As for our Constitutional framers being Deists, we know a small minority were, and they respected the Bible and supported open use. But the majority were committed Christians, along he line of Washington or even more openly devout, the name of Christ openly invoked in prayer. The writing's of the framers identified "religion" as Christianity, and "Mohammedians" and "Jews" those of other faiths. One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.
The Founders were made up of 2 Catholics, 6 from different Protestant sects and the rest deists. They also ensured religious freedom for ALL, not Christianity above all others.
SBT wrote:
Our motto, "In God We Trust"
Was thrown in during the 60's Red Scare by fundies who didn't give a fig about the Constitution or religious freedom.
SBT wrote:
God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.
Right. Your god sentenced all men to damnation all because two people ate a magic apple which was all your god's fault anyway for making them stupid AND throwing in an evil talking lizard in with them to boot. And to top it all off being all-powerful and all knowing already knew exactly what was gonna happen all along because as we all know the whole thing is all planned out anyway by ending in a massive apocalypse since he's already had his fill of wiping out lots and lots of babies - according to the Bible anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95235 Jul 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Seems to me you are lying or you are a complete idiot isolated from reality.
Correct. Twice.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min Princess Hey 145,579
ISIS just beheaded 5 min beatlesinthebog 36
In honor of Petal Power 6 min night machine 92
30,000 post wins (May '13) 7 min NotaGoth 1,401
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 10 min beatlesinthebog 54,443
Women Hid Stolen Watches in Their Vaginas in Bi... 20 min beatlesinthebog 45
ISIS (((caps is essential))) 24 min greymouser 6
What's your tip for the day? 25 min beatlesinthebog 852
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Captn Morgan 18,732
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••