Who the hell would believe in evolution???

my brother beleives in evolution but i sure don'tPOINTS were deducted for this post by -hookshot!Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

This is what we call an argument by false analogy. This is not what the second law of thermodynamics states at all; there's nothing in there about 'energy conversion systems.' That argument was invented by W. Dembski, a mathematician who basically took some bits of information theory and cobbled them together to make his own very dubious version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics based on sketchy reasoning from dubious premises. This argument's been put down on paper by ID proponents, but never tested in a lab in any way, supported by rigorous proof, or even subjected to peer-review.Actual experiments show that you don't actually need chloroplasts to get usable energy out of light; you can do it with a single protein in a lipid membrane.For that matter, it's not clear why, exactly, an 'energy conversion system' is needed at all. If enough energy is thrown into a system that contains simple organic molecules, some percentage of them will store energy. If, by chance, some molecules develop the ability to self-reproduce, you've got a system that can sustain itself without photosynthesis until the energy stores run out.-The claim that amino acids don't just spontaneously make proteins is a valid one. But nobody is claiming that the first life was protein-based.

Yet the Creationists claims we are created, they can't even prove we are. I say evolution is true. We have the capability to adapt to the environment so we could survive.We learned how to think.

And does evolution prove that we were? You do know that it is a THEORY. Like any other scientific theory. And we always knew how to think, we just didn't see the correct perspective.I'd hate to argue again but: Illiteracy is acceptable but not ignorance.

And does evolution prove that we were? You do know that it is a THEORY. Like any other scientific theory. And we always knew how to think, we just didn't see the correct perspective.I'd hate to argue again but: Illiteracy is acceptable but not ignorance.

I swear it makes me want to punch babies when people just say that "Evolution is just a theory." because it is such an ignorant and misinformed statement. I have brought up this point many times in the thread and yet people ignore it. Everyone who maintains that "Evolution is just a theory" can refute evolution as a whole clearly does not understand the weight that the word "Theory" carries in science. That's just like saying "Oh, he's only a professional basketball player." Do you know what else is "only a theory"? Gravity. In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.Please stop spouting this "only a theory" nonsense.

The evolution theory is the current and most probable theory of how life on earth came to be. If the earth and the life on it were created by some spernatural being, where is the evidence? and bibles don't count!

Minerals evolved to organisms?And also, if everything is created by a supernatural being, there will be no evidence.. Unless the supernatural being came to us and told us we were created by it..@hellogoodbye777Then we learned to see the 'correct' perspective..We also learned to talk.. to read.. to write.. to understand.. That is an evidence of evolution..Illiteracy is acceptable but not ignorance?Then kill all ignorant people.. Else, ignorance is acceptable..

I believe in both God and evolution and some of creationism (some). We're not debating the existence of God here, we're debating whether evolution is plausible or not. I think there is a supreme creator and that life didn't just start for no reason, but that doesn't interfere with the theory of evolution for me.

The point of the debate might be for or against Evolution, but to raise something else as a contending theory requires proof. Creationists posting don't get to say "Well, Evolution isn't right so Creationism must be, so there!" If you say something you need to have evidence to back it up.

Those Amino acids tests that you talk about that supposedly simulated the earth a long time ago is false. Its been proven. That crazy did NOT recreate Conditions similiar to that of a million years ago.

There have been multiple tests conducted since the late 90's. Each one has been an improvement over the one that came before it and has recreated conditions as well as we are able with the technology and knowledge we currently posses. In every test we have been able to generate amino acids and other organic molecules from inorganic ones.

And the thing about us Creationists ( Well i guess christians or monotheistic religions) Dont really care about scientific proof. We would rather care about furthering our own faith. WE have a completely different concept of looking at life, which is that we dont need PROOf all the time. Not scientific proof anyway. So dont criticize us for not being like you.

If all you care is to further your faith, that's fine, but then don't post here. This is a place for debating. If you can't bring reasoned arguments based on some method of evidence to this thread than you have no place here. Go post in some other section of the forum about how you believe this to be true, but not here. Also, you should know I'm not criticizing you for not being like me, I'm critcizing you for coming to a debating board and then saying you won't listen to reason, you will simply follow everything based on faith. If that is your intent, you have no reason to be here.

Awesome. So we're basing all this evolution on an outdated, obselete and inaccurate method? No wonder we're all "evolving".

Nice of you to cherry pick there. The anatomical method is old and was in use (and in certain cases still is), but I also said that modern methods are based on DNA analysis, which you conveniently left out.

The Myth of the "Open System" *snip a thorough distortion of physics*

Well BillDoor has more than adequately already tackled this section of the post so I'm just gonna add a few comments. 1) Nice of you to ignore my comment about everything still dying in this world. Nothing lasts forever which show that Entropy is still alive and well2) We can and do regularly use photosynthesis-like processes. Why don't we actually copy it directly? Well when is the last time you saw a car that ran on sugar? We deal with electricity and so have adapted photosynthesis to become photovolatics. 3) "Perfect design." Please, mortal engineers regularly produce superior designs as compared to much of nature. Compare a horse to a Ferrari. The car has the horse beat for cargo and passengar capacity, speed, endurance, and pretty much every other point you could think of.

LEt's see an example where the concept of similar physiology is shown to be completely bogus; *snip stuff about "My Favorite Monkey"*

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything describing the documentary you mentioned, at least nothing that wasn't written by a Creationist, so I can't really comment on it. However, I will say that organ transplants are a continually "evolving" science. If those transplants were done in 1963 than the most likely reason they didn't work is because of the MHC (major histocompatibility complex) which is different between individual humans (those of the same species) and if they don't match up the organs won't work and will actually cause the body to attack those new organs. Ever heard of transplant rejection or wondered why transplant patients take immune suppresion drugs? Trying to pull that stunt with 2 different species is insane when it's hard enough to find matches within the same species.

Harlequin thats my exact ing point. Science is a theory. That means that the entire lwas that we base everything on may not be true. Thats why i dont think its dependable.(it does look liek you punch little girls...)And avatarxprime, i agree. i dont want to be here anymore.All these people are just people that are so argumentative they take pleasure in trying to destroy other peoples lifestyle.

This is what we call an argument by false analogy. This is not what the second law of thermodynamics states at all; there's nothing in there about 'energy conversion systems.' That argument was invented by W. Dembski, a mathematician who basically took some bits of information theory and cobbled them together to make his own very dubious version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics based on sketchy reasoning from dubious premises. This argument's been put down on paper by ID proponents, but never tested in a lab in any way, supported by rigorous proof, or even subjected to peer-review.

Who the hell is W. Dembski? The so-called second law of thermodynamics can be proven to viable in a closed system whereas the entire universe is said to be an open system with energy influx. However, the second law of thermodynamics still affects everything in the universe, hence in layman's terms it mean, we're are decaying, deteriorating and so on. But the only reason why we're still alive is that because the second law of thermodynamics is slowed and hindered by the strong chemical bonds.

In many real-world chemicals and things the second law can be obstructed or hindered for millions of years. Certainly, the mountains of the world haven't all slid down to sea level in the last several hundred centuries! Similar to my fingers holding the small rock (but millions of times more tightly), even overhanging stone in cliffs or mountains is bonded, chemically bonded, to adjacent atoms in the stone and so the stone can't obey the second law tendency for it to fall to a lower level. Here, as in countless other examples, the second law is blocked by the strength of chemical bonds. It takes a huge number of repetitions of outside energy input like freezing and thawing and earthquakes and windy rainstorms to break the bonds along even a weak bond-line, make a crack, and free particles or pebbles or rocks so they can follow the second law by falling to a lower level. (But even then, they may just fall into a mile-high valley and be kept from dropping any closer to sea level; so here in a different way the second law is further hindered.)

Blockage of the second law is absolutely necessary for us to be alive and happy. Not one of the complex chemical substances in our body and few in the things we enjoy would exist for a microsecond if the second law wasn't obstructed. Its tendency is never eliminated but, fortunately for us, there are a huge number of compounds in which it is blocked for our lifetimes and even far longer.

Actual experiments show that you don't actually need chloroplasts to get usable energy out of light; you can do it with a single protein in a lipid membrane.

The claim that amino acids don't just spontaneously make proteins is a valid one. But nobody is claiming that the first life was protein-based.

That's totally awesome, you're refuting your own argument. Without proteins, your theory would not have a basis and yet you say otherwise. ^^

For that matter, it's not clear why, exactly, an 'energy conversion system' is needed at all. If enough energy is thrown into a system that contains simple organic molecules, some percentage of them will store energy. If, by chance, some molecules develop the ability to self-reproduce, you've got a system that can sustain itself without photosynthesis until the energy stores run out.

Most things can store heat energy, so what? It's called specific heat capacity ="the amount of heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1kg of a substance by 1 degree Celsius. We store heat, but it doesn't mean that it stays in our body/structure. Thermal Equilibrium is constantly happening and we lose heat overtime. Heck, if we didn't convert the energy in our food to usable energy, we'd probably freeze to death and die at night (for those of us who aren't fortunate enough to own a heater)I challenge you evolutionists to give a credible example of the so called Evolution Theory you have all been spouting without proof and actual evidence to back it up. Now don't give that BS about how this one guy (Evolutionist: "can't damn remember his name but it's real!!!") did an experiment and voila! Life is formed. I don't see how a clump of amino acids which were formed in so called primordial atmospheric conditions (which was the wrong type to begin with), can be said to have formed the simple cell. *coughmillercough*

why would you but remember other ppl have beleieths to you no (im not trying to be mean or any thing)

what? i have no idea what you said(no offence)But evolution is not a lifestyle to you is it? do you base your life on it?Evolution is liek a pacman that eats itself.

proofs of evolution can be seen through our adaptations through our daily life. We adapt and take new forms to surpass the skirmishes we face. Our cells adapt to store more energy. Or our muscle fibers shorten and lengthen to help improve movement. Creationism can be seen as a belief that one great force perpetuated life. i, for one, am a creationist. but adaptation is not impossible and evolution may be plausible.

Science is not about proof. It is about gathering evidence and making conclusions off of that evidence. A theory can never be proven, only supported or disproven by evidence. Similarly, there probably will be no proof for creationism. Also, if the universe is becoming more random, the Second Law of Thermodynamics should have been proven false before now. The mere fact that these laws exist and have been supported says something about the increasing randomness of the universe.Since nothing can be proven, except in mathematics, there has to be some belief involved. So stop asking for proof, because both are only theories.

i would just like to add that darwin himself said that he was wrong and that his theory of evolution was just that a theory and one that he himself had eventually said was wrong

i would just like to add that darwin himself said that he was wrong and that his theory of evolution was just that a theory and one that he himself had eventually said was wrong

Really? What is your source? Dont pull off this crap that "Oh i read it somewhere." If Darwin ever did say that it would have been so that he wouldn't get his head cut of by the church. I don't know how many times people need to repeat this over and over again:SCIENCE IS BASED ON PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND SUB-ATOMIC CONCEPTS. Now I am a Chem Engineering student and would like to end this post by saying this. The universe is gradually running towards randomness, aka the second law of thermodynamics. Now it would be off topic for me to explain what the second law actually is but the labtop or desktop you are now operating is based on this law (and obviously many other laws bu mainly this one). The second law of thermodynamics tells us if a reaction will be spontaneous or not, and that helps in designing a device like the computer. Now take a look at the evolution theory. As time goes on, the world becomes more "crowded" and disordered. Living organisms become more complex and diverse. Now it is a GOOD thing to critic scientific theories but only do it when you actually know what you are talking about, cause thats what scientists do when they find mistakes and correct them accordingly. For example, before the 1900's, it was believed that in space there was a substance called ETHER. Why? Because they needed a theory to explain why light seems to bend and other phenomena in space, and it seemed to them that this was the easiest way to explain it. It was accedently discovered as not true by an experiment set to prove it. Thats how science works. Religeon, does not tolerate freedom of thought, and you as a religeous person cannot choose to critic it. Thats why Zionists move from their New York mansions to Israel and displace a poor Palestinian family, thats why the Taliban exists with little to no resistance.Bottom line, based on science in the universe:1) Nothing is 100% certain (You have a 10^(-100) chance of just falling through your bed at night. thats 0.(100 zeros)1)2) The world is getting more random, chaotic, complex etc. (However you want to word it)

Harlequin thats my exact ing point. Science is a theory. That means that the entire lwas that we base everything on may not be true. Thats why i dont think its dependable.(it does look liek you punch little girls...)And avatarxprime, i agree. i dont want to be here anymore.All these people are just people that are so argumentative they take pleasure in trying to destroy other peoples lifestyle.

You still fail to understand that "Theory" in science is the closest thing to "Fact" that we can get. Scientific theories are dependable because they are based upon piles and piles of evidence. "Theory" when used in everyday speech means "hypothesis, feeling, or hunch," which is what creationists seem to like to throw around in lieu of "Scientific Theory." This misuse of the word theory has led to thousands upon thousands of brainless idiots spouting off "lol but evoulshun iz jsut a theeree." in record numbers. The theory of evolution isn't just some hunch that Darwin had; it's a connected series of statements backed up with evidence that can be used to make predictions. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

i would just like to add that darwin himself said that he was wrong and that his theory of evolution was just that a theory and one that he himself had eventually said was wrong

Where's your evidence of that? Anyway, the story would be irrelevant even if it were true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons. Also, stop disregarding every goddamn post in the thread. The "Just a theory," argument is completely baseless and retarded.

Edited by Harlequin, 01 March 2008 - 05:36 AM.

i would just like to add that darwin himself said that he was wrong and that his theory of evolution was just that a theory and one that he himself had eventually said was wrong

Lady Hope's famous deathbed retraction story? Interestingly enough, she seemed to have only made that claim publically several years after Darwin died, and, when asked about her, Darwin's relatives said she never visited. This didn't stop evangelical groups from repeating the slander. But what would?

I like the idea of evolution, and the fact that some one decided there was a higher power. Its all about belief I guess.

Edited by Frueben, 04 March 2008 - 11:26 PM.

I don't know much about the proof for evolution but it just seems pretty logical that if an animal has a detrimental trait it will become extinct and so survival of the fittest is true.

"World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Actual application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x to the power of 1089. "And.."A living cell is so complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 To the power of 4,478,296"Is it just me or ... Yeah the big "boom: didnt happen. Nor did evolution.And you wanna know something incredible? The bible knew about the circularity of the earth, Electricty(Telephones), and Televison.Proof:Job 38:35 : Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you 'here we are'?This has a literal and a symbolic meaning.Psalms 102:12 : As far as the east from the west, so far has he remove our transgressiosn from us.Obvious.Isaiah 40:22 : He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its peole are liek grasshoppers.Also obviousRevelations 11: 9:For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language, and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. How are the men going to be seen if its not TELEVISION?

^Kid, this ain't theology class. Unless you have scientific proof about anything...also.Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people.You fail to take into the own randomness you rant about. XY chromosomes, you know? Very influential when there's only eight people around (in addition to the fact that, first of all, we aren't rabbits, second of all, incest).Revelations 11: 9:For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language, and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.I'd like to think when the end of the world comes, everyone's going to ****ing notice.Job 38:35 : Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you 'here we are'?This has a literal and a symbolic meaning.hellogoodbye: Broadcast signals = electricity....Care to make a disgrace of Christian scientists the world over, or shall we call it a day?

الِش , if you know ANYTHING about revelations, you would know that the verse im talking about deals with the two prophets, And thats TWO PEOPLE. Think that the message of the people dying would spread around the world in 3 and a half days if we didnt have planes? Or television?Why dont you try to ride a horse that fast?sheesh get it right before you try to attack someone.And yes i do know that 25 people (at least)are needed to actually make the the thing work and that 10 out of those have to be female and the females have to "do it" with every male and get a child. Otherwise, the 3rd generation wil have major birth defects. But take this into consideration: God, after the flood, made people as well."Hellogoodbye: Broadcast signals=electricity"That really doesnt prove anything.Because we are talking about electricity in the bible verse... LIGHTING???????????????Evolution is false. But science goes with the bible. in fact, the Bible said the earth was round before any scientists did....Im not going to try to be as vitriolic as you are, adding random bits of insults to try to back up my evidence. i dont want to be argumentative but if people attack me i will defend myself. I dont really have a "left cheek" I can hold up that you can slap.

Edited by AMHV, 11 March 2008 - 05:15 AM.

When you say that the bible argued that the world was a sphere, it was also wrong on other counts. Such as when the catholic church locked down Galileo for arguing that the sun was the center of the universe. (Religion said the system was earth-centric)http://en.wikipedia..../Galileo_affair

as a scientist, i am very much inclined to believe in evolution. but as a philosopher, i am inclined to reject its implications, especially as regards the human condition. it has often been said that science has never offered answers (or perhaps "satisfactory" ones) to the first question--why? what is the meaning of life? there is no meaning hidden between the thousands of lines of formulae and structures and theories that constitute the sum of what is science. not in medicines, not in spacecrafts, not in megastructures, not in computers. science is mute in what is most important: why? and where to?

Lord suzaku, you have a symptom similiar to many people trying to disprove the bible. "What about the people BEFORE?"Does the past really matter now? Those catholics a few centuries ago have to READ the bible more. the thing is that there is proof in the bible. the catholics just didnt understand.