Total Posts:203|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism vs. Science

LeatherChair
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.
"Leather Chair
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 9:31:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

The theory of evolution makes much more sense than the creation myth in the Bible!
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 5:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.

So how long was a day, according to scripture?

>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.

Yea, doesn"t science say all living organisms started with one form that had no life in it, then it did by some random act? Why is what is stated in Genesis so hard to grasp?

>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.

It doesn't really say that does it?

>All this is proved by one book.


None of it is proved in the bible, but it is a documentation of what the Creator and Judge has said and done in the presence of, and with His Chosen People, Israel. Who has proved by His hand to them that He is the God of Heaven and earth, also referred to as the Almighty, and Most High.

Are you here to preach your religion (system of belief), and calling it science?
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 5:35:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

But the moon is made of cheese.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

that was supposed to read do we have a percentage chance for these merges occurring...??
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:08:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here'e the thing; no matter how life came about, it really wouldn't have any connotations on evolution, for evolution deals with the origin of SPECIES, and not life. Also, you can falsify evolution. Can you falsify intelligent design? What about the existence of God? If so, how would you falsify them?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:39:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

just because we don't know everything about everything, doesn't mean that an invisible wizard created it, that would be a logical fallacy

but then maybe your god is an evil, sadist who created the world this way just to watch us fight
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:47:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:15:36 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.

You are quite right, I got my time frames screwed up. I should be more careful.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:39:16 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

just because we don't know everything about everything, doesn't mean that an invisible wizard created it, that would be a logical fallacy

but then maybe your god is an evil, sadist who created the world this way just to watch us fight

Well since you believe there is no God, then how can you blame something that you believe doesn"t exist for the wrath of men. No logic there is there? Human nature doesn"t need a god to hate his neighbor, or want to kill his neighbor to take what his neighbor has. No more than a beast wants, and will use what he has to get it.

Justice in the earth is man"s responsibility, whether he follows a god or not. And human nature seeks fulfillment in the flesh and flesh wants what it wants and men will do and use whatever he has to fulfill it. How is justice, or even a realistic expectation of justice fit into that reality?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:39:16 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

just because we don't know everything about everything, doesn't mean that an invisible wizard created it, that would be a logical fallacy

but then maybe your god is an evil, sadist who created the world this way just to watch us fight

yet a certain poster claimed merges created life and as e have life it must be right...

so can that argument work both ways??
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?

And biblical scholars have been telling us for a lot longer that the bible is true and correct and God exists...

why is your chosen religion any better than my chosen faith...???
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:11:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:05:15 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?

And biblical scholars have been telling us for a lot longer that the bible is true and correct and God exists...

why is your chosen religion any better than my chosen faith...???

Scientists use the scientific method, biblical scholars use their own subjective opinion. Which is more trustworthy?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:19:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

Response: Creationism is supported by science itself, since we have observable evidence that life only comes from life and a repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Therefore science itself is evidence of creationism.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:11:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:05:15 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?

And biblical scholars have been telling us for a lot longer that the bible is true and correct and God exists...

why is your chosen religion any better than my chosen faith...???

Scientists use the scientific method, biblical scholars use their own subjective opinion. Which is more trustworthy?

but science especially in evolution is still speculative, not the traditional, observable, testable,repeatable , science facts are interesting they can be proven quite wrong in days, months or years...

On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:38:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:11:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:05:15 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?

And biblical scholars have been telling us for a lot longer that the bible is true and correct and God exists...

why is your chosen religion any better than my chosen faith...???

Scientists use the scientific method, biblical scholars use their own subjective opinion. Which is more trustworthy?

but science especially in evolution is still speculative, not the traditional, observable, testable,repeatable , science facts are interesting they can be proven quite wrong in days, months or years...

On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:53:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.

You're 100 years too late.

Darwinian evolution has already been proven wrong by science.

It's the pesky discovery of population mechanics, genetics, advanced physics, protein analysis that kinda sealed the nail in the coffin for darwinian evolution.

Now, Darwinian evolution forms a portion of what is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

And considering that Evolution has come out all the stronger since the invention of Atomic theory (for radiometric dating, with the ability to prove wrong dates and progression of fossils, but hasn't), Genetics (with the ability to demonstrate that life is not related), genome sequencing (as genetics), geology (with the ability to invalidate fossil progression), paleontology (with the ability to find multiple creatures inconsistent with evolution, and ability of invalidating predictions concerning intermediate forms), Bioinformatics (with the ability to show behavior and genomic function cannot be implied or inferred using basic mechanisms of heredity comparisons across life forms); what more do you really think science is able to show.

After all, Evolution has not only survived the invention and maturity of 4 major branches of science, and 2 major advancement in directly applicable technology; each one of the four has shown complete concordance with and further ironclad support for evolution spanning the preceding 150 years; changing our understanding, elaborating on processes, timelines, narrative, and understanding of the progression of life over time.

So tell, me, what evidence is it, exactly, that doesn't point to evolution?

I'm pretty sure it will be some minor aspect of life, which either has a number of valid, plausible hypotheses to explain (which you neglectfully fail to cite), or a number of well evidenced, plausible theories that have been well tested (which you also neglectfully fail to cite).

Moreover, in citing such small periphery of evolution, you ignore the elephant in the room, which is all the vast quantity of data that is in complete concordance with evolution, from trends in taxonomy and genetics, to the absolutely clear progression of animals and traits over time as evidenced in the fossil record. I'm sure you have much handwaving, incoherent logical fallacies, and flat out assertions of denial without so much as an indication you understand what you're talking about, leave alone done the due diligence to show it's wrong.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 7:55:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:38:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:11:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:05:15 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?

And biblical scholars have been telling us for a lot longer that the bible is true and correct and God exists...

why is your chosen religion any better than my chosen faith...???

Scientists use the scientific method, biblical scholars use their own subjective opinion. Which is more trustworthy?

but science especially in evolution is still speculative, not the traditional, observable, testable,repeatable , science facts are interesting they can be proven quite wrong in days, months or years...

On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.

There is another problem hen does evolution become not evolution, if we were relying on darwins evolution does evolution stand disproved and a new theory takes over or do they just keep changing the theory to fit and say it is right...
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.

You're 100 years too late.

Darwinian evolution has already been proven wrong by science.

It's the pesky discovery of population mechanics, genetics, advanced physics, protein analysis that kinda sealed the nail in the coffin for darwinian evolution.

Now, Darwinian evolution forms a portion of what is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

And considering that Evolution has come out all the stronger since the invention of Atomic theory (for radiometric dating, with the ability to prove wrong dates and progression of fossils, but hasn't), Genetics (with the ability to demonstrate that life is not related), genome sequencing (as genetics), geology (with the ability to invalidate fossil progression), paleontology (with the ability to find multiple creatures inconsistent with evolution, and ability of invalidating predictions concerning intermediate forms), Bioinformatics (with the ability to show behavior and genomic function cannot be implied or inferred using basic mechanisms of heredity comparisons across life forms); what more do you really think science is able to show.

After all, Evolution has not only survived the invention and maturity of 4 major branches of science, and 2 major advancement in directly applicable technology; each one of the four has shown complete concordance with and further ironclad support for evolution spanning the preceding 150 years; changing our understanding, elaborating on processes, timelines, narrative, and understanding of the progression of life over time.

So tell, me, what evidence is it, exactly, that doesn't point to evolution?

I'm pretty sure it will be some minor aspect of life, which either has a number of valid, plausible hypotheses to explain (which you neglectfully fail to cite), or a number of well evidenced, plausible theories that have been well tested (which you also neglectfully fail to cite).

Moreover, in citing such small periphery of evolution, you ignore the elephant in the room, which is all the vast quantity of data that is in complete concordance with evolution, from trends in taxonomy and genetics, to the absolutely clear progression of animals and traits over time as evidenced in the fossil record. I'm sure you have much handwaving, incoherent logical fallacies, and flat out assertions of denial without so much as an indication you understand what you're talking about, leave alone done the due diligence to show it's wrong.

There is evidence for evolution, I never said there wasn't.

There is no evidence that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 7:55:15 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:38:16 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:11:53 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:05:15 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:51:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:17:08 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:11:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:01:39 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:26:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:39:40 AM, LeatherChair wrote:
Creationism says:
>Everything was created in 7 days.
>All the diversity of the human race somehow came from two people.
>All the breeds of dogs and cats somehow came from two dogs and two cats.
>All this is proved by one book.

Science says:
>Everything currently existing formed over the course of 14 billion years.
>An insanely dense point of energy exploded in the Big Bang and began to expand into the know universe
>As the universe cooled, energy became matter, which was pulled together by gravity to form stars, galaxies, etc.
>Heavier elements are created by nuclear fusion in the heart of stars, and the heaviest elements are formed in supernovae, are propelled across space, and occasionally find themselves in the accretion disks of infant solar systems.
>Earth was formed by gravity in such an accretion disk.
>A combination of electricity, water, and a variety of molecules and heavier elements came together by chance to produce DNA, a self-replicating molecule that, when captured by naturally occurring lipid membranes and ribosomes, was able to create proteins capable of performing a variety of functions. Thus, the first cells eventually emerged.
>Over millions of years, DNA's instability results in it changing and mutating, causing it to create different proteins. This resulted in landmark stages in evolution such as the formation of the nucleus, the beginning of multicellular life, the evolution of specialized cells, and the rise of intelligent life, all somewhat due to chance.
>Since DNA's mutation is completely unpredictable, the environment dictates what mutations are passed on. Mutations that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are passed on to its offspring, while mutations that hinder an organism's chances of survival are not, for obvious reasons. As organisms of a species begin to mutate more and more, groups of individuals eventually become so genetically different from others that they can no longer breed and produce offspring with other groups, and are at that point considered separate species.
>All of this information is supported by evidence gathered from hundreds of studies that used the universally applicable scientific method for gathering evidence, based on a much more logical foundation than simply believing what's in a book.

Creationism is about as valid as Storks bringing children to parents as opposed to natural birth, or believing the Earth is flat, or thinking the moon is made of cheese. It is at the pinnacle of human capacity for ignorance and blatant denial of fact. Star formation is a basic mechanic of the universe, and the Theory of Evolution has as much support as the Theory of Gravity. Denying evolution is as logical as denying the fact that water is wet.

hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

Irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory since it only deals with the diversity of life, not its origin. That said, the current hypothesis is that life began when simple organic molecules, perhaps brought to Earth by comets or other vectors, merged and began to replicate, much like viruses but using RNA instead of DNA. There is no single theory yet and much research continues in the attempt to determine the most likely mechanism but the fact is we don't really know.

hmmm the op seems to think all life formed 14 billion years ago, so are e dealing with the origins of life or not...??

You should at least get your facts straight. The current age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 14 billion years. The first known life forms are dated at about 13.5 billion, if I remember correctly. And again, no. We are dealing with the origin of life but how it developed into the variety we observe today.

What you mean is evolution just starts in the middle or it falls apart with beginnings...

It begins after life begins. Time before that is not part of the Theory.

and do hat have a percentage chance of these merges occurring???

They occurred, hence, 100 percent.

oh so we don't know the origins and so e are just dealing with what we think we know about man....

and we are definitely not looking for a missing link any more are we???

they occurred hence 100 percent, so can I say My God created the earth and everything on it, the planet is here we are here, therefore it is 100 percent... wow that's cool...

why should I trust what men have made up about evolution when i have no ay of testing what they say....???

Because they have taken the years and decades to study life and how it developed, found evidence and have experimental data to support them. Why should you trust bronze age primitives who made up a tribal god that got enough publicity to be turned into the Alpha and the Omega? You have no way of knowing where those stories came from yet you believe them. Why is their word superior to the legion of biologists and other scientist who have studied life and produced a theory that fits the facts and has predictive capability just like Atomic Theory and Relativity?

And biblical scholars have been telling us for a lot longer that the bible is true and correct and God exists...

why is your chosen religion any better than my chosen faith...???

Scientists use the scientific method, biblical scholars use their own subjective opinion. Which is more trustworthy?



There is another problem hen does evolution become not evolution, if we were relying on darwins evolution does evolution stand disproved and a new theory takes over or do they just keep changing the theory to fit and say it is right...

It is pretty funny, in an embarassing way. Every time there is something that doesn't fit the theory, like convergence, stasis, the Cambrian explosion, obvious saltation, or epigenetics, they say they "predicted" it, which is of course total BS.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:43:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 8:05:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.

You're 100 years too late.

Darwinian evolution has already been proven wrong by science.

It's the pesky discovery of population mechanics, genetics, advanced physics, protein analysis that kinda sealed the nail in the coffin for darwinian evolution.

Now, Darwinian evolution forms a portion of what is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

And considering that Evolution has come out all the stronger since the invention of Atomic theory (for radiometric dating, with the ability to prove wrong dates and progression of fossils, but hasn't), Genetics (with the ability to demonstrate that life is not related), genome sequencing (as genetics), geology (with the ability to invalidate fossil progression), paleontology (with the ability to find multiple creatures inconsistent with evolution, and ability of invalidating predictions concerning intermediate forms), Bioinformatics (with the ability to show behavior and genomic function cannot be implied or inferred using basic mechanisms of heredity comparisons across life forms); what more do you really think science is able to show.

After all, Evolution has not only survived the invention and maturity of 4 major branches of science, and 2 major advancement in directly applicable technology; each one of the four has shown complete concordance with and further ironclad support for evolution spanning the preceding 150 years; changing our understanding, elaborating on processes, timelines, narrative, and understanding of the progression of life over time.

So tell, me, what evidence is it, exactly, that doesn't point to evolution?

I'm pretty sure it will be some minor aspect of life, which either has a number of valid, plausible hypotheses to explain (which you neglectfully fail to cite), or a number of well evidenced, plausible theories that have been well tested (which you also neglectfully fail to cite).

Moreover, in citing such small periphery of evolution, you ignore the elephant in the room, which is all the vast quantity of data that is in complete concordance with evolution, from trends in taxonomy and genetics, to the absolutely clear progression of animals and traits over time as evidenced in the fossil record. I'm sure you have much handwaving, incoherent logical fallacies, and flat out assertions of denial without so much as an indication you understand what you're talking about, leave alone done the due diligence to show it's wrong.

There is evidence for evolution, I never said there wasn't.

There is no evidence that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution.

I guess you're right, there is no evidence, aside from of course the repeated and ubiquitous observation that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution in both laboratory conditions, and controlled conditions in the field.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 8:43:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2015 8:05:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.

You're 100 years too late.

Darwinian evolution has already been proven wrong by science.

It's the pesky discovery of population mechanics, genetics, advanced physics, protein analysis that kinda sealed the nail in the coffin for darwinian evolution.

Now, Darwinian evolution forms a portion of what is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

And considering that Evolution has come out all the stronger since the invention of Atomic theory (for radiometric dating, with the ability to prove wrong dates and progression of fossils, but hasn't), Genetics (with the ability to demonstrate that life is not related), genome sequencing (as genetics), geology (with the ability to invalidate fossil progression), paleontology (with the ability to find multiple creatures inconsistent with evolution, and ability of invalidating predictions concerning intermediate forms), Bioinformatics (with the ability to show behavior and genomic function cannot be implied or inferred using basic mechanisms of heredity comparisons across life forms); what more do you really think science is able to show.

After all, Evolution has not only survived the invention and maturity of 4 major branches of science, and 2 major advancement in directly applicable technology; each one of the four has shown complete concordance with and further ironclad support for evolution spanning the preceding 150 years; changing our understanding, elaborating on processes, timelines, narrative, and understanding of the progression of life over time.

So tell, me, what evidence is it, exactly, that doesn't point to evolution?

I'm pretty sure it will be some minor aspect of life, which either has a number of valid, plausible hypotheses to explain (which you neglectfully fail to cite), or a number of well evidenced, plausible theories that have been well tested (which you also neglectfully fail to cite).

Moreover, in citing such small periphery of evolution, you ignore the elephant in the room, which is all the vast quantity of data that is in complete concordance with evolution, from trends in taxonomy and genetics, to the absolutely clear progression of animals and traits over time as evidenced in the fossil record. I'm sure you have much handwaving, incoherent logical fallacies, and flat out assertions of denial without so much as an indication you understand what you're talking about, leave alone done the due diligence to show it's wrong.

There is evidence for evolution, I never said there wasn't.

There is no evidence that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution.

I guess you're right, there is no evidence, aside from of course the repeated and ubiquitous observation that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution in both laboratory conditions, and controlled conditions in the field.

Please link to ONE experiment showing RANDOM mutations drive evolution. Of the two experiments(and I could only find two) I've read about, did not prove the mutations were random, only that the mutations were in the original populations.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:52:38 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/30/2015 6:39:16 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 9:49:04 AM, graceofgod wrote:
hmmm what does science say about the origins of life, the first life forms how it all started...???

just because we don't know everything about everything, doesn't mean that an invisible wizard created it, that would be a logical fallacy

but then maybe your god is an evil, sadist who created the world this way just to watch us fight

Well since you believe there is no God, then how can you blame something that you believe doesn"t exist for the wrath of men. No logic there is there? Human nature doesn"t need a god to hate his neighbor, or want to kill his neighbor to take what his neighbor has. No more than a beast wants, and will use what he has to get it.

Justice in the earth is man"s responsibility, whether he follows a god or not. And human nature seeks fulfillment in the flesh and flesh wants what it wants and men will do and use whatever he has to fulfill it. How is justice, or even a realistic expectation of justice fit into that reality?

that is easy, i blame the people who i believe are guilty of the crime
i realize it may be hard for you to see the logic in that, but keep working on it and maybe you will figure it out
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 9:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 8:48:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 8:43:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2015 8:05:22 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:53:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2015 7:41:26 PM, janesix wrote:
On top of all that with out the ability to test hat is said about evolution for yourself you are just showing faith in what the so called scientists tell you...

I agree. But I believe in the scientific method, and I believe it will be science that proves Darwinian evolution wrong. They will have to account for all the evidence eventually. And that evidence doesn't point to Darwinian evolution.

You're 100 years too late.

Darwinian evolution has already been proven wrong by science.

It's the pesky discovery of population mechanics, genetics, advanced physics, protein analysis that kinda sealed the nail in the coffin for darwinian evolution.

Now, Darwinian evolution forms a portion of what is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

And considering that Evolution has come out all the stronger since the invention of Atomic theory (for radiometric dating, with the ability to prove wrong dates and progression of fossils, but hasn't), Genetics (with the ability to demonstrate that life is not related), genome sequencing (as genetics), geology (with the ability to invalidate fossil progression), paleontology (with the ability to find multiple creatures inconsistent with evolution, and ability of invalidating predictions concerning intermediate forms), Bioinformatics (with the ability to show behavior and genomic function cannot be implied or inferred using basic mechanisms of heredity comparisons across life forms); what more do you really think science is able to show.

After all, Evolution has not only survived the invention and maturity of 4 major branches of science, and 2 major advancement in directly applicable technology; each one of the four has shown complete concordance with and further ironclad support for evolution spanning the preceding 150 years; changing our understanding, elaborating on processes, timelines, narrative, and understanding of the progression of life over time.

So tell, me, what evidence is it, exactly, that doesn't point to evolution?

I'm pretty sure it will be some minor aspect of life, which either has a number of valid, plausible hypotheses to explain (which you neglectfully fail to cite), or a number of well evidenced, plausible theories that have been well tested (which you also neglectfully fail to cite).

Moreover, in citing such small periphery of evolution, you ignore the elephant in the room, which is all the vast quantity of data that is in complete concordance with evolution, from trends in taxonomy and genetics, to the absolutely clear progression of animals and traits over time as evidenced in the fossil record. I'm sure you have much handwaving, incoherent logical fallacies, and flat out assertions of denial without so much as an indication you understand what you're talking about, leave alone done the due diligence to show it's wrong.

There is evidence for evolution, I never said there wasn't.

There is no evidence that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution.

I guess you're right, there is no evidence, aside from of course the repeated and ubiquitous observation that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution in both laboratory conditions, and controlled conditions in the field.

Please link to ONE experiment showing RANDOM mutations drive evolution. Of the two experiments(and I could only find two) I've read about, did not prove the mutations were random, only that the mutations were in the original populations.

First define Random mutations; lets make sure we have a definition that you can't change after the fact.