Total Posts:417|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution just got harder to defend

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 1:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
http://cnsnews.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 1:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 1:10:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
http://cnsnews.com...

"The odds of even a single protein forming by accident are astronomical. So Meyer and other Intelligent Design theorists conclude that Someone must have designed and created the structures necessary for life."

The odds are remote, ergo God.

Yeah, real tough to defend against.

Apparently, the group found some bacteria that were older than we thought bacteria were around for, potentially granting the time table for evolution to be longer... but some how its more difficult to defend.

Sure.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Geologists have discovered in Greenland evidence for ancient life in rocks that are 3.7 billion years old. The find, if confirmed, would make these fossils the oldest on Earth and may change scientific understanding of the origins of life.

Experts are likely to debate whether the structures described in the new report were formed biologically or through natural processes. If biological, the great age of the fossils complicates the task of reconstructing the evolution of life from the chemicals naturally present on the early Earth. It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids.

If life on Earth did not begin until after the Late Heavy Bombardment, then it had a mere 100 million years in which to evolve to the quite advanced stage seen in the new fossils.

If so, Dr. [Abigail] Allwood wrote, then "life is not a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing." It will emerge whenever there's an opportunity.

But the argument that life seems to have evolved very early and quickly, so therefore is inherently likely, can be turned around, Dr. [Gerald] Joyce said. "You could ask why, if life were such a probable event, we don't have evidence of multiple origins," he said.

In fact, with trivial variations, there is only one genetic code for all known forms of life, pointing to a single origin.

source : evolutionnews.org

www.evolutionnews.org/2016/09/greenland_fossi103110.html
tarantula
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:11:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 1:48:37 PM, dee-em wrote:
Don't click on it people. It's just creationist/ID misinformation as is the norm for this troll.

Agreed.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:34:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

Either that was terribly phrased or it's just a trivial observation, with no consequences to the debate.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:34:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 1:10:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
http://cnsnews.com...

Bronto, what do you know about evolution? You don't even know how to speak properly.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:38:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Anybody who doubts this 'theory' is called a creationist. I think the golden age of atheism is over..
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:42:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:38:22 PM, K404 wrote:
Anybody who doubts this 'theory' is called a creationist. I think the golden age of atheism is over..

No, a creationist is one who believes in creationism.

Would you care to list the positions that oppose the Theory of Evolution and are not creationist in some form or another?
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding. One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable. These are tough times to be an evolutionist..
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:46:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding.

The finding is the bacteria.

One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable.

The "makes the..." is conjecture.

These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

When you don't get to make up the rules as you go, yeah, your painted picture needs to be much more complete. That is the difference between science and... whatever it is you are calling tough times from.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:48:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:42:49 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:38:22 PM, K404 wrote:
Anybody who doubts this 'theory' is called a creationist. I think the golden age of atheism is over..

No, a creationist is one who believes in creationism.

Would you care to list the positions that oppose the Theory of Evolution and are not creationist in some form or another?

The position which acknowledges the fact that origin of life is yet to be discovered . The optimistic position.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:49:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding. One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable. These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

Ah, you don't have the faintest idea how the scientific method works, do you?

First off, the discovery hasn't even been validated.
Secondly, even if it's validated the consensus may not converge on that specific interpretation of the data.
Thirdly, dating life back to an earlier time frame is not an unsurmountable problem. Perhaps you were distracted when you browsed through the article, but the window being referenced is one 100 000 000 years wide.

And I can see why you wouldn't want to associate yourself with creationism. Out of curiosity, what do you call yourself with regard to the question of the origins of life, if not a creationist?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:52:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:38:22 PM, K404 wrote:
Anybody who doubts this 'theory' is called a creationist. I think the golden age of atheism is over..

Atheism is disbelief in gods, why bring evolution into it?
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:53:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:46:19 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding.

The finding is the bacteria.

One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable.

The "makes the..." is conjecture.


These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

When you don't get to make up the rules as you go, yeah, your painted picture needs to be much more complete. That is the difference between science and... whatever it is you are calling tough times from.

No one argues against the principals on which an electric motor works. ToE is being discussed in religion forum bro..
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:56:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:53:50 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:46:19 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding.

The finding is the bacteria.

One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable.

The "makes the..." is conjecture.


These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

When you don't get to make up the rules as you go, yeah, your painted picture needs to be much more complete. That is the difference between science and... whatever it is you are calling tough times from.

No one argues against the principals on which an electric motor works. ToE is being discussed in religion forum bro..

By creationists, Bro. I would challenge you to find an atheist that started a ToE thread in this from, guy.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 2:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:49:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding. One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable. These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

Ah, you don't have the faintest idea how the scientific method works, do you?

First off, the discovery hasn't even been validated.
Secondly, even if it's validated the consensus may not converge on that specific interpretation of the data.
Thirdly, dating life back to an earlier time frame is not an unsurmountable problem. Perhaps you were distracted when you browsed through the article, but the window being referenced is one 100 000 000 years wide.

And I can see why you wouldn't want to associate yourself with creationism. Out of curiosity, what do you call yourself with regard to the question of the origins of life, if not a creationist?

An optimist.

If something is not applicable, it's not science. Understood?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:00:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Only those parts quoted from Nature are science (even those have been snipped and underlined). The rest is just speculation by creationist wingnuts with no evidence.
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:00:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:56:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:53:50 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:46:19 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:44:05 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:36:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:33:41 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:30:29 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:23:20 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:22:41 PM, K404 wrote:
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding.

The finding is the bacteria.

One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable.

The "makes the..." is conjecture.


These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

When you don't get to make up the rules as you go, yeah, your painted picture needs to be much more complete. That is the difference between science and... whatever it is you are calling tough times from.

No one argues against the principals on which an electric motor works. ToE is being discussed in religion forum bro..

By creationists, Bro. I would challenge you to find an atheist that started a ToE thread in this from, guy.

So you do think that every atheist (at least on debate.org) has taken theory of evolution as truth. Why don't they doubt this theory?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
And since when did atheists started hiding from scientific knowledge..

Since when does creationism get called "science"?

So you admit that only a creationist will reject the theory of evolution..

No. I admit that creationism, which attempts to masquerade as science, is not science at all.

Is this science or not? http://www.evolutionnews.org...

There doesn't seem to be much scientific in its own right. Opining about the problems with the ToE from a collection of bacteria that is older that we believed bacteria to be at seems to be insightful conjecture at best.

Not a conjecture but a scientific finding.

The finding is the bacteria.

One that makes the theory of evolution even more improbable.

The "makes the..." is conjecture.


These are tough times to be an evolutionist..

When you don't get to make up the rules as you go, yeah, your painted picture needs to be much more complete. That is the difference between science and... whatever it is you are calling tough times from.

No one argues against the principals on which an electric motor works. ToE is being discussed in religion forum bro..

By creationists, Bro. I would challenge you to find an atheist that started a ToE thread in this from, guy.

So you do think that every atheist (at least on debate.org) has taken theory of evolution as truth.

No idea. I would be willing to say a good majority find the ToE to have merit.

Why don't they doubt this theory?

Evolutionism has no need for God, appears plausible given the various fossil records. Life being conjured into existence from void seems impossible.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:06:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:48:56 PM, K404 wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:42:49 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:38:22 PM, K404 wrote:
Anybody who doubts this 'theory' is called a creationist. I think the golden age of atheism is over..

No, a creationist is one who believes in creationism.

Would you care to list the positions that oppose the Theory of Evolution and are not creationist in some form or another?

The position which acknowledges the fact that origin of life is yet to be discovered . The optimistic position.

Then you are terribly mistaken and terribly ignorant.

The theory of Evolution has nothing to say on the origin of life. Abiogenesis, on the other hand does. The fact you have mistaken the two speaks volumes about how well-versed you are on the subject.

Most evolutionists will readily admit that the answer to the question "How did life begin?" is "We don't know".

Please, do educate yourself.
K404
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:07:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 2:52:42 PM, desmac wrote:
At 9/15/2016 2:38:22 PM, K404 wrote:
Anybody who doubts this 'theory' is called a creationist. I think the golden age of atheism is over..

Atheism is disbelief in gods, why bring evolution into it?

I think this question belongs in science forum (psychology) . There is verifiable evidence that most of the atheists is compelled to believe in ToE. So dictionary definitions won't do the trick. There might be a religion that emphasizes peaceful life but if every third guy guy belonging to that particular religion is a criminal, that's a problem. See.. we can't put dictionary.com above science, can we?
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 3:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 1:10:37 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
http://cnsnews.com...

Isn't it interesting that we are told by our fellow humans that a God can exist, an all powerful, all knowing God can exist without the need of an intelligent designer.

But, ants, dolphins, dirt ? can't exist unless intelligent design is involved.

Yeah sure, okey, not made up bullsh*t what so ever.