Total Posts:136|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2009 7:57:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Which was the first ingredient to be added, if evolution is made up from death, life, time and mutation? To have death you need life, to have life you need time, to have time you need a mutation. If they all occured at once it is neither dead or alive, therefore there is no time or no mutaion. If it was a muation which started evolution it would of needed to be alive, if it was time which caused evolution, mutation would need to occur. Who/what created life?

I am just opening peoples minds here. Use your minds as otherwise you will follow your heart and the mind will follow that, let the heart follow your mind. So that your thinking is clear.
Nail_Bat
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2009 9:08:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hey you know, despite your reputation as a looney of a caliber that even DATCMOTO could only dream of aspiring to..this is actually a pretty good question.

The confusion comes from the words "life" and "non-life" being powerful opposites. A vast majority of what Joe Average sees during his day is either quite definitely alive or quite definitely not alive.

But a word is just something we use to classify and make sense of the world. Although our mental conception of the world has "life" and "non life" as extreme opposites, the universe is under no obligation to obey this law. What you would have at the dawn of evolution would be creatures that you may or may not recognize as actually being alive. They certainly wouldn't have DNA, nor would they be made of cells, nor would they have specialized components. They'd be little more than patterns in the sea of organic molecules which have somehow found a way to replicate themselves.

Such creatures no longer exist, what with all the actually living things hogging up all the organic molecules and the conditions of the Earth being not so conducive to creating life. Hence, we never built the vocabulary to understand beings that exist in the continuum between living and non-living.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2009 10:06:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hey you know, despite your reputation as a looney of a caliber that even DATCMOTO could only dream of aspiring to..this is actually a pretty good question.

The confusion comes from the words "life" and "non-life" being powerful opposites. A vast majority of what Joe Average sees during his day is either quite definitely alive or quite definitely not alive.

But a word is just something we use to classify and make sense of the world. Although our mental conception of the world has "life" and "non life" as extreme opposites, the universe is under no obligation to obey this law. What you would have at the dawn of evolution would be creatures that you may or may not recognize as actually being alive. They certainly wouldn't have DNA, nor would they be made of cells, nor would they have specialized components. They'd be little more than patterns in the sea of organic molecules which have somehow found a way to replicate themselves.

Such creatures no longer exist, what with all the actually living things hogging up all the organic molecules and the conditions of the Earth being not so conducive to creating life. Hence, we never built the vocabulary to understand beings that exist in the continuum between living and non-living.


If a something has no blood or cells and DNA its dead. Does it need to be alive to have a mutation? Of course. Depite if is is actually alive and not dead, it still beggs the question, who does time effect it? How would death effect it, life and mutation effect it? If it does not have DNA or cells and blood where is the mutaion in that? Such animal does not exist. It would be a patten lik ein a rock or the wave current on the sea bed. Is the world alive now. This actually links to wicca and pagan cults. They say that the world is alive.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2009 10:57:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2009 7:57:32 PM, GodSands wrote:
Which was the first ingredient to be added, if evolution is made up from death, life, time and mutation? To have death you need life, to have life you need time, to have time you need a mutation. If they all occured at once it is neither dead or alive, therefore there is no time or no mutaion. If it was a muation which started evolution it would of needed to be alive, if it was time which caused evolution, mutation would need to occur. Who/what created life?

Your statements are not entirely accurate. You are making up rules that do not necessarily exist in nature. Who, except for you, has said that mutation is necessary for the existence of time? Who has claimed that all of the factors you mentioned (time, mutation, life, and death) must all begin simultaneously? Why does something need to be alive for a mutation to occur?

Time is independent of mutation, life, and death. That is to say, time has existed, and will continue to exist when earth is totally void of life. There may not be anyone or any thing to measure time, but it will still exist.

One current theory of how life originated from nothing is Abiogenesis. In short, Abiogenesis says that life can form by chemical reaction.
burningpuppies101
Posts: 1,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2009 11:33:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nice video, JBlake. But before anyone asks how organic compounds got here;

1. They are in space. I think this was said in the video.

2. The early atmosphere was highly reducing and could have created organic molecules. It has been replicated in a lab. If someone could find the guy.. I forgot his name.
Omnes te moriturum amant 

http://www.debate.org...
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 12:29:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2009 10:06:13 PM, GodSands wrote:
If a something has no blood or cells and DNA its dead. Does it need to be alive to have a mutation? Of course.
DNA and blood cells are not required for "mutation" to happen. All that you need is some information that can change [either changing in place or changing with imperfect replication], and an environment in which "creatures" with certain information are more successful than those with other information. Like in the video above, where the lipid vesicles with faster-replicating polymers dominate the population by outgrowing the other vesicles and stealing their lipids.

This actually links to wicca and pagan cults. They say that the world is alive.
We're not saying the world is alive. He was just saying that something isn't either as dead as a rock or as alive as an amoeba - there is a space between that simply isn't in existence today [having gone extinct due to too much competition from more complex life].
KRFournier
Posts: 690
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 7:48:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2009 12:29:33 AM, beem0r wrote:

DNA and blood cells are not required for "mutation" to happen. All that you need is some information that can change [either changing in place or changing with imperfect replication], and an environment in which "creatures" with certain information are more successful than those with other information. Like in the video above, where the lipid vesicles with faster-replicating polymers dominate the population by outgrowing the other vesicles and stealing their lipids.

But where did the information come from? Maybe this is the heart for GodSands' question? Which came first? The information or the mutation? Did information come from mutation or the other way around?

We're not saying the world is alive. He was just saying that something isn't either as dead as a rock or as alive as an amoeba - there is a space between that simply isn't in existence today [having gone extinct due to too much competition from more complex life].

Has there been experiments to create such semi-life forms? This is a sincere question. If there have been such experiments, I'd be very interested to read about them.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 10:00:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
But where did the information come from? Maybe this is the heart for GodSands' question? Which came first? The information or the mutation? Did information come from mutation or the other way around?
Information came first, from something other than mutation. In the case of the scenario from that video, it came from monomers entering a lipid vesicle and going through polymerization.

We're not saying the world is alive. He was just saying that something isn't either as dead as a rock or as alive as an amoeba - there is a space between that simply isn't in existence today [having gone extinct due to too much competition from more complex life].
Has there been experiments to create such semi-life forms? This is a sincere question. If there have been such experiments, I'd be very interested to read about them.
They aren't semi-life. We define life very speicifically - something is either life or it is not. For example, a virus is not considered to be a life form. Yet it exists, and while scientifically it is just as dead as any other non-life, it is certainly somewhere between a bacteria and a rock if we were to make a scale of lifeness.
I don't have time to watch it again right now, but I'm pretty sure that video explained how they found out that lipid vesicles could spontaneously form in those conditions, and how they could obtain information.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 10:01:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2009 7:48:51 AM, KRFournier wrote:
Has there been experiments to create such semi-life forms? This is a sincere question. If there have been such experiments, I'd be very interested to read about them.

I think there has been experiments to demonstrate this phase of abiogensis. The point of contention is whether these can be considered 'life' or even a precursor to 'life'. I'll look around and see if I can find a specific study.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 10:59:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
it came from monomers entering a lipid vesicle and going through polymerization.

Lipid are fats, they are information. But surely istead of defending your self on this, question your own self. Where did DNA come from if mutation (which you believe creates new kinds over time) did not occur, surely lipids must have of had a mutation, for the ground is not DNA.

You can not accept truth. Why? You may choose to believe in this utterly idiotic theory. But it does not serve you in any way. Should it? You should know what caused it, for one. Then you can say if it should effect your day to day life. Then you will know.

Your arguments are futile, pointless and conienvent for sins. I only wonder if you will ever understand what you are up for.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 11:10:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Godsands.

Why would you even bother posting this topic if you were going to ignore all other points of view and call them 'idiotic' and sinful? If you had no intention of arguing the merit of the theory or taking the time to learn the theory, why waste everyone's time?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 6:16:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would rather let people know how immencelly silly evolution is, or in your case where evolution came from. I would rather give truth than be liked and live in false hood all my life. Evolution does not happen, it can't. You are falling for the largest and most world wide lie made.

You want science? I will make a new topic. Go read it.
ChristianM
Posts: 1,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2009 6:23:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2009 6:16:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
I would rather let people know how immencelly silly evolution is, or in your case where evolution came from. I would rather give truth than be liked and live in false hood all my life. Evolution does not happen, it can't. You are falling for the largest and most world wide lie made.

You want science? I will make a new topic. Go read it.

I honestly hate the theory of evolution. I must agree with Godsands.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2009 7:39:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You can not accept truth. Why? You may choose to believe in this utterly idiotic theory. But it does not serve you in any way. Should it? You should know what caused it, for one. Then you can say if it should effect your day to day life. Then you will know.

Your arguments are futile, pointless and conienvent for sins. I only wonder if you will ever understand what you are up for.


There's something we like to call respect on this website GodSands. The way you put down everyone else's ideas with such hate and resentment and the way you downplay what they think is not very respectful in the least.

On the other evolution forum, you said that macroevolution could not happen, only micro. However, I believe that it is the accumulation of microevolutions over the years that creates macroevolution.

Evolution and God, in my mind, do not clash. I believe God was the "half-life" thing as you call it, in the beginning. He made all life and the Universe, and then he created the nature laws to govern it. He is responsible for evolution and the driving force behind all natural laws.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2009 7:49:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
But you dont believe in the Bible then? Jesus said, the beginning when when Adam and Eve were made.

I do not want to be disrepectful, people though have little thought, only convenience for their sins. Thats all it is.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2009 12:07:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
But you dont believe in the Bible then? Jesus said, the beginning when when Adam and Eve were made.

I do believe that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2009 4:46:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2009 6:33:56 PM, saamanthagrl wrote:
If you belive f(x)= theta, then you won't believe evolution. I don't, because I don't believe animals have souls.

What?
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2009 5:04:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If it was the beginning then evolution did not take place. No millions of years of evolution took place.

It's never said how long Adam and Eve were in the garden.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2009 1:26:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They remain human, but they never reproduced. Evolution only takes place because of mutations in reproduction. Because Adam and Eve did not reproduce, they did not mutate.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2009 1:47:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No same goes for human as if animals if they die we do too. Sin brought death. There is no mutations unless there is imperfection lerking. Was the garden not perfect like God said now? There is no possitive mumation is anycase.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2009 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
GodSands, I appreciate the intellectual diversity that you offer this forum, and I find that you are knowledgeable in what you say. Please note, however, that the members of this forum respond more to detailed, concise, and well delivered explanations, not so much exclamations of frustration or patronizing remarks.

I want to note that first, your proof falls flat on the basis that mutation need not exist prior to time as stated in your opening post.

You also make several errors.

First, it is not a contradiction for something to be neither fully alive nor fully dead. Life is not an on/off switch, it is a summation of biochemical processes and is very much open to interpretation.

Second, the validity of the bible is not in question, nor is the existence of God. I have intense respect for religious faith and belief, and I find that faith and logic are equal and legitimate forms of understanding, neither being more superior than the other.

However, faith and logic dominate two separate worlds, and an attempt to validate religion using perverted principles of science is, in a way, blasphemous to both schools of wisdom.

Trust me when I say this: If you wish to be a good preacher, focus on turning people towards God, not turning people away from science.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
1337Hal
Posts: 182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2009 6:40:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I find that faith and logic are equal and legitimate forms of understanding, neither being more superior than the other.

You honestly believe this, Kleptin? I don't see how faith (the belief in something without evidence) can be on equal par with logic when it comes to understanding the Universe.

Trust me when I say this: If you wish to be a good preacher, focus on turning people towards God, not turning people away from science.

Amen to that, well put!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2009 6:00:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's a hard point to explain. Believe me, I understand the scientific frame of mind, I used to be a hardcore atheist too, and I am essentially a Biochemistry major. It was a 7 year struggle, but I eventually concluded that there is no limitless process of knowing.

This is why I settled into Agnosticism. Agnosticism is not the position of "I don't know", it is the position of "No one can ever know".

It's hard to imagine this, but each process of deriving information rests on a series of assumptions, then build up from there.

For law, the foundation is the constitution and from there, you build up to examine the legality of other things.

For Judaism, the foundation is the Torah and from there, scholars build up to determine the morality of certain principles.

For Science, the foundation is observable information and mathematical concepts. From there, we essentially establish things as true or false, and build up to many complicated things.

Each field is limited in what it can do. Humans have gone from one field to another over the course of history as they offer increasing usefulness. Science, as of now, is the most useful method by which we obtain information because the scope is enormous.

However, what we can derive and understand via Science is *not* limitless. Remember the key tenet of Science: It must be testable in order to be scientific.

When we as scientists apply our minds to situations, we judge it by our own scale. This is why when we argue against religious zealots, they seem like complete and total idiots to us, but *they* think that *we're* the ones who are idiots.

That's because we're sizing each other up according to different scales. It's like a man going up to a woman and making fun of her because she has no penis, and the woman making fun of the man for having such poorly developed breasts.

The greatest biblical scholars, theologians, priests, etc. are the ones who understand that faith, and not logic, is the only acceptable foundation for theology.

In addition, the greatest scientists are the ones who concern themselves with bettering human life via exploration of the natural world, not trying to disprove the "supernatural" with natural techniques.

This is why I feel that godsands' mission is a complete and total waste of time. It is possibly one of the stupidest and poorest decisions that a Christian can make: to go out of bounds and try to validate the principle of one school of learning with the techniques of another.

The world is full of morons, but the number of morally upright, intelligent, and pious is fairly small. Godsands has the opportunity to take his time to preach to the correct group, to re-explore his faith, to understand God on a higher level. God has given him a gift of certain abilities and understanding which he SHOULD use to preach to other Christians, in order to strengthen their faith. Instead, he chooses to DISCARD the gift which God gave him in order to do something this frivolous. What a pity :(
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.