Evolution is a Bad Idea (Page 2)

StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: I don't think I've ever seen anyone doubting evolution that didn't have a religious motive. That's why I keep asking freescientist if he's a Christian.
8 years ago Report
0
Babycool
Babycool: I think evolution is a bad idea, if it is not beneficial to the atmosphere/Earth .....like for instance, the air I breathe and the food I eat, have a very important part in my society.

/but its just a 'blink of an eye' compared to different species evolving.


We all came from the Water + Salt + Oxygen = LIFE!

Thats what I reckon anyway......
8 years ago Report
0
freescientist
freescientist: stuckinthesixties, you can't tell how much i know about science. And whether I'm a Christian or not makes no difference.

The fact is nobody's been able to show a virus changing into a bacteria.

You can't have a half-formed eye. It has to work with all the parts working exactly as they should all the time. If one piece of your car's engine changes shape, it wont' work.
8 years ago Report
1
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Well, it's a little more complicated than that, Babycool.

The biggest thing you left out was carbon. All life on earth is carbon based.

By the way, water = oxygen (and hydrogen).
8 years ago Report
0
Babycool
Babycool:

Carbon
8 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Freescientist, it's VERY obvious to anyone reading this that you know little about science. Your comments reflect that clearly.

And I'm pretty sure you're a Christian. Why are you reluctant to divulge that?

Why are you hung up on that virus changing into a bacteria thing? No one on this thread is saying that.

Here's two excellent explanations for the evolution of the eye. (It took less than a minute to find them.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

This vid features the incomperable Sir David Attenborough:



There's TONS of readily available information of this subject. Did you not think to check on that before throwing out a statement like "You can't have a half-formed eye"?

"It has to work with all the parts working exactly as they should all the time. If one piece of your car's engine changes shape, it wont' work."

Sure it would. You could change the housing for the air cleaner from round to oval, or even square, and the engine would work just fine. In fact, you could even take the air cleaner off completely, and throw it away, and take something like medical gauze, and cover the air intake. It would work just fine. You could even not have an air cleaner. It would work just find ... although it would, of course, wear out faster.

You could change from a carbuerator to fuel injection. Works just fine. In fact, you could change the design of the engine radically, from the conventional cylinders/crankshaft design to a Wankel rotary design, or even a jet engine. Works just fine. Four cycle or two cycle. Works just fine. Diesel. Works just fine.

The classic creationist argument you're referring to, and adopting with the car engine idea, was originally made with the concept of a mousetrap (I hope you don't get confused correlating the mousetrap argument with your engine argument.) :



(It's the aroma of creationism in your texts that's the big indicator here of your being a Christian.)

Your initial post had this little gem:

"How can a lump of slime turn into a monkey and then humans, all on its own."

Well ... it can't. Biologists don't say that. Ignorant creationist might use that sort of terminology and concept, but not an evolutionary biologist.

There is plenty of evidence of one species transforming into others. It happens with a process called "mutation." You're apparently thinking that the natural selection concept is that one species suddenly just turns into another. No one says that ... well ... no one with any understanding of the actual process says that (a big indication of your lack of understanding of the principles of evolution and science in general). It happens very slowly, over a long time, with many generations between stages that one would consider to be separate species.

Not only do you not know much about science, but you're not all that good at coming up with solid arguments, either.

So tell us, Freescientist, can you draw upon your extensive scientific background and tell us how life on Earth originated?

And tell us ... please ...

Are you a creationist? Are you a Christian?
8 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>And whether I'm a Christian or not makes no difference.

Yes, it does. Its called the "unspoken premise"- where you have an ultimate goal, but rather than acknowledging this to the people you debate with, you pretend that it doesn't exist. If you are a Christian, and oppose evolution because of your religious beliefs, then the objectivity you wish for us to believe you have and veiw you as having is completely untrue, and at worse, an attempt to deceieve us.

>>>The fact is nobody's been able to show a virus changing into a bacteria.

Back to this?

Lets look at it this way- a Virus evolved only once in 5 billion years- once- and all other virus's have henceforth evolved from that one lifeform. So the fact that no one in 100 years of research has been able to show this evolution is, frankly, completely natural, and normal.

Your demands that we witness evolution in our lifetime shows extreme ignorance of how evolution works.
8 years ago Report
0
Aura_
Aura_: Up to now i hear a lot about how evolution might work, but this concept of intelligent design makes no sense what so ever and i have never gotten a answer to this question: If there is a plan for how every life form will work/look whatever, how come we find so many extinct life forms that failed because their food ran out, or their environment got hotter or colder. Doesn't seem like very much thought went into them....
8 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: That prompts me to post this:

I've posted this video numerous times around Wireclub Forums, because it's a favorite of mine, and just makes the point so succinctly. Not only that, but it's very funny, and fun to watch.

Ladies and gentlemen, the scientific comedy stylings of ...

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson!

Give him a big hand! Take it away, Dr. Tyson!

8 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Isn't the appendix an example of evolution? Its an organ that serves no purpose and we can live without.....
8 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: (Note: The following is purely satircal in nature.)

The human appendix is part of our perfect design by our perfect designer.

You silly evolutionists believe that it's a "vestigial structure," an organ which eons ago, and multitudes of evolutionary steps in the past, lost its original function as part of the digestive system of mammals we long ago evolved from.

But, of course, it's part of our perfectly intelligent design by our perfect designer. It was designed to ... hmm ... wait ... what does it do? Besides sometimes becoming infected and needing to be removed? Wait! In the (Biblically specified) 6000 years of human history, we've only had the surgical techniques for removing the appendix for ... a little over a hundred years? Jeez, what happened before that? Oh ... they died. Painfully. In agony.

Well, I'm sure our perfect designer had some reason for subjecting 98 percent of (Biblical) human history to that. After all, he's perfect. It's just one of God's ... I mean, our Perfect Designer's mysteries, and I shouldn't question that.

8 years ago Report
0
Koko_Krunch
Koko_Krunch: 'Can't see how someone can say one species changes into another when there is no evidence for this.'

Statements such as this reveal that you don't even have a laymans understanding of what evolution is.
8 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Evolution... bad idea, yeah... kinda like gravity being a bad idea.
8 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: They're both scientific "theories."
8 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Exactly...
8 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Often as not, creationists, Bible-literalists, or other anti-evolutionists will throw out that "It's just a theory - it's not a fact" argument. That argument is based on a quirk of the English language, not on a scientific reality.

The problem is that there is a scientific, technical usage of the word "theory," and there is a popular, common usage of it. Those two usages are very different.

Like all technical things, the scientific usage is long and complicated:

The term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.

The common, every-day usage is, of course, a bit simpler:

A "theory" is an idea or belief arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

Many Christians, and many people in general, are simply ignorant of the difference. They know that there's supposed to be some sort of difference, but they don't really know what it is. But Christians know that saying "Evolution is just some theory ... they're just guessing ..." serves their religious beliefs well. Even if someone tries to explain the semantic difference to them, they ignore that, and remain fast to that idea that evolution is just some uneducated speculation. That virtually no scientists of any merit accept creationism or Biblical literalism is no concern.

In a way, one can't really blame them too much for that. To understand the difference, you need to actually learn something. It's easy to avoid doing that when it's contrary to your religious beliefs.

But religious leaders and scholars are not blame-free. They know better. One has to assume that they are either irrational, or that they understand, and cynically spread what amounts to dishonest propaganda.
8 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Exactly...
8 years ago Report
0
sleestak
sleestak: I think the scientific community needs to come up with a different name for scientific theory to keep people not confused. A scientific theory has the highest status any idea can have, closest thing to absolute fact.
4 years ago Report
0
sleestak
sleestak: It seems that some people here throw out insults that impede progress.
4 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: "Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?
An Overview
Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."
4 years ago Report
1
RandomMale
RandomMale: for the same reason that an sperm and an egg made you. is that easy to understand ? and evolution is not an Idea but a Fact
(Edited by RandomMale)
4 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: It's not that they have a religious motive Stuck ! It's once most realize the falsehood of evolution',
They soon understand the truth of creation !
By the way most that hold to Evolution', claim it as fact wile it's still a unproven *Lie
Also many Believer are deceived into accepting Evolution as fact
* I'd say theory.However :I don't wish to confuse you with quirk of the English language


"StuckInTheSixties: I don't think I've ever seen anyone doubting evolution that didn't have a religious motive. That's why I keep asking freescientist if he's a Christian. "

One last thing Stuck', Your faith in evolution or the BS that promotes it', is far more religious that most believers have
(Edited by Blackshoes)
4 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Random which came first ,The chicken or the egg ?
DNA has shown Abiogenesis as impossible !
Creation is a far better explanation if you look at all the evidence presented ,Without all the twisted Science that deceives those that don't accept it !
(Edited by Blackshoes)
4 years ago Report
1
Geoff 
Geoff:
a) Stuck in the Sixties has not been an active member of this site for a couple of years now, so he's not going to read or respond to your accusations.
b) You've already demonstrated that you simply don't understand the subject and your religious fanaticism is why you have issues with evolution (even though the Catholic church has accepted it for almost 60 years).
4 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: ...here are more 'religious fanatics'....---- 25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/
-----------------------: 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe ...

www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html
4 years ago Report
0