- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa
Posted on 4/11/24 at 7:28 pm to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 4/11/24 at 7:28 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
I love how you think you have something here.
I love how you threw that out there and now aren’t even attempting to answer the question. I have more, if you ever get past this one.
0
Posted on 4/11/24 at 7:35 pm to Mushroom1968
quote:
There’s never been a case where something non living produces something living. A lot of skeptics regarding abiogenesis
Origin of the Species came out in 1859, surely many scientists who are believers have combined all the right non living elements and created life with it thousands of times in a laboratory, right?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 7:59 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Do you really have any "challenges" to the theory?
Yep, your timeline sucks. Evolutionists readily admit it
Theres just not enough time to go from Big bang, the earth cooling, life to begin, then DNA to evolve to where we are today. Thats why they keep bumping back the age of the universe. Mind you, they have no proof of its actual age, but they do keep bumping back the start date to fit evolutionary patterns
Then theres those major insertions into previous evolution theory to account for the lack of a believable time frame: branching or linear or convergent evolution, great oxidation event, mass extinctions, punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, lack of an adequate fossil record
quote:
Molecular clock methodology is undergoing a period of development unparalleled in the half century since the molecular clock hypothesis was first formulated. Many of these components, like tip-calibration, the morphological clock and the FBD model, are at an early stage of development and current applications may not stand the test of time. There is a promise of developing into a fully integrative framework for calibrating the Tree of Life to geologic time, including all of its branches, living and dead.
Its just not there yet. And likely wont ever be in your lifetime. And more realistically, never will be
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:35 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Theres just not enough time to go from Big bang, the earth cooling, life to begin, then DNA to evolve to where we are today. Thats why they keep bumping back the age of the universe. Mind you, they have no proof of its actual age, but they do keep bumping back the start date to fit evolutionary patterns
evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe haha.
The age of the universe is calculated by the furthest we can see. we can only see 13.8 billion lightyears away because light from further away hasn't had time to make it to us to see
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:38 pm to Korkstand
I wish tigerdroppings would have a philosophy board, where people could talk seriously, make syllogisms and such, and not with the crazy people on the political board. I’m really shocked at this point in the thread where theist post get downvoted 3 to 1. Where did all the theist go?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:40 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
I’m really shocked at this point in the thread where theist post get downvoted 3 to 1. Where did all the theist go?
God is removing their upvotes to test their faith
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:40 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
Where did all the theist go?
I’m here, I just don’t do the upvote downvote thing
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:42 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
I’m really shocked at this point in the thread where theist post get downvoted 3 to 1. Where did all the theist go?
As society progresses they will become fewer and fewer.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:45 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
As society progresses they will become fewer and fewer.
Not sure we are “progressing” Having internet doesn’t make us more intelligent. Being in tune within yourself and what’s around you is progressing. Being able to google something is irrelevant
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:46 pm to DakIsNoLB
I really appreciate your tone. It’s very refreshing. Thank you. 
Perhaps. But, this would seem to be a sliver of a minority. There’s nothing wrong with (from a Christian perspective) searching for truth, outside of the Bible, that coincides with the truth found in the Bible. Theistic evolution requires an allegorical interpretation of Genesis- which (alone) is not necessarily a faith breaker. (Though, it often leads to a low view of the authority of scripture, which then leads to a form of idolatry- as one has invented his own God as opposed the One clearly defined in scripture). But, Darwinian evolution is in direct conflict with any and all Judeo-Christian beliefs on origins; as it replaces God with random, unguided natural processes. As Richard Dawkins puts it “Darwin’s theory made it intellectually fulfilling to be an atheist.” I don’t see how anyone can reconcile simultaneous belief in both.
I think you may have missed the point. The point is that in all of our uniform and repeated experience- information always originates from a mind. DNA is the information (or the instructions /code) necessary for the formation of all life. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.
Sure there is. No doubt. But, there are also giant leaps in logic and imagination.
Bolstered by outlandish claims and media collusion that would make Joe Biden jealous.
Of course I think it’s important. I wouldn’t be arguing the point if I didn’t think it was important. But my question is why it’s important. I make no bones about why it’s important to me. I also have a hard time believing that the reason an atheist argues for evolution has nothing to do with the sentiment behind Dawkins’ aforementioned quote.
Certainly not. But it’s the inevitable conclusion of materialistic naturalism.
A sign of a culture that has lost its faith - Moral collapse follows upon spiritual collapse. C. S. Lewis
quote:
Perhaps someone seeking understanding and knowledge apart from the Bible isn't a desire to prove it false.
Perhaps. But, this would seem to be a sliver of a minority. There’s nothing wrong with (from a Christian perspective) searching for truth, outside of the Bible, that coincides with the truth found in the Bible. Theistic evolution requires an allegorical interpretation of Genesis- which (alone) is not necessarily a faith breaker. (Though, it often leads to a low view of the authority of scripture, which then leads to a form of idolatry- as one has invented his own God as opposed the One clearly defined in scripture). But, Darwinian evolution is in direct conflict with any and all Judeo-Christian beliefs on origins; as it replaces God with random, unguided natural processes. As Richard Dawkins puts it “Darwin’s theory made it intellectually fulfilling to be an atheist.” I don’t see how anyone can reconcile simultaneous belief in both.
quote:
Where does information come from?
I'm sure it's just theorized at this point. Not impossible that they exist.
I think you may have missed the point. The point is that in all of our uniform and repeated experience- information always originates from a mind. DNA is the information (or the instructions /code) necessary for the formation of all life. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.
quote:
There's legitimate science behind it.
Sure there is. No doubt. But, there are also giant leaps in logic and imagination.
Bolstered by outlandish claims and media collusion that would make Joe Biden jealous.
quote:
You don't think it's important; others do.
Of course I think it’s important. I wouldn’t be arguing the point if I didn’t think it was important. But my question is why it’s important. I make no bones about why it’s important to me. I also have a hard time believing that the reason an atheist argues for evolution has nothing to do with the sentiment behind Dawkins’ aforementioned quote.
quote:
I doubt that's a universally held opinion even amongst proponents of evolution
Certainly not. But it’s the inevitable conclusion of materialistic naturalism.
quote:
What are the consequences of evolutionary theory you are talking about?
A sign of a culture that has lost its faith - Moral collapse follows upon spiritual collapse. C. S. Lewis
Posted on 4/11/24 at 8:50 pm to Prodigal Son
So what created RNA molecules?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 9:03 pm to Mushroom1968
I can only go off my own simple life. Speaking to God through prayer and listening to others. Spent almost 30 years in fire/ems. I've heard several people who were in full cardiac arrests and brought back tell me or my crew about our conversations and actions taken in the back of the ambulance. My dad has always been a Christian, mom was raised rural southern Baptist but became an atheist after moving out. She'd stay quiet during prayer before meals. She went into cardiac arrests in her 50s and became an unbelievably strong Christian afterwards. Never known her to lie but she told me things that I know many won't believe. It's all anecdotal I understand, I can say more, but it would just bring doubt. I'll leave it at what I typed.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 9:26 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
It should tell you something that you believe that adapting or evolving thought processes based on constant testing and new data is bad, while never changing your opinion despite the data is good
Well, I suppose that’s one way to spin it.
Question- Is truth objective or subjective?Posted on 4/11/24 at 9:52 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
As society progresses they will become fewer and fewer.
Is that what you see? Progress? Society improves with each new gender added? Biological males in women’s sports is progress? Labeling pedos as “minor attracted persons”- progress? Bare chested tranny on the White House lawn- progress? Increasing levels of suicide and depression- progress? Steep declines marriage and birth rates- progress? Sharp increases in violent crimes- progress?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 10:26 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Eh. Do you really have any "challenges" to the theory?
Evolutionists believe that humans share a common ancestor with the great apes of Africa. They say "hominins" are the human lineage arising from that ancestor. A 2015 paper calculated how long it would take to change the nucleotides in hominin DNA. These excerpts from it will shock you: "Given the unique capabilities of humans, an evolving hominin population (as would give rise to modern man) would need to establish a great deal of new information." "It is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5%, representing about 150 million nucleotide differences." "The gene can range in size from about 1,000 to more than one million nucleotides long. A typical human gene is roughly 50,000 nucleotides long. A new gene is thought to arise from a previously existing gene, with the mutation/selection process establishing mutations within a long text string that is already established and functional." "It is now generally recognized that beneficial mutations are rare, and that high-impact beneficial mutations are extremely rare. In higher life forms where population sizes are modest, the mutation rate per nucleotide per generation is normally extremely low (about 10-8). This means that the waiting time for a specific nucleotide within single chromosomal lineage would be 100 million generations." "We simulated a classic pre-human hominin population of at least 10,000 individuals, with a generation time of 20 years, using the numerical simulation program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel version 2.4.2, now being released as 2.5)." "Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameter settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive." "Even given very substantial fitness effects, the waiting time for a specific point mutation ranged between 1.5 and 15.9 million years" which "is very sobering, since it is estimated that mankind evolved from a chimp-like creature in just 6 million years." "As string length increased linearly, the increase in waiting time was of an exponential nature. When there were as many as six nucleotides in the string, the average waiting time (4.24 billion years) approached the estimated age of the earth. When there were eight nucleotides in the string, the average waiting time (18.5 billion years), exceeded the estimated age of the universe." "Our results generally represent best-case scenarios in terms of minimizing waiting time. When we use more realistic parameter settings for our simulations, we consistently get much longer waiting times." "When a population faces a specific evolutionary challenge, a specific fix is needed, and it must arise in a timely fashion. Positive selection cannot generally begin to resolve an evolutionary challenge until just the right mutation (or mutations) happens at just the right position (or positions). Selection for the required trait can only begin after the mutation (or mutations) result in a substantial (selectable) improvement in total biological functionality." "The creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man" who has "a genome with over three billion nucleotides." "We need multiple point mutations to arise on the same short strand of DNA, which is very difficult. While a population is waiting (through deep time) for the correct string to arise, genetic drift is systematically eliminating almost all the string variants. Nearly all of the time there will be essentially zero strings anywhere in the population that are even close to the target string." "It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns. When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million, the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. This amount of time approximates the estimated time required for the evolution of worm-like creatures into people. When we extrapolate our data to a population size of ten million we still get a waiting time of 202 million years. Even when we extrapolate to a population size of one billion we still have a waiting time of 40 million years." "A bigger population increases the number of mutations arising per generation, but does not increase the number of mutations per short DNA strand (mutation density). To create a complete set of linked mutations requires many mutations arising on the same short stretch of a given DNA molecule." "Numerous other researchers have come to similar conclusions. The long waiting times we report here are even supported indirectly by the papers that have argued against a serious waiting time problem. When examined carefully, those papers indicate that for a hominin-type population, waiting times are as long or even longer than we report here." It is true that "during the waiting time period for a functional string to be established at a given location, other beneficial mutational strings can be happening in other parts of the genome." "However, those other strings are not likely to meet the same specific evolutionary need that our target string can meet. Evolution often needs a specific fix to a specific problem, and that fix must be timely in order to retain relevance." "Even if all of the ~20,000 genes in the hominin genome were already poised for a significant enhancement and all of them were waiting for their own specific string, each one of those potential enhancements would have its own severe waiting time problem." "Furthermore, this would be happening in the context of countless nearly-neutral deleterious mutations throughout the genome which would drift to fixation within the same deep time. Unless there was very strong purifying selection operating for all the nucleotides in the general region of the string, the context of the string would be erased long before the string itself actually arose." "The waiting time problem becomes very severe when more than one mutation is required to establish a new function. This is a very interesting theoretical dilemma."-- Sanford, John, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith and John Baumgardner. September 17, 2015. The waiting time problem in a model hominin population. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 12, No. 1, Article 18, 28 pages, DOI: 10.1186/s12976-015-0016-z.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 10:42 pm to Prodigal Son
Tell that to the animals that evolved to survive living in Chernobyl.
Where there is selection pressure we have witnessed mutations and they dont take 100s of millions of years.
someone is trying to trick you by using math that is easily disproven
Where there is selection pressure we have witnessed mutations and they dont take 100s of millions of years.
quote:
This means that the waiting time for a specific nucleotide within single chromosomal lineage would be 100 million generations.
someone is trying to trick you by using math that is easily disproven
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 10:44 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe haha.
Intelligent thought isnt your strong suit, I take it? Here, I'll post the study quote again. Just for you
quote:
developing into a fully integrative framework for calibrating the Tree of Life to geologic time,
Heres a clue
quote:
geologic time (noun) - the long period of time occupied by the earth's geologic history
Why on Gods green Earth would an evolution study be concerned with connecting the' Tree of Life' to geologic time? If it wasnt that important?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 10:51 pm to RobbBobb
this is what you said
the age of the universe is calculated by the furthest observable light that has reached us since the creation of the universe.
your "no proof" statement is disproven by the fact we have witnessed light that traveled 13.8 billion light years to reach us.
you stated they were just making shite up to accommodate evolution, that's just complete BS you made up.
the people calculating the age of the universe aren't even in the same fields of science as evolutionists.
quote:
Theres just not enough time to go from Big bang, the earth cooling, life to begin, then DNA to evolve to where we are today. Thats why they keep bumping back the age of the universe. Mind you, they have no proof of its actual age, but they do keep bumping back the start date to fit evolutionary patterns
the age of the universe is calculated by the furthest observable light that has reached us since the creation of the universe.
your "no proof" statement is disproven by the fact we have witnessed light that traveled 13.8 billion light years to reach us.
you stated they were just making shite up to accommodate evolution, that's just complete BS you made up.
the people calculating the age of the universe aren't even in the same fields of science as evolutionists.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 11:23 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
I wish tigerdroppings would have a philosophy board, where people could talk seriously, make syllogisms and such, and not with the crazy people on the political board. I’m really shocked at this point in the thread where theist post get downvoted 3 to 1. Where did all the theist go?
Got a good Christian raisin' and an eighth grade education, ain't no need for you all treatin' me this a' way.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 11:24 pm
Page 23 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News