- 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: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:44 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:44 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
However, the evolution debate also includes the evolution of life from non-life.
No, it doesn't.
2
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:45 pm to HeadChange
quote:
What we know: there is life. life evolves.
What we know: first there was no life then there was life.
Some people believe that life evolved from non-life yet they provide no evidence.
Other people believe God created life from non-life yet they provide no evidence.
Why is one belief praised and the other belief ridiculed when they both have the same amount of evidence?
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:48 pm to ApexTiger
Evolution is change over time, which includes adaption (pretty much the same thing...adapt or die), so I'm glad we are in agreement with that.
Like one day there was a primate then the next there were humans? It doesn't work that way. We evolve, over millions of years, from simpler life forms. Take apes and humans. Very, very closely related, yet we didn't evolve from apes, we just share a common primate ancestor.
There are a lot of unanswered questions/gaps, and I'm by no means a biologist or anything, but the evidence propping up evolution is so massive (with ZERO against) it's hard to argue.
quote:
Evolution in the video was pushing the question "Evolved from species to another type"
Like one day there was a primate then the next there were humans? It doesn't work that way. We evolve, over millions of years, from simpler life forms. Take apes and humans. Very, very closely related, yet we didn't evolve from apes, we just share a common primate ancestor.
There are a lot of unanswered questions/gaps, and I'm by no means a biologist or anything, but the evidence propping up evolution is so massive (with ZERO against) it's hard to argue.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:48 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Some people believe that life evolved from non-life yet they provide no evidence.
How dense are you? That isn't evolution.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:49 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Roger Klarvin
What if God was one of us?
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:49 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
"uhh...well it's like over 60 million years ago"
Does that not sound ridiculous?
I, being much more intelligent than you, don't find that ridiculous at all. It's the "world is 6000 years old" argument that makes me do a double take and makes me think that he's absolutely retarded.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:52 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does but you don't want to admit it because you have no evidence that life evolved from non-life.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:52 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
What if God was one of us?
I'd buy him a beer
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:55 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Provide the scientific evidence that life evolved from non-life.
That's not how evolution works. It's like asking a chemist to explain gravity. They're not the same concept.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:57 pm to ApexTiger
quote:In the video, the guy kept referring to "a change of kind", but never defines what "kind" means. This is a pretty typical argument from evolution deniers, and it generally indicates a lack of understanding of how the process works. A tree can never evolve into an elephant.. their common ancestors branched off so long ago that they didn't resemble a tree nor an elephant at the time. It was just a bunch of cells. Similarly, a dog will never evolve into a cat or a human. We just all evolved from some common 4-limbed mammal, which we wouldn't today classify as a dog, a cat, or a human.
Evolution in the video was pushing the question "Evolved from species to another type"
It's just baffling that someone can't accept the fact that species change drastically over the course of millions of years, when a creature like a frog can change from a tadpole to a tail-less, 4 legged creature in its short lifetime.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:58 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Yes, it does but you don't want to admit it because you have no evidence that life evolved from non-life.
No it doesn't...
Evolution, might want to write this down or commit it to memory, only deals with the DIVERSITY OF LIFE ON EARTH NOT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE.
you, like others on here who are less informed, have confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution and want to throw some God Done It or it cant happen argument out there.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:58 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Yes, it does but you don't want to admit it because you have no evidence that life evolved from non-life
You keep using that word...evolved...but I don't think you know what it means...maybe you haven't evolved? Is this Koko? Where are cameras guys? You got me. Jokes on me.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:59 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Yes, it does but you don't want to admit it because you have no evidence that life evolved from non-life.
You saying it over and over will never make it true.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 5:59 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Yes, it does
No, it really doesn't. Seriously, I promise.
LINK
quote:
Abiogenesis (/?e?ba?.?'d??n?s?s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-?-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6]
LINK
quote:
The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life".
LINK
quote:
Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
Here is even a Christian blog post explaining the difference:
LINK
quote:
His thesis had nothing to do with evolution (a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift). Instead, he was arguing against the possibility of abiogensis (the theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter). This is a problem, because these two are not the same thing.
quote:
because you have no evidence that life evolved from non-life.
The awesome thing is that we actually do, but we still don't incorporate it into the theory of evolution because THEY ARE frickING SEPERATE IDEAS.
LINK
quote:
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]
Posted on 7/25/14 at 6:01 pm to HeadChange
quote:
How dense are you? That isn't evolution.
It's the primordial evolution.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 6:01 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Yes, it does but you don't want to admit it because you have no evidence that life evolved from non-life.
Well you're just an idiot then. You might as well be saying that digestion is food. It's not.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 6:02 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Some people believe that life evolved from non-life yet they provide no evidence.
Some believe that today's species evolved from other species, for which there is mountains of evidence. This is evolution, you should read up on it.
Nobody believes that life "evolved" from non-life, because that is at odds with the definition of the word.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 6:04 pm to Korkstand
quote:
"a change of kind", but never defines what "kind" means.
thats the classic redefinition of species fundamentalist like to use to confuse the issue and try to fit the evidence to makes Noah's fairy tale more palatable for simpletons to accept as true
Posted on 7/25/14 at 6:04 pm to Roger Klarvin
What's with the trend towards posting 12-minute youtube videos instead of articles these days? Especially when the youtube videos inevitably just make the same shitty arguments that anyone who has ever debated the issue on the Internet has read 100x already.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 6:04 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
DawgfaninCa
STAHHHHP
Page 3 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News