- 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
0
Posted on 2/11/19 at 10:59 am to RobbBobb
quote:
I'm not the one who used the word random
But you are the one who misused the word random.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:01 am to RobbBobb
quote:WTF are you babbling about? I'm referring to life, period.
You are also caught up in the "life like us" is life
quote:Well, that's because before life, you have to have conditions favorable for life, even if it isn't life like us.
If life could form on this planet without a design, then the same could happen on Mars, Venus, the moon, etc.
quote:Well, this is a great strawman, but, no one has ever asserted, nor is there any reason to believe, that life can come to pass in ANY environment.
But the ability to form "life" was as present on those bodies as it was here. Yet nothing has ever been found to have existed there. In any form
If there are certain conditions required that are favorable to the possibility, then, quite obviously, you need those first.
Hell, even on Earth, life isn't easily detected EVERYWHERE! Jeebus Christ man.
quote:Just because it doesn't have to look like us, or be on a planet like ours, does NOT equal, can be ANYfrickINGWHERE.
Life isn't just defined as something that looks like we do, on a planet like ours. Especially if there was no "design"
You've created a hell of an idiotic strawman.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:03 am to Korkstand
quote:yeah, they are sequencing fossil DNA? Guess Jurassic Park is just around the corner. Actually, the discrepancy in the fossil record is the reason traditional Darwinism had to be abandoned. The fossil record did not show continual gradations smoothly blending between species, you see a distinct organism pop into existence in the evolutionary blink of an eye, then the next 'step' does the same thing, etc. That's why they came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, to explain why the fossils don't show what Darwin predicted. They rely now on the idea of advantageous mutations, despite knowing that like 99.99% of mutations are disastrously disadvantageous or outright fatal, and also ignoring the issues you get with higher order creatures and sexual reproduction, where if you change your DNA too much in one generation it can't be passed on because you suddenly can't breed. And yet over and over in the fossil record you see new, fully evolved, complex creatures explode into existence with no time for all this to happen by the only means available, random chance mutations. And not just once, but dozens of times during the numerous mad extinctions. These limit the time available to million of years, not billions, to recreate complete biospheres
quote:
our fossil records don't show evidence for those kinds of mutations.
The fossil record contains overwhelming evidence of those kinds of mutations.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 11:11 am
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:05 am to ShortyRob
Dang it, break’s over. I was enjoying the repartee.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:07 am to ShortyRob
quote:
that life can come to pass in ANY environment.
Which pretty much solidifies that life is not at all random. Life outside of us, hasn't been detected. Life like us wouldn't have occurred without the right "conditions". Yet it was all so random? Youre just guessing at this point
Because science specifically states that matter and energy is finite. Yet somehow the matter and energy that we randomly formed from, isn't somehow identifiable. It just popped into existence. That's comical
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:07 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Um. The universe is large. Like, REALLY large. Like, incomprehensibly large. And, only a few hundred years ago, we could barely see the shapes of shite in our own solar system. We've only been able to actually experiment on stuff in our solar system, CHARITABLY speaking, for about 50 years.
Your post is like someone in 1300 acting like not knowing there was a N. America meant there was no N. America.
And yet we act unequivocally like we know exactly how things have transpired over thousands or billions of years. Like arguing with a global warming proponent that can't tell you what the optimal temperature of the earth should be but will yell in your face that we need to stop it from warming.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:09 am to RobbBobb
quote:Again, that you want to misuse the word random is a you problem.
Which pretty much solidifies that life is not at all random.
The "random" INCLUDES the conditions dumb arse.
I mean, the flip of a coin might be considered random. But you need a fricking coin.
quote:Here you go arguing against an assertion no one has ever made. Or, worse, flagrantly not comprehending one that was.
Because science specifically states that matter and energy is finite. Yet somehow the matter and energy that we randomly formed from, isn't somehow identifiable. It just popped into existence.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:10 am to Lg
quote:Well this is just false. No one claims to know EXACTLY or, no one would be studying it anymore.
And yet we act unequivocally like we know exactly how things have transpired over thousands or billions of years
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:10 am to narddogg81
quote:
Actually, the discrepancy in the fossil record is the reason traditional Darwinism had to be abandoned.
Final response. Darwinism hasn’t been abandoned. It’s been refined.
ID is just masked creationism. It can never compete in the scientific community.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:15 am to Kentucker
quote:Non-scientific types think that continued refinement is 100% refutation.
Final response. Darwinism hasn’t been abandoned. It’s been refined.
quote:Honestly, I don't see any conflict between ID and evolution.
ID is just masked creationism. It can never compete in the scientific community.
If some all powerful being decided to create the universe knowing exactly how to set the system up such that it gave rise to what we see today and did it through the mechanisms we've just begun to study, that's pretty fricking impressive.
Frankly, I've never seen any conflict between Evolution and God at all. Scientists who think Evolution eliminates God are as silly as the RobbBobb's of the world.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:17 am to narddogg81
quote:
yep, that's usually about the degree of engagement you get when you question the core of someone's religious beliefs
No, because in order for me to be correct in your mindset, I have to have every single generation of every single animal. That is impossible, and you know it, so you partake in intellectually dishonesty. That and every time we find what you would call a "missing link" all it does is create two new "missing links". One side is honest and the other does this anytime any evidence is given:
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:19 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Creationism is for the most ignorant people in society. The most gullible people. With all Science and Technology has told/showed us the last 50 years it makes it even more ignorant.
These are the same people who believe that increases in government spending is conservatism, that learned at some point in their lives that we were founded as a Christian nation, and that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the same thing.
You know, morons.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:21 am to ShortyRob
quote:
No one claims to know EXACTLY or, no one would be studying it anymore.
Come on Rob, just look at this thread and anyone who even questions the thought that things could have been intelligently designed are called all sorts of demeaning names. So, to me, that means that the studying of it is nominal and those who dissent are cast from the fold. And I thought the whole premise of science is asking question and testing theories against what is actually known.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:25 am to Lg
quote:
Come on Rob, just look at this thread and anyone who even questions the thought that things could have been intelligently designed are called all sorts of demeaning names. So, to me, that means that the studying of it is nominal and those who dissent are cast from the fold. And I thought the whole premise of science is asking question and testing theories against what is actually known.
Because you're intellectually dishonest or are too stupid to realize you're being intellectually dishonest. Yall do not follow the scientific method. The anti-evolution argument is about as sloppy as a hooker's pussy at the end of her shift.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:26 am to narddogg81
quote:Abiogenesis and evolution are different topics.
evolution does have big problems, at the cellular level as well as with the origin of life. There is so much stuff in the cellar machinery that is chicken and egg kind of stuff. You can't create RNA without a specific bit of cellular kit, but, you can't build that kit without the RNA in the first place, etc etc etc. There is a ton of stuff inside the very basic machinery of life(which is still massively complicated) that had to evolve spontaneously at the same time in one cell, from nothing but random soup of amino acids, fully functioning or you don't have something that is alive, something that can metabolize or replicate.
quote:If the extra bits don't create a disadvantage, they tend to live on anyway.
There is no evolutionary advantage to carrying around bits of stuff instead your cell that won't do anything functional until and unless you get some other completely preposterously advantageous mutation in the same once cell, or a million generations later.
You and I and everyone else have dozens of genetic mutations that do not seem to have any impact on our ability to survive one way or the other. With every new generation comes dozens more mutations, and your mutations differ from those of your siblings. We also acquire more mutations during our lives. Mutations everywhere. Some cause cancer. Some may provide a slight advantage in ways we may not notice. Most are probably innocuous and aren't expressed in any way. But those mutations that don't kill us before we reproduce can live on, waiting for more and more mutations that might combine to create a true advantage.
quote:
This is where evolutionary biology takes a massive cop out. It's basically at this point they say well we are here so we know it happened so, um, there. And they leave it at that. That's not science.
Evolution has been, and continues to be, studied exhaustively. It explains how life got from there to here, and it does it quite well.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:27 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Lots of conservatives are surprisingly agreeable to homosexual civil unions, as long as the union isn’t called marriage
Remember when this was true?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:27 am to Lg
quote:
Come on Rob, just look at this thread and anyone who even questions the thought that things could have been intelligently designed are called all sorts of demeaning names.
Are you dishonest enough to claim that is exclusive to one side of the debate. Really?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:28 am to Lg
quote:For a very long time, Newton's view of Gravity was fully accepted. But people KEPT ON studying it and, along came Einstein to upend the entire view of HOW Gravity occurs but, that gravity existed didn't go up in smoke.
Come on Rob, just look at this thread and anyone who even questions the thought that things could have been intelligently designed are called all sorts of demeaning names.
Saying we think we know EXACTLY how it happened is silly but using that to deny THAT it happened is equally silly.
quote:Which is why exactly that continues to be done. I mean, it's not like Evolutionary science has no one left working in it. And, they aren't all simply standing in front of Creationists saying "nuh uh".
And I thought the whole premise of science is asking question and testing theories against what is actually known.
They are like, amazingly, STUDYING it!
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:30 am to Lg
I'm a Creationist that finds evolution fascinating.
I believe in evolution. It's abiogenesis that I can't believe. I just haven't seen evidence of life being formed from non-living things. The theories are fantastic, though
I believe in evolution. It's abiogenesis that I can't believe. I just haven't seen evidence of life being formed from non-living things. The theories are fantastic, though
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 11:31 am
Page 9 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News