Poll: Evolution and the other side

Amphoteric

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,276
0
0
monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
You know that some kinds of "Fish" are more closely related to Humans than those fish are to other kinds of "Fish".

Its ALL to do with genetics.

Also you say you believe Evolution is true up until any evolution takes place. Why not just say "I don't believe evolution takes place".
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
You came to debate.
No I didn't. I came to discuss. Discuss facts, not debate.
But you've been debating the entire time. You've been attacking positions and trying to present counterarguments.

Regardless of what you claim your intentions are, your actions have been to debate. You have been debating, ergo you came to debate.

Either you're being unconscious about this motivation, or you're being dishonest now. But neither is important because this is a discussion about evidence for creationism, and I would like to discuss the fact that omniscience cannot exist, ergo an omniscient being could not have created anything, ergo, one potential 'hypothesis' in creation 'theory' is disproven.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.

Am I the only one here who noticed that he just said that amino acids make DNA? I think this proves conclusively that you're talking out your ass and have no idea what you're talking about ( as if we needed more proof)
 

YamadaJisho

New member
Sep 22, 2009
65
0
0
Personally, I don't beleive that evolution is true for one simple fact. There is no evidence for a common ancestor that is not also evidence for a common designer, however, there is plenty of evidence that there is a common designer that is not evidence for a common ancestor.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
You came to debate.
No I didn't. I came to discuss. Discuss facts, not debate.
But you've been debating the entire time. You've been attacking positions and trying to present counterarguments.

Regardless of what you claim your intentions are, your actions have been to debate. You have been debating, ergo you came to debate.

Either you're being unconscious about this motivation, or you're being dishonest now. But neither is important because this is a discussion about evidence for creationism, and I would like to discuss the fact that omniscience cannot exist, ergo an omniscient being could not have created anything, ergo, one potential 'hypothesis' in creation 'theory' is disproven.
Once gain, I can't find any other place that confirms what you are stating. Please link a place so I can get the word from the horses mouth. Unless you are saying YOU came up with that theory.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Amphoteric said:
monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
You know that some kinds of "Fish" are more closely related to Humans than those fish are to other kinds of "Fish".

Its ALL to do with genetics.

Also you say you believe Evolution is true up until any evolution takes place. Why not just say "I don't believe evolution takes place".
Microevolution and Macroevolution. I believe the former is true but the latter is not.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
YamadaJisho said:
So basically, the answer to your question, OP, is that no, virtually no atheists have actually seriously looked at the other side.
I believe that.
 

AlexNora

New member
Mar 7, 2011
207
0
0
theultimateend said:
AlexNora said:
"evolutionist"
This doesn't exist.

Which makes it ironic considering what you are comparing it to.

Apples to Apples?
i have to be honest i don't understand what this means xD

people that have sent me pm's know it may take me bit of time to get to you and i have alot of messages so if you feel ignored for to long as the week goes on resend me a message XD

other then that please be kind to each other as you try to tear each others beliefs apart...
(facts beliefs whatever...)

also Ragnarok is having good events lately so i may disappear for several hours (plus i have to maintain a web site) and work on my manga...

wouldn't it be crazy if my manga involved this forum somehow?
 

Amphoteric

New member
Jun 8, 2010
1,276
0
0
monfang said:
Amphoteric said:
monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
You know that some kinds of "Fish" are more closely related to Humans than those fish are to other kinds of "Fish".

Its ALL to do with genetics.

Also you say you believe Evolution is true up until any evolution takes place. Why not just say "I don't believe evolution takes place".
Microevolution and Macroevolution. I believe the former is true but the latter is not.
Explain this please:

 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
You came to debate.
No I didn't. I came to discuss. Discuss facts, not debate.
But you've been debating the entire time. You've been attacking positions and trying to present counterarguments.

Regardless of what you claim your intentions are, your actions have been to debate. You have been debating, ergo you came to debate.

Either you're being unconscious about this motivation, or you're being dishonest now. But neither is important because this is a discussion about evidence for creationism, and I would like to discuss the fact that omniscience cannot exist, ergo an omniscient being could not have created anything, ergo, one potential 'hypothesis' in creation 'theory' is disproven.
Once gain, I can't find any other place that confirms what you are stating. Please link a place so I can get the word from the horses mouth. Unless you are saying YOU came up with that theory.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are a central part of computational theory.

Your inability to find things posted in this thread is not an indication of anything but your inability to find things posted in this thread. But if you like, I can -explain- Godel's Incompleteness Theorems for you, and how it relates to cognition. It's actually not that complex!

Did you find the video on abiogenesis posted in this thread? Did you watch it? You still haven't confirmed that. You relaly should. It's only been posted four times.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
You came to debate.
No I didn't. I came to discuss. Discuss facts, not debate.
Then please do so. Prove anything besides your ignorance, please.

lotr rocks 0 said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.

Am I the only one here who noticed that he just said that amino acids make DNA? I think this proves conclusively that you're talking out your ass and have no idea what you're talking about ( as if we needed more proof)
Well, at least this is coherent with his claim that those amino acids can not be used to build proteins. Finally a point in his argumentation where he does NOT contradict himself.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
Thaliur said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
You came to debate.
No I didn't. I came to discuss. Discuss facts, not debate.
Then please do so. Prove anything besides your ignorance, please.

lotr rocks 0 said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Actually, no. Its on the walls, not in the protein sequencing nor does it have a factor in development of proteins.
Which has nothing to do with the points you've made about its being antithetical to life, nor as a valid counter to abiogenesis.

U had a long rant ready, but honestly... it doesn't matter. You've clearly shown no interest in learning what it is you're trying to rebut. You haven't watched the video so handily provided, which calmly explains a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with your refutations.

If you wish to continue along this path, I can provide mathematical proof that omniscience is impossible and that intellegence could not be created by design. That'd be kinda mean tho.
I can also show math that spontaneous generation is impossible.

D-Amino Acids made DNA that is unable to replicate. Even just one is enough to break the cycle of life. L-Amino Acids like the 20 essential for life are the only ones who can make DNA capable of replication.

I can also show math from a kid disproving the Big Bang and E=MC^2 but that's nether here or there.

Am I the only one here who noticed that he just said that amino acids make DNA? I think this proves conclusively that you're talking out your ass and have no idea what you're talking about ( as if we needed more proof)
Well, at least this is coherent with his claim that those amino acids can not be used to build proteins. Finally a point in his argumentation where he does NOT contradict himself.
I don't get what you're trying to say... He just said that DNA is made of amino acids, and that if D-amino acids get mixed in with L-amino acids in the DNA that it's lethal.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
YamadaJisho said:
Personally, I don't beleive that evolution is true for one simple fact. There is no evidence for a common ancestor that is not also evidence for a common designer, however, there is plenty of evidence that there is a common designer that is not evidence for a common ancestor.
Common Design, Common Designer. Long-debunked. Asserted without evidence. Argument is dismissed. [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html]

monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
Now we get to the crux of the matter: you don't understand evolution.

However, based on your conduct in the thread so far, I believe it would be a waste of my time to attempt to fix your misconceptions about evolution. You have presented plenty of evidence that you will not accept the facts given to you (especially in your repeated, unfounded assertions of a distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution). Oh well.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
evilneko said:
YamadaJisho said:
Personally, I don't beleive that evolution is true for one simple fact. There is no evidence for a common ancestor that is not also evidence for a common designer, however, there is plenty of evidence that there is a common designer that is not evidence for a common ancestor.
Common Design, Common Designer. Long-debunked. Asserted without evidence. Argument is dismissed. [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html]

monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
Now we get to the crux of the matter: you don't understand evolution.

However, based on your conduct in the thread so far, I believe it would be a waste of my time to attempt to fix your misconceptions about evolution. You have presented plenty of evidence that you will not accept the facts given to you. Oh well.
He doesn't understand basic principles or concepts in science, and is not willing to listen to people who do. Lost cause battle for us rational people here.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Amphoteric said:
monfang said:
Amphoteric said:
monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
You know that some kinds of "Fish" are more closely related to Humans than those fish are to other kinds of "Fish".

Its ALL to do with genetics.

Also you say you believe Evolution is true up until any evolution takes place. Why not just say "I don't believe evolution takes place".
Microevolution and Macroevolution. I believe the former is true but the latter is not.
Explain this please:

First off, I find it hard to listen to a man who lies under oath. But that's nether here or there. Oh wait. It is here and there. That video is apparently about his trial, the trial where he lied under oath.

On the second day of the Kitzmiller trial, Miller was confronted about theologically charged statements about evolution in one of his biology textbooks, which stated that "[e]volution is random and undirected." Miller defended himself by claiming that the theological language about evolution in his textbook was a "mistake," and was added by his co-author, and that the statement "[e]volution is random and undirected" appears only in the 3rd edition of his "elephant textbook," Biology. Miller said, "that statement was not in the first edition the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition." Yet contrary to Miller's testimony, Miller has produced numerous textbooks which apparently contain anti-theistic language describing evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ken_millers_random_and_undirec002331.html
Of course ID advocates couldn't go against what he said. What he said goes against evolution. there is nothing more to be said.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
lotr rocks 0 said:
I don't get what you're trying to say... He just said that DNA is made of amino acids, and that if D-amino acids get mixed in with L-amino acids in the DNA that it's lethal.
Exactly. Try replacing any of the nucleotides in any DNA strand with an amino acid.
The chirality isn't even important, the DNA would stop working. So, yes, forcing D-type amino acid into the DNA replication process is disruptive and potentially deadly ;-)
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
YamadaJisho said:
So basically, the answer to your question, OP, is that no, virtually no atheists have actually seriously looked at the other side.
First, accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, and being an atheist does not mean one supports evolution.

Second, the "other side" consists of ignorance, lies, and nothing else. Creationists claim things are hoaxes when they aren't (Lucy was called a hoax, either in this thread or one of the other recent evolution/creation threads), they claim credit for things they don't deserve credit for (I've seen Creationists try to claim that their camp came up with Punctuated Equilibrium, when it was actually a paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould, who were NOT Creationists), that evolution or abiogenesis (which they insist are the same thing) break the Second Law of Thermodynamics (a claim that relies on a failure to understand the law), that evolution is "just a theory" (equivocating the scientific and non-scientific definitions of 'theory'), that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different (they are the exact same process over different time scales), that there are no transitional fossils (most fossils are transitional), and so on. Oh, and they also spend a fair bit of time accusing scientists of lying, manipulating data, and covering up conflicting data.

So that's the "other side." Ignorance and lies.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
evilneko said:
monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
Now we get to the crux of the matter: you don't understand evolution.

However, based on your conduct in the thread so far, I believe it would be a waste of my time to attempt to fix your misconceptions about evolution. You have presented plenty of evidence that you will not accept the facts given to you (especially in your repeated, unfounded assertions of a distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution). Oh well.
Microevolution: Noun: Evolutionary change over a short period.
Macroevolution: Noun: Major evolutionary change.
Evolution: Noun: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The Theory of Evolution states that as animals reproduce, there are chances for the DNA sequences as they split and reform to randomly develop a mutation. That mutation can be darkened skin from birth, fur on the skin, scales, gills, milk giving breasts, ect.

Mutation: Noun: a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.

Microevolution is a recorded event that is shown in different breeds of dogs, horses, cats, birds, flowers, ect. When done by man, the animals are breed in such a way that they lose undesired features such as weak sense of smells, low intelligence, long tails, short fur, ect. In order to create a better appealing animal. In the wild, the changes are often minor relating towards camouflage and climate change often. Such as seen with the grey wolf and the white wolf. Similar in most aspects besides fur color and thickness.

Macroevolution is a nonrecorded(as in no one breed one species into a new species with reproductive abilities) theory that animals can gather enough mutations and completely change their species. Such as a reptile becoming warm blooded, growing feathers, hollow bones, a taste for seeds and insects and becoming a bird. Most signs of this type of evolution come from broken, scattered bones from long gone animals.

Am I missing anything so far?