Complex to simple or simple to complex?

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

The post is a bit of a puzzle. Please take the time to understand it. *

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

Revinh

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?Revinh

Based on this statement. You don't understand evolution.

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

Revinh

What the?

Have you not got some unfinished business in the other thread you started?

What do the > and < signs mean? Is is "greater than"and "less than"?

Does eternal mean living for over 900 years?

Simple cells divide to create a complex organism... Complex theories build on simple ones...

Why not read (or watch) up about evolution, from an unbiased source?

Living creatures can experience alterations in genetics, or mutations, that causes harmful effects, degeneration. There's no way for a living thing to progress, but only the other way.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old

Revinh

only if that part of the Bible is correct.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

The latter. Talking snakes and a woman being made from a mans rib doesn't seem like logical things to me.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

The one with the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence behind it which you refuse to acknowledge because of your oh so obvious bias.

Living creatures can experience alterations in genetics, or mutations, that causes harmful effects, degeneration. There's no way for a living thing to progress, but only the other way.

Revinh

It goes both ways, they can experience hamrful genetic mutations and genetic mutations that will benefit them. It all depends on the mutation andtheir environment -- natural selection etc.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

Considering Adam and Eve ****ed us all up, they weren't perfect. Since I am a direct descendant of my parents, and my parents of their parents etc, that one makes more sense.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

Evolution.

I haven't completely understood what you said, but if I remember correctly, a fertilized egg contains all the genetic information, and once it divides into what you call 'simpler' cells, these cells don't lose one fragment of the genetic information, or else it just becomes a tumor. These cells just specialize into a certain type of cell and 'blocks' the unused genetic information.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

As i said earlier. You don't seem to understand evolution.

This > The bible

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

Evolution.

Where in Genesis does it talk of degeneration?

Conversly, Genesis 1:23 says "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us" " after this apparent "degeneration" of yours.

It could also be argued that the additional burdens placed on Adam and Eve made them more complex in perceiving pain and having to toil to live.

TC, your argument is so weighed down by assumptions that it borders on being worthless, and if you think the transformation from zygote to human being is complex > simple... well, you might be the one who's simple.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

Revinh

Huh? Even the Bible states mankind came from something simpler. . .just what is different, is all. Adam came from dirt (dirt is a simpler life-form), and Eve came from his rib (another simple life-form).

Even if you believe the Bible, you believe evolution; You just believe a different form of it.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?

GettingTired

The latter. Talking snakes and a woman being made from a mans rib doesn't seem like logical things to me.

Why wasnt this quoted?

Most logical thing said in this thread so far

Huh? Even the Bible states mankind came from something simpler. . .just what is different, is all. Adam came from dirt (dirt is a simpler life-form), and Eve came from his rib (another simple life-form).

Even if you believe the Bible, you believe evolution; You just believe a different form of it.

Dracargen

How are those life forms? :?

Not many Christians actual take whan the New Book (Adam and Eve part) says literally do they?PerilousWolf

The slight majority do, I think.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Huh? Even the Bible states mankind came from something simpler. . .just what is different, is all. Adam came from dirt (dirt is a simpler life-form), and Eve came from his rib (another simple life-form).

Even if you believe the Bible, you believe evolution; You just believe a different form of it.

_Tobli_

How are those life forms? :?

If you want to get technical (and hippie-ish), everything's a life-form, because everything is made of living things.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go throw up.

TC, your argument is so weighed down by assumptions that it borders on being worthless, and if you think the transformation from zygote to human being is complex > simple... well, you might be the one who's simple.

Schwah

I'm feeling sorry for Revinh. He's had so much common sense pounded into him the last couple of threads (check out what hes saying in this thread).

Anyway to the topic at hand.... Actually I'm not sure if there is a topic but I will respond by saying that evolution seems far more likely than a literal interpretation of the bible.

That's assuming there is no input into the system.

On earth we have always had sunlight beating in. Both chemical and biological evolution happened on account of sunlight's influence on the system. In the biological system, assuming there's sunlight to keep things alive, there is a tendency towards complexity.

I dare you to read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. It's not a book about atheism (its actually about innatism), but by the time you make it through the first half you'll probably have lost faith.

That's assuming there is no input into the system.

On earth we have always had sunlight beating in. Both chemical and biological evolution happened on account of sunlight's influence on the system. In the biological system, assuming there's sunlight to keep things alive, there is a tendency towards complexity.

I dare you to read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. It's not a book about atheism (its actually about innatism), but by the time you make it through the first half you'll probably have lost faith.

MeanQuestion

I find it interesting that Pinker considers artists who don't make their art for the fulfillment of human desires (porn) are "derilict in their duties." :roll:

Your pont?123625

Um, whachoo talking bout Willis?Judza

Are you drunk?xaos

Thank god i'm not the only one that doesn't have a clue what this guy is on about! :shock:PinkAngelDead

Um, didn't understand one word you said.WSGRandomPerson

I suggest you guys take the time to examine my post. I know it's a bit puzzling the way I put it but you'll get it.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years oldHewkii

only if that part of the Bible is correct.

Yeah, but it's more about the flow I was talking about.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?GettingTired

The latter. Talking snakes and a woman being made from a mans rib doesn't seem like logical things to me.

The snake was being used, if you didn't know. An intelligent Creator is infinitely more logical to me than blind chance, evolution crap, dead chemicals bringing itself up to life..

[QUOTE="MeanQuestion"]

That's assuming there is no input into the system.

On earth we have always had sunlight beating in. Both chemical and biological evolution happened on account of sunlight's influence on the system. In the biological system, assuming there's sunlight to keep things alive, there is a tendency towards complexity.

I dare you to read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. It's not a book about atheism (its actually about innatism), but by the time you make it through the first half you'll probably have lost faith.

Dracargen

I find it interesting that Pinker considers artists who don't make their art for the fulfillment of human desires (porn) are "derilict in their duties." :roll:

He's skeptical towards self-proclaimed "art" vs. common entertainment; he doesn't believe the distinction should be so great. That's sort of a controversial claim, but I agree with him on that as well.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?Zagrius

The one with the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence behind it which you refuse to acknowledge because of your oh so obvious bias.

You mean creation? No, I don't refuse to acknowledge its overwhelming evidence.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years oldRevinh

only if that part of the Bible is correct.

Yeah, but it's more about the flow I was talking about.

But that flow is nothing if that part of the Bible isn't correct when read literally.

I suggest you guys take the time to examine my post. I know it's a bit puzzling the way I put it but you'll get it.Revinh

Their interpritations seem fairly accurate. What you wrote is wrong. You can continue to believe it if you wish, but it's still wrong.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Living creatures can experience alterations in genetics, or mutations, that causes harmful effects, degeneration. There's no way for a living thing to progress, but only the other way.DeeJayInphinity

It goes both ways, they can experience hamrful genetic mutations and genetic mutations that will benefit them. It all depends on the mutation andtheir environment -- natural selection etc.

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?Revinh

Considering Adam and Eve ****ed us all up, they weren't perfect. Since I am a direct descendant of my parents, and my parents of their parents etc, that one makes more sense.

Copying-ERRORS, alterations, damaging, loss/corruption of information,..

Originally...

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?Revinh

The one with the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence behind it which you refuse to acknowledge because of your oh so obvious bias.

You mean creation? No, I don't refuse to acknowledge its overwhelming evidence.

Giving a link to another thread where nobody agrees with you doesn't help your case.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?Mochyc

Evolution.

I haven't completely understood what you said, but if I remember correctly, a fertilized egg contains all the genetic information, and once it divides into what you call 'simpler' cells, these cells don't lose one fragment of the genetic information, or else it just becomes a tumor. These cells just specialize into a certain type of cell and 'blocks' the unused genetic information.

I didn't say they lose genetic information. I just meant they'd be simpler than the zygote. Like a cell of yours today compared to it.

TC, your argument is so weighed down by assumptions that it borders on being worthless, and if you think the transformation from zygote to human being is complex > simple... well, you might be the one who's simple.

Schwah

^

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?RationalAtheist

Evolution.

Where in Genesis does it talk of degeneration?

Adam was over 900 years old.. They started as perfect.. Humans today has a bunch of diseases, unhealthier..

Huh? Even the Bible states mankind came from something simpler. . .just what is different, is all. Adam came from dirt (dirt is a simpler life-form), and Eve came from his rib (another simple life-form).

Even if you believe the Bible, you believe evolution; You just believe a different form of it.Dracargen

dirt isn't alive

Revinh:

Do you consider the Bible to be the infallible Word of God?

Do you believe that, along with the Bible, God created life and nature?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes:

Evolution has been severely tried and tested since it was thought up. Over 150 years have passed, and it is still challenged, to no avail whatsoever. This means that nature, the very same that God created, includes evolution (as well as an old earth).

Now, do you believe God can lie?

If no, then please explain why God would create a universe that looks and operates completely different from what is said in His Word, if the Word is to be taken literally. If evolution is not true, we should have long since found it to be false. Either Genesis is allegorical for something else, or God, as defined by Christianity, has lied to every human being in existence and thus does not exist.

Which do you believe?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Huh? Even the Bible states mankind came from something simpler. . .just what is different, is all. Adam came from dirt (dirt is a simpler life-form), and Eve came from his rib (another simple life-form).

Even if you believe the Bible, you believe evolution; You just believe a different form of it.Revinh

dirt isn't alive

That is completely irrelevant. According to the Bible itself, life came from non-life. Do you dispute this?

[QUOTE="Schwah"]

TC, your argument is so weighed down by assumptions that it borders on being worthless, and if you think the transformation from zygote to human being is complex > simple... well, you might be the one who's simple.domatron23

I'm feeling sorry for Revinh. He's had so much common sense pounded into him the last couple of threads (check out what hes saying in this thread).

I feel the same way about you..

Revinh:

Do you consider the Bible to be the infallible Word of God?

Do you believe that, along with the Bible, God created life and nature?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes:

Evolution has been severely tried and tested since it was thought up. Over 150 years have passed, and it is still challenged, to no avail whatsoever. This means that nature, the very same that God created, includes evolution (as well as an old earth).

Now, do you believe God can lie?

If no, then please explain why God would create a universe that looks and operates completely different from what is said in His Word, if the Word is to be taken literally. If evolution is not true, we should have long since found it to be false. Either Genesis is allegorical for something else, or God, as defined by Christianity, has lied to every human being in existence and thus does not exist.

Which do you believe?

Dracargen

That's assuming there is no input into the system.

On earth we have always had sunlight beating in. Both chemical and biological evolution happened on account of sunlight's influence on the system. In the biological system, assuming there's sunlight to keep things alive, there is a tendency towards complexity.

I dare you to read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. It's not a book about atheism (its actually about innatism), but by the time you make it through the first half you'll probably have lost faith.MeanQuestion

I don't see how organisms, for example, would become more complex with or without sunlight. In fact, it'd degenerate faster, I would think.