Complex to simple or simple to complex?

  • 158 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

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?

MattUD1

Didn't CaptJSparrow use that last argument a few days ago?

Three guesses where he got it from.;)

Avatar image for MattUD1
MattUD1

20715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 MattUD1
Member since 2004 • 20715 Posts
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

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

Didn't CaptJSparrow use that last argument a few days ago?

Three guesses where he got it from.;)

Got it... I'm not big into reading these types of threads (unless I need a quick laugh) so I don't know who uses which arguments.
Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#53 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
[QUOTE="domatron23"][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.Revinh

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..

And everyone else who opposes your point of view with evidence that you refuse to refute? Now you've got Dracargen on your ass as well *prepares to be crushed by sensibility*

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
Got it... I'm not big into reading these types of threads (unless I need a quick laugh) so I don't know who uses which arguments.
MattUD1

You wouldn't have known anyway. I haven't used this argument on this site until now.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][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.Dracargen

dirt isn't alive

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

Specifically, man was formed from dust (and yes, our bodies are made up of elements from the ground). God gave him the breath of life. (He is the source of life.)

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][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..

And everyone else who opposes your point of view with evidence that you refuse to refute? Now you've got Dracargen on your ass as well *prepares to be crushed by sensibility*

:lol: I prefer to stay out of evolution-creation debates, because I really don't like debating other Christians (it kinda sends the wrong message out to non-believers). But I thought I'd give this a shot.

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Revinh"][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?

Specifically, man was formed from dust (and yes, our bodies are made up of elements from the ground). God gave him the breath of life. (He is the source of life.)

Okay. So you admit that mankind started as a lower form of life (or non-life, whichever)? Now, did God do this Breathe of Life instantly, or did it take Him time?

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[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.

This is what you linked to:

- The fact that fruit flies refused to evolve into something else.
- "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! ...Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." -
Science Digest
- The fact that the so-called natural selection only explains how they survived. It only weeds out the unfit and the fit (and their offsprings) are still the same creatures.
- The fact that mutations don't ever create anything new. They're lethal/harmful; causes loss/corruption of information.
- The fact that there's a huge gulf between people and animals.

Fruit flies are used in evolutionary experiments. Fuit flies also do evolve.

You yourself admitted that a very large billiard table would be needed. Please have a look at any natural history museum to see that your single coffin statement is absurdly incorrect (unless its a massive coffin).

There is a consitent fossil record of apes. This has been bought to your attention a number of times already.

Have you thought about breeding dogs? You will see how a litter of puppies have their differences and the best puppies are selected to continue the breed. It shows the differences in physical character between members of the same species and family. Same thing with plants.

Mutation does create new things.

The gulf between humans and other animals is not as wide as you state. Why do we share the same internal organ and bone structure as other animals? Why are other animals more intelligent than us in the many respects already pointed out to you?

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][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

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..

The diseases are an addition, so the complexity increases. Human life expectancy has increased in the last 200 years, reversing your degradation trend.

Avatar image for MattUD1
MattUD1

20715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 MattUD1
Member since 2004 • 20715 Posts
[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][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.Dracargen

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..

And everyone else who opposes your point of view with evidence that you refuse to refute? Now you've got Dracargen on your ass as well *prepares to be crushed by sensibility*

:lol: I prefer to stay out of evolution-creation debates, because I really don't like debating other Christians (it kinda sends the wrong message out to non-believers). But I thought I'd give this a shot.

Nothing wrong with debating/arguing with people who agree with you. It can give you more interpretations and helps you understand your position better.
Avatar image for MeanQuestion
MeanQuestion

4456

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#61 MeanQuestion
Member since 2004 • 4456 Posts
[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.Revinh

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.

Over generations evolutionarily favorable mutations collect in DNA-- that's how things become more complex; sunlight's not directly responsible for that, but its input into the system is required to keep things moving biologically. Sort of like how food is indirectly responsible for you posting on this forum: without food you'd die, and therefore couldn't post on this forum, but it isn't directly responsible for you posting either.

The mechanisms of evolution are responsible for the increase of biological complexity, but they rely on some sort of energy input somewhere along the line, thus making entropy a non-issue.

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
Revinh? Are you there? I would like a responce.:(
Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"]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._Tobli_

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

You don't even understand what I wrote and it seems you're obviously just biased against me. And I doubt you yourself know how evolution work (or how it's supposed to work).

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][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?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.

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

Disagreeing with facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts

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

Yes. "Tried and tested"? Not really. If you read some of my posts and research the evidences against it, it's seriously flawed. It's just taking too much time to be thrown in the garbage because many people cling to it, wants it to be true, unaware of the theory's problems, or simply don't like the alternative.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][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..

And everyone else who opposes your point of view with evidence that you refuse to refute? Now you've got Dracargen on your ass as well *prepares to be crushed by sensibility*

What have I refused to refute?

Am I supposed to be scared of Dracargen? Do I look like I care if there's 20 of you replying against me?

Avatar image for Elraptor
Elraptor

30966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#67 Elraptor
Member since 2004 • 30966 Posts

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
I honestly would pick the latter, though I suspect you're leaning towards the former? Not sure why, despite the fact that you framed the questions.
Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Revinh"][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.Dracargen

dirt isn't alive

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

Specifically, man was formed from dust (and yes, our bodies are made up of elements from the ground). God gave him the breath of life. (He is the source of life.)

Okay. So you admit that mankind started as a lower form of life (or non-life, whichever)? Now, did God do this Breathe of Life instantly, or did it take Him time?

Yes. The body came from dust/non-life. Life came from God. I would think it's instantly, why would it take so much time for God to do that. Regardless, I don't know why that matters.

Avatar image for KG86
KG86

6021

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 KG86
Member since 2007 • 6021 Posts
[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="Revinh"][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.

Disagreeing with facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.

Quoting the bible isn't giving facts, the bible is just a collection of stories

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

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?Revinh

Yes. "Tried and tested"? Not really. If you read some of my posts and research the evidences against it, it's seriously flawed. It's just taking too much time to be thrown in the garbage because many people cling to it, wants it to be true, unaware of the theory's problems, or simply don't like the alternative.

I've seen the evidences against it. . .last year I was a Young Earth Creationist.;) Most of the evidence is either fabricated or stems from an incorrect misunderstanding of the theory. And you never really answered my original post. And even if evolution is as flawed as you would say, what about an old earth? You still need to deal with that, and that one as even more evidence than evolution, if you ask me.

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts

Yes. The body came from dust/non-life. Life came from God. I would think it's instantly, why would it take so much time for God to do that. Regardless, I don't know why that matters.

Revinh

Trust me, I have a point for this.

So God did it instantly? Not even a second passed between the time when Adam was dust and the time he was human?

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts

Quoting the bible isn't giving facts, the bible is just a collection of stories

KG86

Not to turn this into a religion vs. atheism thread, but the Bible has been proven time and again to be historiically accurate.

Avatar image for _Tobli_
_Tobli_

5733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 _Tobli_
Member since 2007 • 5733 Posts

You don't even understand what I wrote and it seems you're obviously just biased against me. And I doubt you yourself know how evolution work (or how it's supposed to work).Revinh

You have an idea about how the world works, and twist facts to reflect that.

Yes. "Tried and tested"? Not really. If you read some of my posts and research the evidences against it, it's seriously flawed. It's just taking too much time to be thrown in the garbage because many people cling to it, wants it to be true, unaware of the theory's problems, or simply don't like the alternative Revinh

I could say the same thing about your theory. The theory of evoltuion does have flaws, but that means that it needs improvement. Not that your theory is correct.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#74 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][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.Revinh

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..

And everyone else who opposes your point of view with evidence that you refuse to refute? Now you've got Dracargen on your ass as well *prepares to be crushed by sensibility*

What have I refused to refute?

Am I supposed to be scared of Dracargen? Do I look like I care if there's 20 of you replying against me?

It's these kind of comments that I'm referring to- "I could care less about investigating your crappy skulls" and "I don't really care about a few skulls with "middle ground" between"

But to be fair you have since attempted to refute this evidence so disregard my criticism. Should you be scared of dracargen? No. He's a very nice guy but his debating skills are top notch so good luck dealing with him.

On a different note I think you are actually doing a pretty good job arguing against 20 people. Wrong as you may be at least you are defending what you think is right with gusto. I can respect that.

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
Are you drunk?xaos
You should see him drunk.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][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..

And everyone else who opposes your point of view with evidence that you refuse to refute? Now you've got Dracargen on your ass as well *prepares to be crushed by sensibility*

What have I refused to refute?

Am I supposed to be scared of Dracargen? Do I look like I care if there's 20 of you replying against me?

It's these kind of comments that I'm referring to- "I could care less about investigating your crappy skulls" and "I don't really care about a few skulls with "middle ground" between"

But to be fair you have since attempted to refute this evidence so disregard my criticism. Should you be scared of dracargen? No. He's a very nice guy but his debating skills are top notch so good luck dealing with him.

On a different note I think you are actually doing a pretty good job arguing against 20 people. Wrong as you may be at least you are defending what you think is right with gusto. I can respect that.

Hear, hear!

Avatar image for Putzwapputzen
Putzwapputzen

4462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#77 Putzwapputzen
Member since 2005 • 4462 Posts
complex is > than simple. i agree. :)
Avatar image for Red-XIII
Red-XIII

2739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Red-XIII
Member since 2003 • 2739 Posts

- The fact that fruit flies refused to evolve into something else.
Fruit flies aren't 'refusing' to evolve. There is simply no need for them to evolve. You're still under the frame of mind the evolution is spontaneous and constant. The fruit flies will only evolve if you subject them to an altered environment where they're forced to adapt. Only then will you see them evolve to suit the changes, and even then it could hundreds or thousand of years to see any significant change.


- "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! ...Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." -Science Digest
Inside a coffin with room to spare? As someone else said, go to a Museum and see. There's millions of fossils of apes over millions of years showing the differences in species. Humans only appear to have sprung out of nowhere because we are yet to find the 'missing link'. Even then, at what point in time did humans actually become human? It's a slow transition and there's no point in time you can pinpoint when a 'human' appeared. And as I've said to you before, fossils don't always form. The process for fossilization is complex and requires the right conditions, so there is obviously not going to be a fossil for every living thing that existed.
Also, chimpanzees use tools. They use sticks to pry holes with. That's an example of using tools. Seagulls will drop shells on rocks to get to the creatures inside. That's using rocks as a tool. Dolphins have big brains and are extremely intelligent. They simply do not operate the way we do.


- The fact that the so-called natural selection only explains how they survived. It only weeds out the unfit and the fit (and their offsprings) are still the same creatures.
Again you're refusing to acknowledge my example in previous threads. Through natural selection, the beneficial mutations remain and thus become the norm for a species. Over time, these beneficial mutations change the species in to something new. Explaining how they survived is explaining how the genetic mutations survived which caused the evolution of the species. Come on, use some common sense here.


- The fact that mutations don't ever create anything new. They're lethal/harmful; causes loss/corruption of information.
Mutations aren't always bad. They can be advantageous. I can use myself as an example. I'm the tallest in my family, I have broader shoulders and bigger feet than anyone else in my family. As such I'm a really good swimmer. This could be considered a 'mutation', because I've deviated from the norm of my family. If I have children, there is a chance the will all be good swimmers. If the world floods tomorrow, we'd have a better chance of surviving and my genetic traits would spread through following generations. You're thinking of mutation in the pejorative meaning, when the term is much broader than that.


- The fact that there's a huge gulf between people and animals.
How is there? Because we use tools and have language and culture? That's not really uncommon. Other apes have been shown to use basic tools, have their own social structures. All animals have their own means of communicating. You make a baseless argument here. Humans are animals too. We live here on Earth, we're part of the foodchain. We're nothing special. To think that we're 'above' other animals is arrogant, in my opinion.

All these 'facts' against evolution are just baseless speculation and proves that you still don't even understand the simplest concepts of evolution. Please, go learn the details of evolution before making these nonsensical arguments.

Avatar image for aaaaarrrrggggg
aaaaarrrrggggg

13979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 aaaaarrrrggggg
Member since 2005 • 13979 Posts
I thought it was all just adaption. Simple organisms eventually needed to grow and adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Our bodies naturally react to change and eventually build themselves to overcome it, like growing an immunity against pepper spray if you're repeatedly sprayed. I mean, simple organisms swawn from complex ones, but complex organisms are in a constant state of change as well.
Avatar image for moptopskate
moptopskate

2362

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 moptopskate
Member since 2004 • 2362 Posts
show him the pear please.
Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

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

Yes. "Tried and tested"? Not really. If you read some of my posts and research the evidences against it, it's seriously flawed. It's just taking too much time to be thrown in the garbage because many people cling to it, wants it to be true, unaware of the theory's problems, or simply don't like the alternative.

I've seen the evidences against it. . .last year I was a Young Earth Creationist.;) Most of the evidence is either fabricated or stems from an incorrect misunderstanding of the theory. And you never really answered my original post. And even if evolution is as flawed as you would say, what about an old earth? You still need to deal with that, and that one as even more evidence than evolution, if you ask me.

What was your original post? I already told you that it's not really "life came from non-life," the body came from non-life. Life came from God.

What about "old earth"? Does this answer the question?

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="Revinh"][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?KG86

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.

Disagreeing with facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.

Quoting the bible isn't giving facts, the bible is just a collection of stories

Did you click evidence? You obviously wasn't following..

Avatar image for xboxdudeman800
xboxdudeman800

3880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#84 xboxdudeman800
Member since 2005 • 3880 Posts

I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cells

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Yes. The body came from dust/non-life. Life came from God. I would think it's instantly, why would it take so much time for God to do that. Regardless, I don't know why that matters.Dracargen

Trust me, I have a point for this.

So God did it instantly? Not even a second passed between the time when Adam was dust and the time he was human?

"God formed man out of dust from the ground." I assume that took some time, I don't know how long or how quick. Then he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts

- The fact that fruit flies refused to evolve into something else.
Fruit flies aren't 'refusing' to evolve. There is simply no need for them to evolve. You're still under the frame of mind the evolution is spontaneous and constant. The fruit flies will only evolve if you subject them to an altered environment where they're forced to adapt. Only then will you see them evolve to suit the changes, and even then it could hundreds or thousand of years to see any significant change.


- "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! ...Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." -Science Digest
Inside a coffin with room to spare? As someone else said, go to a Museum and see. There's millions of fossils of apes over millions of years showing the differences in species. Humans only appear to have sprung out of nowhere because we are yet to find the 'missing link'. Even then, at what point in time did humans actually become human? It's a slow transition and there's no point in time you can pinpoint when a 'human' appeared. And as I've said to you before, fossils don't always form. The process for fossilization is complex and requires the right conditions, so there is obviously not going to be a fossil for every living thing that existed.
Also, chimpanzees use tools. They use sticks to pry holes with. That's an example of using tools. Seagulls will drop shells on rocks to get to the creatures inside. That's using rocks as a tool. Dolphins have big brains and are extremely intelligent. They simply do not operate the way we do.


- The fact that the so-called natural selection only explains how they survived. It only weeds out the unfit and the fit (and their offsprings) are still the same creatures.
Again you're refusing to acknowledge my example in previous threads. Through natural selection, the beneficial mutations remain and thus become the norm for a species. Over time, these beneficial mutations change the species in to something new. Explaining how they survived is explaining how the genetic mutations survived which caused the evolution of the species. Come on, use some common sense here.


- The fact that mutations don't ever create anything new. They're lethal/harmful; causes loss/corruption of information.
Mutations aren't always bad. They can be advantageous. I can use myself as an example. I'm the tallest in my family, I have broader shoulders and bigger feet than anyone else in my family. As such I'm a really good swimmer. This could be considered a 'mutation', because I've deviated from the norm of my family. If I have children, there is a chance the will all be good swimmers. If the world floods tomorrow, we'd have a better chance of surviving and my genetic traits would spread through following generations. You're thinking of mutation in the pejorative meaning, when the term is much broader than that.


- The fact that there's a huge gulf between people and animals.
How is there? Because we use tools and have language and culture? That's not really uncommon. Other apes have been shown to use basic tools, have their own social structures. All animals have their own means of communicating. You make a baseless argument here. Humans are animals too. We live here on Earth, we're part of the foodchain. We're nothing special. To think that we're 'above' other animals is arrogant, in my opinion.

All these 'facts' against evolution are just baseless speculation and proves that you still don't even understand the simplest concepts of evolution. Please, go learn the details of evolution before making these nonsensical arguments.Red-XIII

For the most part you aren't even on the right page as me especially on mutations. And I don't really feel like arguing with you. I'll try to expound on my points and put everything together in the future.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsxboxdudeman800

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"][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.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.

Over generations evolutionarily favorable mutations collect in DNA-- that's how things become more complex; sunlight's not directly responsible for that, but its input into the system is required to keep things moving biologically. Sort of like how food is indirectly responsible for you posting on this forum: without food you'd die, and therefore couldn't post on this forum, but it isn't directly responsible for you posting either.

The mechanisms of evolution are responsible for the increase of biological complexity, but they rely on some sort of energy input somewhere along the line, thus making entropy a non-issue.

Again, and the flow of things is something complex breaking down and becoming simpler. Favorable mutations are extremely rare and it's more likely that what's considered "favorable" is actually a form of defect, in which case, damaged genes isn't really an increase in complexity.

Avatar image for A3trix
A3trix

434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#89 A3trix
Member since 2007 • 434 Posts
This is all so confusing... i guess the first one!
Avatar image for Red-XIII
Red-XIII

2739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 Red-XIII
Member since 2003 • 2739 Posts

For the most part you aren't even on the right page as me especially on mutations. And I don't really feel like arguing with you. I'll try to expound on my points and put everything together in the future.Revinh

That's right, we aren't on the right page because your ideas about evolution make no sense. I'm not arguing, I'm trying to have a discussion. Every time I try and correct you on your view of what Evolution is, you avoid it.

It would be helpful if you did try and put it all together and not ignore the explanations I'm giving you about what the Theory of Evolution states. Your 'evidence' against Evolution has got the ideas of evolution wrong. It seems to be a continuing trend in all your arguments where you repeat the same misconceptions.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts

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. RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][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..

The diseases are an addition, so the complexity increases. Human life expectancy has increased in the last 200 years, reversing your degradation trend.

:? You make funny examples of complexity. It's like you'd throw whatever example without even thinking about it. An increase in complexity simply because there's an addition? I find you irrational. I wouldn't say defects makes something more complex. I would say the weakening and breaking down of the body is decrease in complexity and obviously degeneration.

Maybe human expectancy has increased in the last 200 years, but I'd want to see the stats for the last thousand, though I don't think it's on record, because if the trend is increasing lifespan...how old was the average 200 yrs ago? 50 years old? Then what about a 1000 years ago? 20?! Doesn't make sense.

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"]For the most part you aren't even on the right page as me especially on mutations. And I don't really feel like arguing with you. I'll try to expound on my points and put everything together in the future.Red-XIII

That's right, we aren't on the right page because your ideas about evolution make no sense. I'm not arguing, I'm trying to have a discussion. Every time I try and correct you on your view of what Evolution is, you avoid it.

It would be helpful if you did try and put it all together and not ignore the explanations I'm giving you about what the Theory of Evolution states. Your 'evidence' against Evolution has got the ideas of evolution wrong. It seems to be a continuing trend in all your arguments where you repeat the same misconceptions.

I'm not avoiding your posts. The humans/apes 2 thread was locked. I've been arguing to too many people it's hard to keep track of 'em. I already explained in your antelopes, unfortunately, you fail to understand. Yeah, you're tall, So what, that's not evolution, but a variation of an already existing trait (height). You and your offsprings will stlll be humans. It's not like your hair has turned into feathers or something.

"fruit flies didn't evolve because their environment didn't require them to" I've heard this before, and it's speculation, you have no evidence that they will "evolve." The the decades of research and billions of mutations on fruit flies showed that mutation as a basis for evolution is unable to give new features on them. They have always been and will always be fruit flies.

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts
[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Yes. The body came from dust/non-life. Life came from God. I would think it's instantly, why would it take so much time for God to do that. Regardless, I don't know why that matters.Revinh

Trust me, I have a point for this.

So God did it instantly? Not even a second passed between the time when Adam was dust and the time he was human?

"God formed man out of dust from the ground." I assume that took some time, I don't know how long or how quick. Then he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

So. Thus far, you have attested to believing in progressive creation (it took God time to turn Adam from dust to man), and life coming from non-life (Adam came from dust).

We believe the exact same thing. We just believe it in a different way. You believe it took God seconds to create man; I believe it took years. You believe man came from dust; I believe man came from an unknown ancestor.

We both believe in progressive creation and in life coming from non-life. So why do the details matter so much?

Avatar image for Dracargen
Dracargen

7928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Dracargen
Member since 2007 • 7928 Posts

What was your original post? I already told you that it's not really "life came from non-life," the body came from non-life. Life came from God.

What about "old earth"? Does this answer the question?

Revinh

My original post was the long one.

God gave a lifeless form (dust) life, did He not? That is life coming from non-life, even if the life was borrowed from God.

Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
-TheSecondSign-

9303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#95 -TheSecondSign-
Member since 2007 • 9303 Posts
Um, whachoo talking bout Willis?Judza
I agree with this post.
Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"] I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsRevinh

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

How could that be?
Avatar image for Mr_sprinkles
Mr_sprinkles

6461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 Mr_sprinkles
Member since 2005 • 6461 Posts
[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"] I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsRevinh

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

zygote

zygote

brain cell

brain cell

which looks more complex to you?

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"] I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsCptJSparrow

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

How could that be?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"] I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsMr_sprinkles

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

zygote

zygote

brain cell

brain cell

which looks more complex to you?

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

Avatar image for Revinh
Revinh

1957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 Revinh
Member since 2005 • 1957 Posts
[QUOTE="Revinh"]

What was your original post? I already told you that it's not really "life came from non-life," the body came from non-life. Life came from God.

What about "old earth"? Does this answer the question?Dracargen

My original post was the long one.

God gave a lifeless form (dust) life, did He not? That is life coming from non-life, even if the life was borrowed from God

Right.No!

You just said God gave a lifeless form life. That's life coming pre-existing life! (God)

Avatar image for nintendorocks
nintendorocks

5996

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#100 nintendorocks
Member since 2004 • 5996 Posts
Uhhh...yes?