|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Why should I be embarrassed? I simply wanted to know why the person made that statement. You first made a statement about the inaccuracy of methods. You then show that you know nothing about them. That would be embarrassing to most people. You have made it clear yourself that you know nothing about the methods. Do it yourself? Of course, no one person can go to all the primary sources of all the information. If you think that is required to be able to hold any valid opinions then you are being ridiculous. However, I have been to several digs including assisting in an amatuer way with the digging. I have measured radioactive decay as part of lab work to a degree in physics. That isn't what is required though. What is required is some degree of understanding of what the evidence and reasoning behind any conclusions are. Only if you are concerned about some of the facts presented being false would you want to see the raw evidence.
I'm simply stating solid knowledge and asking questions that need to be asked. What "solid knowlege" are you referring to? The following statment indicates that you have little.
If you use 30 different dating methods and they all yield different results, that's more than enough to convince me that there's something wrong. The thing is that the different dating methods do yield consistent results. Do not bring up dating here, go to:
Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 yearsAge Correlations and an Old Earth Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thanks.
You might be right about this particular individual but the topic could be a good one. Unfortunately I think it would work best as a back and forth so you can't do it without someone working along with you. If you start I'll stay in admin mode and be very firm about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
1. What from the beginning? that would take a long time, and quite simply i doubt anyone knows the entire evolutionary lineage of everything including every single mutation. Basically DNA replicates, as it replicates errors occur. These errors allow for new proteins to be produced, these proteins effect different things in different ways. You'd need to read a lot of literature to get the full whack of evolution and i dont think im obliged to supply you with the lot of it, talkorigins is always a good start though.
2. As i replied to Nosyned this was badly put. Very badly in fact. Sorry about that. Basically your dna is more closely related to your close relatives, then cousins etc, then broader family, then probably ethnic origin, then humanity, then primates etc etc. It all sorta works back from there until you get a few extremely well conserved stretches of DNA that are found in almost everyting, these are generally to do with DNA replication, if the replicator machinery doesnt work you dont grow, no matter what you are. 3. Basically your working back from what we have today, in which case it will work back to some sort of primordial prokaryotic (i would imagine) cell, and then to some sort of replicating molecules. Like you said, everything came from something (until you get to the first which is abiogensis, not relevant to topic, but that first doesnt have to be at all advanced) 4. An overall increase in entropy in a closed system, we can choose for that system to be the universe if you wish. However just because theres a little bit of supposed order here doesnt mean overall there's a decrease in entropy. Unfortunatly im not a physicist and cannot take you through the specifics. However The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and
Probability seems to cover it nicely. I know you can offer me a return website with aig or similar, but quite simply unless your upto doing the maths yourself i doubt this will satisfy you, but at least look over it. 5. We can measure radioactive decay (i believe most dating methods use this in some form) by getting a reading for how fast something decays and using knowledge of how much of such a substance would be present, we can then determine the age of an object. If a fossil was found that after repeated testing always dated to 6 billion, well then some thinking would have to be done i suspect. 6. Like i said, take it up with someone who believes, as far as i can tell its all based on whether you take Genesis to be literal or not. 7. You misunderstood, these insects did not come from Wolbachia, they have Wolbachia living inside their cells. It is a symbiosis, possibly mutualism, possibly parasitism its hard to tell. However deciding on how this could have evolved (the wolbachia would have entered a species of insect as some point after they were fully developed), as with many of the parasites etc is an interesting line of study, as it requires much more in depth thought than just hey the plants produce oxygen, and that just happens to be what we breath. I have no desire to cancel you out, i hardly know you. My only real desire on any of these boards is to increase my own knowledge, be it through debate or just reading the posts. Personally i have seen you made claims about the second law of dynamics and not back it up even with a reference to back up your position, there are several websites out there that agree with you, and put up the numbers to proove it, perhaps referencing one of these would be sufficient. I'm actually an adult, so kid seems a little derogoratory, but thanks for the good wishes, you too. Unseul Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.... Do unto others before they do unto you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
Okay. The end. I have the same goal as you. I just need to make sure I'm on the right side of things.
P.S. "Kid" is more or less an affectionate term for a friend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
Thats cool, no probs with the kid thing then.
Being on the right side of things is jsut about everything these forums are about, people trying to confirm there positions through debate with likeminded and unlikeminded people. Can i recommend Richard Dawkins books (selfish gene and blind watchmaker are the ones i've covered will get round to the rest at some point), they really are superb and although didnt really confirm anything for me (i was already happy with evolution), certainly made things a lot easier to comprehend and work out. Unseul edit to just make sure it read corectly This message has been edited by Unseul, 06-01-2004 03:42 PM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.... Do unto others before they do unto you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
I don't know everything about evolution. No one does. Neither does anyone know anything about creation. So far, no one has given evidence against creation, except that there is (supposedly) no evidence of a worldwide Flood. Science means "knowledge," therefore, I can not rely on a theory to give me sufficient answers. The only reason I bring up spiritual matters so much is because I know there is something greater out there than common man. No desire exists unless there is a satisfaction for it. Holla
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
OK, the flood can be disputed using geological studies etc. The reason you will find very few people prooving against creation is because of its very nature. God did it, this means that no matter what is found god could still have done it that way, because he's god. It means its not truly falsifiable, and hence doesnt meet the requirements of science (doesnt mean its wrong, but means its not science). Almost everything we call science is theories, relativity, gravity etc, we can observe things definitly happening, such as apples falling, but to give a reason for it, that is the theory, we accept that we could be wrong (i believe it was said in another topic recently the only reason the laws are laws is because we were more arrogant back then). The whole point is that they can be adapted to fit the evidence (note this isnt the same as creation which is all encompassing, evolution theory gives foward one view, it can be proven wrong in which case a new theory would be needed).
I enjoy the spiritual discussion a lot, faith and belief forum is good for that, plenty of logical arguing etc . I can gain satisfaction out of many things, not all of them are true (i mean i gain satisfaction that i am extremely good looking and irresistible to women, theres a chance it could be false tho ). Personally i do not believe there is any purpose, just chance. Unseul Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.... Do unto others before they do unto you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
Why don't you believe that there is purpose?
1 Love
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Edited by Lam - off topic
This message has been edited by Lam, 06-01-2004 08:43 PM The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The "purpose" issue isn't connect to "Proof against Evolution" in any way I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Charles Munroe Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 40 From: Simi Valley, CA USA Joined: |
I am curious as to why religious folk have a need for Creationism. What does belief in Creationism contribute to their religion? I should think that a truely religious person of the Christian faith would accept Jesus word that "all have sinned" and get on with their faith. I further curious as to why any would give any attention to Creationism when Jesus himself, the central authority of the Christian faith, says nothing about creation. If Jesus thought it unimportant then why do some of his followers?
I also find it very curious that Creationists will readily accept a version of how life began that has its root in a far older religion predating Moses the supposed author. A story that makes claims that cannot be proven and yet when virtually all disiplines of science present mountains of evidence for Evolution it is brushed off. Recently I wrote to a number of Creationist institutions and asked the question "How much time have you devoted to the possibility that the controversy between Evolution and Creationism is due to faulty interpretation of the text of Genesis and that Genesis is describing evolution". The answer - they never even considered it. I am lead to believe that the problem is arrogance on the part of Creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I think you are badly off topic here.
However, you might have a very good opening post in a new topic. If you want to suggest that you might get some discussion on it. Where would it go? Faith and Belief? Misc. topics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fnord Inactive Member |
7) Why is it that many life forms complement one another to achieve their goal? For example, a plant processes carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, which expels oxygen into the air for humans and other species to use. Contrary to popular belief, humans and animals do not need plants and trees for their oxygen. The oxygen we breathe today was formed millions of years ago. While it is true that during the day plants produce oxygen and consume carbondioxide, the opposite happens at night: they produce CO2 and consume oxygen like we do. Furthermore, when a plant or tree dies, it (usually) rots away. The bacteria use oxygen in that process too. All in all, in its life a plant or tree consumes about as much oxygen as it produces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNewGuy03 Inactive Member |
I've done a little research.
I was looking at the current human population trend. As we know, the earth's population is rapidly approaching 7 billion. Only 50 years ago, the population was only 2 billion. Before this, the population rose at a fairly constant rate. If the trend was traced back to 4500 BC, then the population of the world would be nearly zero. If humans were around for even a million years, then the world would be truly overpopulated. Someone (legitimate) get back to me, on this. *edited for inadvertent spelling errors This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 06-02-2004 02:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TNG3,
I was looking at the current human population trend. As we know, the earth's population is rapidly approaching 7 billion. Only 50 years ago, the population was only 2 billion. Before this, the population rose at a fairly constant rate. If the trend was traced back to 4500 BC, then the population of the world would be nearly zero. If humans were around for even a million years, then the world would be truly overpopulated. Someone (legitimate) get back to me, on this. Nonsense. This assumes that all that are born survive & breed. A mere 200 years ago saw appalling infant mortality in all cultures. The population growth we are experiencing now is a VERY recent phenomenon. Making the same assumptions for any given species of bacteria would mean we would be a kilometer deep in them if the earth was only 4,500 years old & they all survived to breed without any recource limitations. Extrapolating backwards the earth began a few years ago using the same logic. In fact, if you will arrive at a different date for every species you look at. The truth is, that for long periods of time there was no net population growth, even population reduction, just like any other species you care to mention. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024