Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 6:05 AM
30 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 111 (565057)
06-14-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Theodoric
06-14-2010 9:25 AM



There is no such scientific law. If you want to present evidence of such a thing please go ahead. Also, what does the 2nd law of thermo have to do with this discussion.

Alright, so I accidentally called it the law of 'abiogenesis' instead of 'biogenesis'. It obviously exists though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 06-14-2010 9:25 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Theodoric, posted 06-14-2010 4:42 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 111 (565075)
06-14-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 2:13 PM


There is actually no recognized scientific law of biogenesis either.

quote:
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Source

When you google "law of biogenesis" you will find hundreds of fundie and creationist sites and very few science sites. The "law of biogenesis" is a creo/fundie canard and nothing more.

Oh and I am still waiting for a response on what the hell the 2nd law of thermo has to do with anything.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:13 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 33 of 111 (565686)
06-19-2010 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Larni
06-06-2010 3:27 PM


Re: Here goes nothing...
So, you have not substantiated your point that there are conflicting theories of evolution.

Some scientists believe that lightning caused the first life forms, others believe in the hot puddle, and some believe that oceanic vents caused it.

In the vast "evidences" of evolution, if you honestly believe that every scientific group maintains a single belief, then you are more blind than my grandmother.

Google it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Larni, posted 06-06-2010 3:27 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Huntard, posted 06-19-2010 9:30 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 06-20-2010 5:53 AM dennis780 has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 34 of 111 (565692)
06-19-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by dennis780
06-19-2010 7:58 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:

Some scientists believe that lightning caused the first life forms, others believe in the hot puddle, and some believe that oceanic vents caused it.

In the vast "evidences" of evolution, if you honestly believe that every scientific group maintains a single belief, then you are more blind than my grandmother


Since none of those things have the slightest thing to do with evolution, you still failed to provide what was asked of you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dennis780, posted 06-19-2010 7:58 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 111 (565751)
06-20-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by dennis780
06-19-2010 7:58 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
I'm looking at your post about lightning causing life and that hot vents cause life and I see nothing about evolution: how courious when you suggest there are conflicting views about evolution that you put forwards arguments for theories of abiogenesis.

I'm at a loss as to why you should bring up abiogenesis when the point you are trying to substantiat is about evolution.

You do know that abiogenesis is not evolution, don't you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dennis780, posted 06-19-2010 7:58 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 7:44 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 36 of 111 (565752)
06-20-2010 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 3:25 AM


Please provide evidence of another plane of existance for your non physical being to exist in.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 3:25 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 37 of 111 (565802)
06-21-2010 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Larni
06-20-2010 5:53 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
"You do know that abiogenesis is not evolution, don't you?"

But is a requirement for the latter. But I'll bite anyway. Scientists for years thought it took millions of years for fossil formation. Scientists have found shells of lobsters that are still alive. This creates the enormous question, does it really take millions of years? If not for lobsters, then perhaps other animals as well.

Sloth fossils found in the ocean (Atlantic and Pacific I'm pretty sure) is another good one.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which it states that everything tends to chaos, not order. Scientists do not deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which is wrong, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or evolution? They cannot both be right.

I'm not sure what else you want me to write. The sun rotates too slowly, Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (there is a thread for this as well).

All scientists believe these laws, and these laws violate evolutionary thinking. Either the laws are wrong, or evolution is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 06-20-2010 5:53 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 06-21-2010 7:59 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 40 by Larni, posted 06-21-2010 8:22 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 06-21-2010 9:41 PM dennis780 has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 38 of 111 (565804)
06-21-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dennis780
06-21-2010 7:44 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:

But is a requirement for the latter. But I'll bite anyway. Scientists for years thought it took millions of years for fossil formation. Scientists have found shells of lobsters that are still alive. This creates the enormous question, does it really take millions of years? If not for lobsters, then perhaps other animals as well.


No it isn't. Unless you want to call your god poofing it out of nothing abiogenesis too. I suspect you are referring to a strictly natural explanation though. By the way, got a source for these "shells of lobsters that are still alive"? And why does this mean fossilisation doesn't take a long time? And what does the speed it takes a fossil to form have to do with evolution?

Sloth fossils found in the ocean (Atlantic and Pacific I'm pretty sure) is another good one.

Really? Why?

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which it states that everything tends to chaos, not order. Scientists do not deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And yet those same scientists also don't deny evolution. What a weird thing for them to do, unless, of course, you are wrong. Which you are.

Which is wrong, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or evolution? They cannot both be right.

Yes they can, and are. You just don't understand the second law, as is evident. For one, it only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.

I'm not sure what else you want me to write. The sun rotates too slowly,

No it doesn't. What does this have to do with evolution anyway.

Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (there is a thread for this as well).

Also has nothing to do with evlution. And you were wrong in that thread as well, painfully wrong, in fact.

All scientists believe these laws, and these laws violate evolutionary thinking.

And yet these same scientists accept evolution. Weird huh?

Either the laws are wrong, or evolution is.

They are both right. You on the other hand, are wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 7:44 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:21 AM Huntard has responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 39 of 111 (565812)
06-21-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Huntard
06-21-2010 7:59 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
"And yet these same scientists accept evolution. Weird huh?"

I know right? It's like flipping a coin, and getting heads AND tails. Everyone wins.

Show me an evidence for any organism adding new information to it's genetic sequence. Or better yet, show me any place on earth where fossils are found according to their evolutionary order (invertibrates-fish-vertibrates-reptiles-mammals). Because I can't find any.

This is the wrong thread for this I'm thinkin. I attempted an explaination at the title. We should move to...actually we're pretty random. I dunno.

Im outty, just leaving work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 06-21-2010 7:59 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Huntard, posted 06-21-2010 8:36 AM dennis780 has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 40 of 111 (565813)
06-21-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dennis780
06-21-2010 7:44 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
I assume you mean that one is a requirement on the other:

This is of course false. If a god created everything then evolution could still function.

You are still yet to provide evidence for your assertion of competing theories of evolution. As far as I'm aware there is the thery of evolution and, well that about sums it up as far as science is concerned.

So, two points for you to catch up with the rest of us on, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 7:44 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:59 PM Larni has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 41 of 111 (565816)
06-21-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by dennis780
06-21-2010 8:21 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:

I know right? It's like flipping a coin, and getting heads AND tails. Everyone wins.


I already told you, they're not conflicting.

Show me an evidence for any organism adding new information to it's genetic sequence.

Nylon bacteria.

Or better yet, show me any place on earth where fossils are found according to their evolutionary order (invertibrates-fish-vertibrates-reptiles-mammals). Because I can't find any.

Seeing as apparently you didn;t put too much effort in understanding even the second law of thermodynamics (not knowing it only apllies to a closed system for instance) I fail to see why is should go to great lengths to do your homework for you. Also, why would this be a problem for evolution?

This is the wrong thread for this I'm thinkin. I attempted an explaination at the title. We should move to...actually we're pretty random. I dunno.

You coulkd start by providing what was asked of you (evidence for conflicting theories in evolution).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:21 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 9:32 PM Huntard has responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 42 of 111 (565885)
06-21-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Larni
06-21-2010 8:22 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
"This is of course false. If a god created everything then evolution could still function."

Evolution does function. Genetic mutation is an observed scientific fact. I'm not debating this. Macro evolution is where my issue lies, because it requires an un-observed fact to be true, that an organism can add new information, and make itself more complex, given enough time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Larni, posted 06-21-2010 8:22 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Larni, posted 06-22-2010 3:37 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2852 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 43 of 111 (565888)
06-21-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Huntard
06-21-2010 8:36 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
"Nylon bacteria."

I read about this years ago. The change that occured in the Nylonese is not a reflection of any genetic change. The digestive systems in the bacteria were able to digest waste from the plant, and is a huge example of information present in a smaller group that were already able to accomplish this, the same is true with pesticides. Insects do not grow immunities to substances. The groups of insects that are not effected by the substance simply do not die, and grow in numbers. If you want, I can find the article for you. I read it a few years ago. In the case of Nylonese, no evidence showing any new information was present. As well, since this is not considered a natural change, it would be irrelevant, since waste from the plant effected the natural ecosystem.

"Also, why would this be a problem for evolution?"

Good question. Since evolution requires time, in many cases millions of years, we should expect to find gradual changes in fossils based on the dating of the strata. Like a geological book, each layer, if dated correctly, should read according to the story told for that time period. I think it's a perfectly valid point.

"You coulkd start by providing what was asked of you (evidence for conflicting theories in evolution)."

Sure. Since oxygen could not be present in the atomsphere during early life, the ozone layer (O3) would not be protecting the earths surface from harmful radiation.

Some evolutionists believe birds came from dinosaurs (a whole new ball of wax), while others do not.

"Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics. (2)"
http://www.harunyahya.com/...70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php

"Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it. (4)"
http://www.harunyahya.com/...70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php

TIME. Found that first google search. Once again, if you honestly believe that of the vast material included in the theory of evolution, that every evolutionist is in complete agreement with the interpretation of data (or lack thereof), then you are blind.

As I said before, google it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Huntard, posted 06-21-2010 8:36 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2010 10:03 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Huntard, posted 06-22-2010 4:12 AM dennis780 has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 44 of 111 (565889)
06-21-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by dennis780
06-21-2010 7:44 AM


2nd law again. Do creos never learn anything?
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which it states that everything tends to chaos, not order. Scientists do not deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Why don't you tell us what the 2nd law of thermodynamics states. After we are done laughing we will tell you what it really says and tell you how wrong you are.

I'll give you a little hint. You might want to read about it on some science sites before you answer. If you just repeat what the creofundy sites say you will be wrong, very wrong.

This is what is called a PRATT.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 7:44 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 1:46 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 111 (565890)
06-21-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by dennis780
06-21-2010 9:32 PM


Re: Here goes nothing...
To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it. (4)"
http://www.harunyahya.com/...70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php

I find it amusing that you are attempting to refute scientific evidence with a rabid anti-science muslim site.

If anything, that particular author is even more rabidly anti-science than American fundies. Google "harun yahya" for more information.

And this is what you choose for evidence?

You really should be embarrassed!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 9:32 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by IchiBan, posted 06-22-2010 9:59 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019