What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: borntowatch

Meh
Get over it, I have made a choice based on faith

*Gullibility

Ahh so that picture is the evidence I am looking for, really.

Thats the best you got, really

from where I stand, Gullibility is believing in a big bang and abiogenesis. Maybe we can share the plugs and mask

You say the same as me, its just that you say science has the answer or will find it

a reply to: borntowatch

The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to update its explanations as new evidence comes to light. Religion on the other hand just keeps saying the same thing over and over again evidence to the contrary be damned.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: libertytoall

At what destroying everything around us?.
You just proved how arrogant humanity can be cheers you proved my point.

Actually I prefer to live in the reality that can be verified and measured. Whatever reality you make up for yourself that includes any unproven pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters will have to be reserved for your own fictional reality until proven otherwise.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am a creationist so let me first apologise for my stupidity.

Apology accepted.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to update its explanations as new evidence comes to light. Religion on the other hand just keeps saying the same thing over and over again evidence to the contrary be damned.

Well by all means update me on the theory of the big bang and or abiogenesis
Might be time to remove the mask and earplugs, new evidence or none. Science fairys?
Hot potato and you and all the evolutionists want to avoid it like the plague

Funny how you all dance around all the theories out there and try to make this a biological evolution argument.
Its not

This thread was about why I dont accept evolution, in all its forms
The average atheist trys to derail it and concentrate on biological evolution, I understand that.

Maybe BECAUSE evolution *is* biological evolution?
Leave the BB and the many other, much better theories about the origin of the universe to the cosmologists or quantum/particle physicists.

BB has nothing to do with evolution.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Maybe BECAUSE evolution *is* biological evolution?
Leave the BB and the many other, much better theories about the origin of the universe to the cosmologists or quantum/particle physicists.

BB has nothing to do with evolution.

Sorry, as you may not have noticed, this thread was not just about biological evolution.
The thread was about the different forms and theories on all the different kinds of evolution

I am sorry if you cant understand that origins are evolutions

So NO, I wont leave it alone...deal with it


Is this evolutions dirty little secret and you want it hidden

originally posted by: borntowatch

Well by all means update me on the theory of the big bang and or abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is not a theory. If you were at all interested in cosmology you would probably already be aware of the ways that the popular notion of the big bang is becoming outdated.

People have tried answer these things in an honest way in this very thread. Whilst also pointing out the fact that life on this planet evolved (and continues to do so) doesn't rely on any of these things. Whether fairies made life or created the universe doesn't matter. If it relied on Abiogenesis or an understanding of exactly how our present universe began, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

The honest answer is that we don't really know how life began (though at least have enough for a hypothesis) or exactly what lead up the the big expansion. In contrast, you do claim knowledge (re the ridiculous site you reference). Why don't you show some intellectual integrity and start 'splaining that?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Maybe BECAUSE evolution *is* biological evolution?
Leave the BB and the many other, much better theories about the origin of the universe to the cosmologists or quantum/particle physicists.

BB has nothing to do with evolution.

Sorry, as you may not have noticed, this thread was not just about biological evolution.
The thread was about the different forms and theories on all the different kinds of evolution

I am sorry if you cant understand that origins are evolutions

So NO, I wont leave it alone...deal with it


Is this evolutions dirty little secret and you want it hidden

No, this thread has been about what YOU have classified as being evolution, sometimes wrongly. Stellar evolution is a classic example of this. It does not refer to the star evolving, it refers to the life cycle of the star.

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?

Milwaukee.

God could have easily created everything in 6 of His days.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?

Milwaukee.

God could have easily created everything in 6 of His days.

Unfortunately there is no proof that god even exists.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tsingtao
how convenient.

i'm talking about the 1/2 wing/leg type of thing.

You do realize that things like penguins, emus, ostriches, and other birds that have wings and can't fly exist on the planet correct?

is there anything that just needs a couple more generations to turn into something else?

Probably, though it would be tough to say, since the changes are gradual over time, it is hard to point to a specific time that a species stops being one species and becomes another. Right now because our fossil record is incomplete there looks like there are transitional points where a species stops being one species and becomes another. But if our fossil record was WAY more complete it would just look like a gradual development in changes. Kind of like how a person ages. There isn't a certain age where someone becomes an adult. It's not like the government says and once you are 18 you are an adult. In reality humans just sort of develop until you look at them and realize that they are an adult. Same thing for how evolution works, a species just changes over time until you step back and realize that it has become a different one.

yeah, gators and sharks kinda put a dent in evolution. how bout the nautilus? centipedes and dragon fly's?

they just seemed to get smaller.

So how about you explain to me how a species becoming smaller overall over millions of years isn't changes over time? That is clearly examples of evolution. Just because not every alligator in the world evolved into another species doesn't mean that they aren't being subjected to evolution. Their adaptations are still just the best ones they've evolved for their environmental niches. As you just pointed out, they are still changing over time.

1) yeah, they can't fly. penguin wings adapted to water, if they ever flew. the others stayed on the ground. either lost the use of wings or never were in the air. not really evolution, tho.

2) this is what i have a hard time swallowing. something must have the design already in the dna.
science can give names out to anything, a bird will always be a bird. no matter what it looks like.
it won't change into something else. a lizard won't grow wings. humans won't grow wings.
too bad we can't read dna or even have an unbroken line of dna from 500mil yrs ago.

3) you see, that is adapting, not evolution in the classical use.
obama evolved his thinking on gay marriage. which means he just changed his mind.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Maybe BECAUSE evolution *is* biological evolution?
Leave the BB and the many other, much better theories about the origin of the universe to the cosmologists or quantum/particle physicists.

BB has nothing to do with evolution.

yes, it's like a fire marshall only saying, the fire is hot and the house burned down.
well, where and how did it start? doesn't that matter?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Demoncreeper
So the OP does not believe in abiogenesis, therefore does not believe in evolution? I also read the op believes the "that something could not have come from nothing" theory.

But believes that God created everything from nothing, in 6 days instead?
Creating all life from nothing in one sitting?

Seems legit.

Where did God come from?

Milwaukee.

God could have easily created everything in 6 of His days.

Unfortunately there is no proof that god even exists.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

a reply to: borntowatch

Evolution and creationism are not the only theories that explain systemic change.

If you find something that disagrees, or seems to disprove, a 'Creationist' view, that does not automatically make you an 'Evolutionist'.

If you find something that disagrees, or seems to disprove, an 'Evolutionary' view, that does not automatically make you an 'Creationist'.

The world is full of possibilities, most of which remain to be theorized about and explored.

Both Evolution and Creationism have become belief systems to the extent that disagreement with one makes people respond that you must be the other. This polarizes debate and distracts from analysis of subtle loopholes and issues, and prevents the proposal of any alternate theories.

That is NOT science.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to update its explanations as new evidence comes to light. Religion on the other hand just keeps saying the same thing over and over again evidence to the contrary be damned.

Well by all means update me on the theory of the big bang and or abiogenesis
Might be time to remove the mask and earplugs, new evidence or none. Science fairys?
Hot potato and you and all the evolutionists want to avoid it like the plague

Well first off, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. So there being holes in that is acceptable. It isn't even close to being settled science.

Here is the hypothesis, feel free to read up on it: Abiogenesis

Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life can be divided into three main stages: the geophysical, the chemical and the biological.[16] Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. On the assumption that life originated spontaneously on Earth, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can be racemically synthesized in conditions which were intended to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[17][18]

As you can see, there are several different lines of thought on how abiogenesis occurred. Abiogenesis is actually an umbrella term for several different hypotheses that scientists are using to postulate how life began.

Here is some good info on the Big Bang: How the Big Bang Theory Works

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.

Another misconception is that the big bang was a kind of explosion. That's not accurate either. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe. While some versions of the theory refer to an incredibly rapid expansion (possibly faster than the speed of light), it's still not an explosion in the classic sense.

Summing up the big bang theory is a challenge. It involves concepts that contradict the way we perceive the world. The earliest stages of the big bang focus on a moment in which all the separate forces of the universe were part of a unified force. The laws of science begin to break down the further back you look. Eventually, you can't make any scientific theories about what is happening, because science itself doesn't apply.

The article goes on to explain in detail about the big bang now that these misconceptions are cleared up. Good luck. It is a long read, but I just KNOW you will read it all.

Funny how you all dance around all the theories out there and try to make this a biological evolution argument.
Its not

This thread was about why I dont accept evolution, in all its forms
The average atheist trys to derail it and concentrate on biological evolution, I understand that.

What you are doing is called a gish gallop and isn't conducive to traditional debate tactics. If you want to debate each of these topics, it behooves you to create individual topics on each DIFFERENT theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, you get the mess that is this thread. By lumping all of the theories/hypotheses together and declaring "debate me" you put all your opponents at a disadvantage. You are requiring us to be knowledgeable on and give you DETAILED information about each of these things as we post, but you posit this around how one being found to be untrue makes them all untrue. You might as well say, "Science is untrue, debate me on every theory. Otherwise they are all false." Pick a singular topic and stick to it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Both Evolution and Creationism have become belief systems to the extent that disagreement with one makes people respond that you must be the other. This polarizes debate and distracts from analysis of subtle loopholes and issues, and prevents the proposal of any alternate theories.

That is NOT science.

Wrong. There is no "debate" re evolution and creationism. The only people whoever bring creationism into the conversation are creationists. The science of evolution has been settled for over a hundred years. You're creating a false dichotomy: there is no dichotomy here, only in the minds of the ignorant and deluded.

originally posted by: tsingtao
1) yeah, they can't fly. penguin wings adapted to water, if they ever flew. the others stayed on the ground. either lost the use of wings or never were in the air. not really evolution, tho.

So what you are saying is that when I provide examples of a species with wings that aren't fully evolved to fly, you cop out and tell me that its ok because they are used for other things? THAT was the whole point. When an animal starts evolving wings, they ARE used for things other than flying. It isn't until millions MORE years of evolution do they finally obtain the ability to fly.

2) this is what i have a hard time swallowing. something must have the design already in the dna.
science can give names out to anything, a bird will always be a bird. no matter what it looks like.
it won't change into something else. a lizard won't grow wings. humans won't grow wings.
too bad we can't read dna or even have an unbroken line of dna from 500mil yrs ago.

Why couldn't a lizard grow wings? Why couldn't a human grow wings? If it was beneficial to survival, they totally could evolve that capability. Of course they wouldn't grow wings overnight, it would be over a considerably long time. I'm not sure why you are denying that this could happen. We have evidence of many different examples of wing evolution among MANY different types of animals (reptile, mammal, avian, aquatic, insect). You don't think that only birds have wings do you?

3) you see, that is adapting, not evolution in the classical use.
obama evolved his thinking on gay marriage. which means he just changed his mind.

What does this have to do with Obama changing his mind? Why can't you see that after a species has adapted enough times over enough generations, eventually it would look nothing like what it originally started out as? It would look like and we would call it a totally new species.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

What you are doing is called a gish gallop and isn't conducive to traditional debate tactics. If you want to debate each of these topics, it behooves you to create individual topics on each DIFFERENT theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, you get the mess that is this thread. By lumping all of the theories/hypotheses together and declaring "debate me" you put all your opponents at a disadvantage.

Again no,
This isnt a debate, its an explanation as to why I dont accept evolution in any of its forms (micro ev aside).
Simple
This so called mess is simply a chain of links that doesnt make sense to me, you say its not reasoned though I tried to explain my reasoning, if you dont get it, there is nothing I can say
Its an explanation as to why I dont accept evolution

originally posted by: borntowatch

Is this evolutions dirty little secret and you want it hidden

No, why would I ?

I could list you a whole bunch of better models from cosmology right off my head, I don't think that the BB applies, respective the idea of ONE, and only one Big Bang who brought about the universe.

It's you who implies that there MUST have been one, and only one Big Bang which brought about the universe "from nothing" and who is weaving this into evolution/creationism theory.

I myself would never form a philosophy or belief based on a rather sketchy idea like the Big Bang. NOT because it would be "against" evolution, simply because it doesn't satisfy me as a model AT ALL. The existence (or its lack, whatever) of a BB would also in no way whatsoever influence my spiritual beliefs/ideas. Let's say I believe in an afterlife or duality of soul/body..WHAT ON EARTH would have the BB to do with that?