Evolution a Religion

a reply to: OperationBlackRose


bzzzt Wrong The theory of evolution and the big bang theory are separate scientific theories which have no bearing on one another. ONE is a biological thing, the other is a physics thing. Further, the big bang theory has nothing to do with the formation of the planet earth, it is the how the Universe initially formed. Several billion years before stars, planets let alone lifeforms. Thus to try to link failings in one to the other, to prove the other is wrong, is rather foolish.

As for the proteogenic chemistry you are talking about. Again this has nothing to do with evolution. The first instance of life is not part of the theory of evolution. Now when we begin to get other forms of life (ie evolve) then we are talking evolution. But proteogenis is another scientific beast again.

Stick to the OP ... evolution.

EDIT: You also seem to be not using the most up to date theories either. Shame on you! Also cite your sources.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Let’s start off with the beginning, the Big Bang. This is fundamental for the theory of evolution, and I will in short explain why. The Big Bang is how the earth came into being. And it was in the “Primordial Soup”, that the first single celled life form evolved.

Let me stop you there because you have either been lied to or you have never learned the basics.

The big bang is a seperate theory from evolution.

The big bang theory
The theory of evolution

Those are two separate things.

Furthermore
Primordial soup and life forming is called Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is separate from evolution and a Hypothesis not a scientific theory. In laymans terms it could be a theory see my signature for more.

So right off the bat you are off topic and wrong it is no wonder you struggle with the topic.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OperationBlackRose



Let me stop you there because you have either been lied to or you have never learned the basics.

The big bang is a seperate theory from evolution.

The big bang theory
The theory of evolution

Those are two separate things.

Funny to see how no one understands that it is the same with a car. The engine and gearbox is two separate things, but they work together to enable you to turn on your car, and drive somewhere. The same with a computer. The computer box and the screen. They work together. Without the big bang, you have no formation of the universe. Without a universe, you have no earth. Without not earth, you have no 'first life form'. Without the first life form, evolution can not begin.

It is not two separate things, it is all part of a chain that has to be complete in order for evolution to begin. If science disproves everything leading up to what is needed for evolution to have take place, well, that obvious, evolution could not take place.

it is no wonder you struggle with the topic.

The reason I am having difficulty is that evolutionists are avoiding the facts. I see it wherever I go. I can give pages and pages of scientific data regarding the topic, but the evolutionists will attack the fact that I misspelled something.

Look at the scientific facts, the errors in what the vast majority scientists believe, but will, just like you, not admit that there is errors in what you believe.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

As far as I can tell, you are the one avoiding the facts, you threw this topic out like a grenade and "wandered off" allowed others to fight your fight, then when they could not argue against what was shown, waltz back in, and try to reframe your argument. To be fair your OP was pretty much a strawman argument.

However to this reply of yours.

They are separate, because they are involved with different things. You opened this thread with implying (but not stating) that evolution is a religion. Well that confines you to talking about evolution. Not the bigbang therory, not proteogenic chemistry, not anything else. Just evolution. So quit changing the frame of the argument. If you wish to do that, start a new thread. Its the only honest thing to do.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

If errors can be shown in any of the scientific theories I have no problem changing my mind on them. First you would need to show the errors unfortunately all you have done is error by misrepresenting them.

You will never change peoples minds if you can't even show you know the basics.


You talk about which came first to be the cause...yada yada.

Think about this. Without man there would be no bible and claims within. Man created the millions of deities with his imagination not the other way around.


Anyway I am still waiting to see your evidence against evolution. You haven't shown any you have only misrepresented the sciences grossly.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Well done a post on the scientific errors of evolution that manages to avoid anything to do with evolution at all. Its actually quite impressive how well you have avoided the topic.
As other posters have pointed out evolution is completely separate from the big bang or how life began.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You will never change peoples minds if you can't even show you know the basics.

The thing is, they hear and make these arguments in church (or Bible 'study' class, or whatever) and they actually see people's minds being — not changed, but reinforced in their prejudices. And since nobody in those places dissents, they think the arguments are powerful, and valid. They don't realize that the people in church and Bible study class are mainly scientific illiterates, and most of them are, in addition, very stupid — that's why they are in those places to begin with. Born-again Christianity is a self-selection process for people of low intelligence.

Then they come out into the wide world and make the same arguments here.

I no longer have the patience to argue with these sad cases. I wonder now that I once did, and that others still do. They are so ignorant they cannot even understand the facts and arguments that prove them wrong.

Too much democracy, that's what this is about. Some people were never intended by nature to be independent actors.

a reply to: Astyanax

I debate with them now and them for schits and giggles mostly out of bordome. I used to get into it dropping research papers links to discoveries and correct every crazy thing the said but they always ignored facts so now I generally chime in only when I see them make a stupendously asinine statement.

As you said many of them are hard at work during bible study and the like becoming scientifically illiterate e and willfully ignorant.

You know who it wears down the most in religious groups? The preachers and pastors. They actually have support groups for ones that I guess after actually researching to strengthen their faith wound up becoming secret atheists. It is a big issue where tons of people from the cloth realized their religion is a lie but they are so far in it now they are looking for a way to transition out.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Grimpachi


The thing is, they hear and make these arguments in church (or Bible 'study' class, or whatever) and they actually see people's minds being — not changed, but reinforced in their prejudices. And since nobody in those places dissents, they think the arguments are powerful, and valid. They don't realize that the people in church and Bible study class are mainly scientific illiterates, and most of them are, in addition, very stupid — that's why they are in those places to begin with. Born-again Christianity is a self-selection process for people of low intelligence.

Haha. I don't even go to church. Assumptions are the mother of all....

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

As far as I can tell, you are the one avoiding the facts, you threw this topic out like a grenade and "wandered off" allowed others to fight your fight, then when they could not argue against what was shown, waltz back in, and try to reframe your argument.

Another assumption. I have jobs to do. I comment when I have time.

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
a reply to: ScepticScot


Many people say that this laws does not apply to open systems. In response to that, here is what Dr. Ross of Harvard University states:

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Regardless of whether it is part of evolution or not, is that correct?

a reply to: IndependentAgent
Without looking at the original paper I suspect that this is a spot of quote mining.
The second law applies to simple closed systems. Life on earth is neither.

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Grimpachi


The thing is, they hear and make these arguments in church (or Bible 'study' class, or whatever) and they actually see people's minds being — not changed, but reinforced in their prejudices. And since nobody in those places dissents, they think the arguments are powerful, and valid. They don't realize that the people in church and Bible study class are mainly scientific illiterates, and most of them are, in addition, very stupid — that's why they are in those places to begin with. Born-again Christianity is a self-selection process for people of low intelligence.

Haha. I don't even go to church. Assumptions are the mother of all....

you mean like drawing the assumption that to be a born again Christian or adherent of any other variation of Christianity one must be an active member of a congregation? even if the implication was such, it doesn't alter the charge of scientific illiteracy or the simple fact that you time and time again use one liner hit and run techniques while refusing to actually address legitimate rebuttals. This is a troll thread for you to get off on the ire you invoke amongst those who investigate the science behind evolution while you sit back and chuckle. its like being on an elementary school playground. support yo0ur BS or admit you cant instead of making excuses. My favorite being how you keep claiming to have jobs to do so only post when you have the time. were that the case you'd post actual rebuttals instead of replying with stements that you cant reply. Do you fail to see the complete irony of that?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: IndependentAgent
Without looking at the original paper I suspect that this is a spot of quote mining.
The second law applies to simple closed systems. Life on earth is neither.

As far as i understand, that law do apply to life on earth. We are not an isolated system. That is how i understand that quote.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: IndependentAgent
Without looking at the original paper I suspect that this is a spot of quote mining.
The second law applies to simple closed systems. Life on earth is neither.

without a link or citation to view the original paper in its entirety, that's exactly what it is, quote mining at its finest and standard fare for people who cant be bothered to take the time to fully understand the biological aspects of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. They rely on quote mining and anachronistic statements from Darwin without contemplating that weve learned so much in the interm.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
As far as i understand, that law do apply to life on earth. We are not an isolated system. That is how i understand that quote.

No, you're correct. Earth is not a closed system. Just a few examples that affect life or mutation rates are Solar Flares, the introduction of stellar bodies like asteroids and meteorites and the all too interesting fact that we have found within the stellar objects organic compounds such as amino acids, the basic building block of all life currently known to humanity.

a reply to: peter vlar

So then the second law do apply to us?

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
a reply to: peter vlar

So then the second law do apply to us?

No. The 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. the Creationist point of view is that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. The creationist argument is based on their interpretation of the relationship between probability and entropy which is a property of the 2nd law of TD because they seem to think that evolution is a statement of increased complexity in violation of entropy which means that the universe is constantly decaying into chaos.

From The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, by Henry Morris:

(p. 14) All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

None of which has any relevancy to whether the system is open or closed. The common misconception of that entire line of thinking is that evolution is a process that has a goal or focus on creating better and better creatures which is ludicrous. Evolution is,to be a bit simplistic, a measurement of the sum of all genetic mutations we can see up to the date of the experiment or testing being done. Because mutations are in fact random and based on a multitude of variables, they in fact are the exact opposite of what creationist claims make it out to be. Even if a particular mutation allows for a certain organism to be perfectly suited in some cases, it is still entirely dependent on variables, one of the most important of those is environmental niche. A good example I like to use is the differences between an arctic fox and a kit fox. each is perfectly suited and adapted to their environmental niche. The coat and ears of a kit fox allow it to survive in its hot desert locale because their adaptations allow it to release heat easily keeping it from succumbing to heat stroke etc...The longer ears are also helpful in extending their range of hearing for hunting prey. They also have a layer of fur on the pads of their paws that allow it to gain extra traction in the sandy environment as well as protecting them from the scorching heat of the rocks. Additionally they are much smaller, the size of a large house cat.

The arctic fox likewise is very well adapted to the extreme cold. It has a thicker coat, shorter ears and shorter muzzle which help it retain heat. its coat becomes white in the winter to assist in camouflage and its bushier tale wraps around them when they curl up in their burrows providing an extra layer of insulation for warmth.

If either of their environmental niches changed, those foxes would no longer be the apex of their current evolutionary standard and would either adapt or become extinct. These are the variables that are unaccounted for or in the viewpoint of creationists who deny the plausibility of evolution, those variables would be the chaos aspect of entropy. The 2nd law of TD has no affect or involvement in modern evolutionary synthesis.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks for actually giving a good response. Looking through his thread, most posts are very harsh and judgmental. This clears up much confusion.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

You're very welcome. I try my best to be as concise as possible. If you have any other question or need clarification feel free to ask even if it's in a PM. I'll at least be honest and if I don't know I will admit it and do my best to at least point you in the right direction with an appropriate citation. Thanks for being open minded enough to ask questions and be open to the answers. We need more posters like you around here. That is to say, posters interested in actually learning instead of maintaining their paradigm.