Evolution... a kids fairytale

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by samaka
Show me a computer that can run a "simple" programing script (as to a simple cell) that generates random trillion numbers that can build itself, replicate itself, renew itself and have intelligence .... then I'll believe in evolution


The universe is not a computer.


There are theories that are suggestive of the contrary, of course, doesn't mean it's true.

Simulated Reality


Simulated reality is the proposition that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation.


Digital Physics


Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer which computes the evolution of the universe. The computer could be, for example, a huge cellular automaton (Zuse 1967[9]), or a universal Turing machine, as suggested by Schmidhuber (1997), who pointed out that there exists a very short program that can compute all possible computable universes in an asymptotically optimal way.


Interesting read.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
The universe is not a computer.


Don't be so sure. Scientists believe that this could be exactly what the Universe is.



God Is the Machine



IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 0. AND THEN THERE WAS 1. A MIND-BENDING MEDITATION ON THE TRANSCENDENT POWER OF DIGITAL COMPUTATION.
By Kevin Kelly

Once science examined matter below the level of fleeting quarks and muons, it knew the world was incorporeal. What could be less substantial than a realm built out of waves of quantum probabilities? And what could be weirder? Digital physics is both. It suggests that those strange and insubstantial quantum wavicles, along with everything else in the universe, are themselves made of nothing but 1s and 0s. The physical world itself is digital.

www.wired.com...
edit on 30-7-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by samaka
 


Genetic mutations are taught in schools. So you do believe in evolution.


It's the change in allele frequency (mutations) over a period of time (generation[s]). You'll have a tough time proving Evolution doesn't exist when we can find the quote showing that you do.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


You're missing the big picture here. Natural selection is a theory, not fact, it's assumed that evolution works that way and there are many many things wrong with natural selection. Even if in fact was real, how the hell does non living and non intelligent cells take on the role of natural selection into entirely new level of comprehension that not even the brightest scientist can even understand?

They were given instructions by someone and that makes far more logical sense than to happen by mere accidents.
edit on 30-7-2011 by samaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Ah yes Here is more fighting over something we will never understand or will continue to misunderstand..

Oh why do I bother...

If you cannot look around you and see evolution exist, then I pity your sake.

Now continue to fight over evolution, whether it exists or not.

The question is this, what governs such elements in life. Also if we cannot define it, What does!!

if you cannot answer those questions, then why fight over it.






posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by novastrike81
 


You're missing the big picture here. Natural selection is a theory, not fact, it's assumed that evolution works that way and there are many many things wrong with natural selection.


There's a difference between a "scientific theory" and "theory" in the general sense of the word. Evolution and natural selection are "theories" in the same way that gravity is a "theory" and germs are a "theory".


Even if in fact was real, how the hell does non living and non intelligent cells take on the role of natural selection into entirely new level of comprehension that not even the brightest scientist can even understand?


You apparently do not understand the concept of natural selection. There is no "goal" and nobody is "planning" anything, it's just the process of traits becoming more or less common in a species depending on how useful they are. I don't feel like explaining it to you (like I've done countless times before for other people) so just read this,

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by samaka
 


Just because scientists, or ourselves for that matter, don't understand something, is no reason to assume "God did it". Which is what you are implying right now. If you would read up on scientific journals, instead of creationist websites, you would understand that Natural Selection is an unguided process.

What is wrong with Natural Selection? The flaws that you are referring to.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

en.wikipedia.org...



Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution....

I guess the Wikipedia is source of all facts on earth.

Where does this reproduction come from? Who are it bearers? And what determines which path they should take? If they don't have the answer to that, then what they have concluded is open for scrutiny.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Where does this reproduction come from? Who are it bearers? And what determines which path they should take? If they don't have the answer to that, then what they have concluded is open for scrutiny.


Thank you for reading the first two sentences, please read the rest now.

Edit: And yes Wikipedia is valid. They cite all their sources, something creationists always seem to fail to do (the Bible is not a valid source).
edit on 30-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Where does this reproduction come from?


Sex


Who are it bearers?


The two animals having sex, or just the one if it is asexual.


And what determines which path they should take? If they don't have the answer to that, then what they have concluded is open for scrutiny.


Survival of the species determines the path. If it leads to their extinction, that's the path that was selected for them thru Natural Selection. Quite the easy concept.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Where does this reproduction come from? Who are it bearers? And what determines which path they should take? If they don't have the answer to that, then what they have concluded is open for scrutiny.


Thank you for reading the first two sentences, please read the rest now.

Edit: And yes Wikipedia is valid. They cite all their sources, something creationists always seem to fail to do (the Bible is not a valid source).
edit on 30-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


I did read the whole thing. The problem is that I have a Wikipedia account, which means I can change the text to fit my liking at anytime. It might not stay there forever, but long enough to convince you of my point.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 





Just because scientists, or ourselves for that matter, don't understand something, is no reason to assume "God did it". Which is what you are implying right now. If you would read up on scientific journals, instead of creationist websites, you would understand that Natural Selection is an unguided process. What is wrong with Natural Selection? The flaws that you are referring to


That's whole point of my post that evolutionist believed in un-guided events or natural selection process but for something like to even occur is next to nil just by the fact that situation or the environment or "variables" would need to be perfect to even occur, doesn't that sound silly to you?

So it's safe to assume there's natural selection and evolution? Because there far more things that scientist don't understand about evolution but people still put faith in it? I don't bother with creationist websites especially evolutionist websites. I know exactly what natural selection is I use believe in that garbage. That's why I'm going to post in my next thread how I came to this conclusion.

What strikes me funny is that evolution has all kinds holes and steps on it's own foot however the bible is the only doctrine that no one can find any contradicting aspects of it, it's very clear and in unity (what's remarkable that the book took thousands years by several writers to complete )but you refuse listen to it because why? "mystical creature" haha ok whatever floats your boat.
edit on 30-7-2011 by samaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Where does this reproduction come from?


Sex


Who are it bearers?


The two animals having sex, or just the one if it is asexual.


And what determines which path they should take? If they don't have the answer to that, then what they have concluded is open for scrutiny.


Survival of the species determines the path. If it leads to their extinction, that's the path that was selected for them thru Natural Selection. Quite the easy concept.


And where do these species get the idea that they should reproduce? That's the problem with this whole idea, everything being done requires either the assistance or influence of something else. That alone kills the theory of evolutionist.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
I did read the whole thing. The problem is that I have a Wikipedia account, which means I can change the text to fit my liking at anytime. It might not stay there forever, but long enough to convince you of my point.


Then go to the sources they cited. Seriously, I didn't know I was going to have to babysit you through this whole thing.

*Sigh*, creationist logic always makes me depressed. "Well...well...well... that source is wrong! We all know the only reliable source is a book written millenia ago and translated dozens of times from it's original language and put together by a group of old politicians centuries after the events it's describing took place. Ain't no encyclopedias gonna convince us otherwise."



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


edit on Sat Jul 30 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Ok then so why can I find many contradicting aspects of evolution but I bet you can't even find 1 contradicting thing about the bible, that's even if you ever read and understood the bible but you strike me like aperson that swears by google and picks and chooses what he wants to hear to his own fitting of life.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by samaka
 



GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.



Want more?


Edit: Oh yes, and it would be nice if you would provide these contradictions that you found in the theory of evolution. I'm tired of being the only one providing evidence around here.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
And where do these species get the idea that they should reproduce?


Evolution has no answers as to why. The patented answer is always that the thing exists because it was beneficial. The real answers on how something did what it does are glossed over with the hope that you won't ask hard questions about origins.

If you wanted to discuss how an individual cell got to the point that it cooperated with other cells and eventually cooperated with millions of other cells as a thing we call a bird you're in too deep. And now these cells cooperate to fly? Because the ones that didn't fly died off right? Why do animals have sharp teeth, because that's an evolutionary advantage. So why don't birds shoot laser beams from their eyes? That sounds like a better evolutionary trait than just vision alone.

Nope, no real answers here. Just he patent generic it exists because it exists because it was beneficial.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Sooooo what's contradicting about the scriptures you quoted?

Whatever you brought to the table is hardly evidence and yes I will too but I'm controlling the flow of my thread. Because believe me I will bring a lot to the table.

For one thing it's IMPOSSIBLE to spring life from non-living molecules Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated there's no empirical evidence that supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together-DNA, RNA and proteins. and each molecule requires one another to sustain itself. few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance?

Face it, you believe in mystical miracles.
edit on 30-7-2011 by samaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by Nosred
 


Sooooo what's contradicting about the scriptures you quoted?


It says God created animals, then he created man, then he created animals again. That makes sense to you?




For one thing it's IMPOSSIBLE to spring life from non-living molecules Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated there's no empirical evidence that supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.


Evolution has nothing to do with how life on Earth started, it only answers what happened after life was already there. What you're thinking of here is known as "Abiogenesis", not "Evolution".


Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together-DNA, RNA and proteins. and each molecule requires one another to sustain itself. few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance?


Again, what you're arguing against here is the study of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution. It's kind of sad really that creationists don't even take the time to research what it is they're actually against.


Face it, you believe in mystical miracles.


No, I believe in observations through the scientific method and empirical evidence. Basically what you're saying here is this,


edit on 30-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join