Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:37 PM by randyvs

reply to post by ProudBird

Perfectly reasonable ? The chances of just one protien molecule joining together on it's own are one in 1/300.

That's a one with 300 zeros behind it. Science considers 1/50 to be an imposibility. Sagen himself said that life is the reult of many deaths in a violent universe. How many chances did this six fold impossibility get before it finally took hold ? None. Abiogenisis ? Nah ! Genesis.

edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:40 PM by ProudBird

reply to post by randyvs

Stubborn incredulity aside.....you watched the entire video, then? Read the description notes??

The chances of just one protien molecule joining together on it's own are one in 1/300.

That's a one with 300 zeros behind it

Um....just making these figures up? Seems someone didn't bother to watch and read??

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:43 PM by Xcalibur254

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i see lots of evolutionists tout this as support for evolution, but in the end it is a kind of bravado to shield against criticism because evolutionary theory has no answer for how life began from non-life. so instead of address this glaring issue, evolutionists say "not our problem".

Evolution explains biodiversity. This requires life to be already present. Why would evolution attempt to explain something that is not under its purview? I would also like to point out that we don't know where gravity comes from but I don't see you arguing against the theory of gravity.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:44 PM by freeman2128

reply to post by Praetorius

couldnt have said it better myself

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:46 PM by BBalazs

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Evolution in dummy terms means: things change.
Are you or anyone suggesting otherwise?
Then dont reply, cause you are stuck in infinity.

Devolution is wishful thinking, thinking that the universe cares about higher, lower life forms.
Things change. They evolve.

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:50 PM by apushforenlightment

Everything evolves. Changes shape. God or whatever you want to call the sum of everything that is connected to you and knows everything, is always teaching the students who are willing to listen and question him/her/it. Scientist do it and spiritual people do it and they push their boundries of their knowledge and figure out things. The people who cannot question his/her own belief will not find the bigger picture and will only see small things. People who question it will find bigger and bigger pictures that fit together so beautifully. Fundametalism is always negative to change and progress. But most people are afraid of change and hang on to the things they have been thaught. I do not know the whole thruth about how this universe works and many of my theories will be wrong. So what god will not care because the devine is egoless and do not care about worship. You cannot bribe god by worship or prayer. You have to evolve your soul by your actions. I love the fractal theory that god shows us the same thing in different sizes. What is for the small is for the big. The body and mind changes thru the life. The soul changes thru multiple lives. Species change and evolve. Societies evlove and change. The universe is expanding and from my point of view that means god is growing/changing. Everything is connected it is just the human mind that have a hard time seeing and understanding it. All is One and One is all. I am a part of the universe and god. It is only human ego that makes us think we are seperate from nature and universe and belive we are better that all the other animals. A nice Illusion for the people with low self esteem but still untrue. Namaste

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:05 PM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Evolution explains biodiversity. This requires life to be already present. Why would evolution attempt to explain something that is not under its purview? I would also like to point out that we don't know where gravity comes from but I don't see you arguing against the theory of gravity.

evolution attempts to explain biodiversity. you know as well as i that you wouldn't be so quick to reject the origin of life from the theory of evolution if you had an actual answer, but evolutionists don't, so they ignore the question.

i have explained how variety can come from a loss of genetic information over time as animals and plants specialize into different climates and use pre-existing genes. this concept is supported by the rate of harmful mutations, where evolution has no answer.

if you wish to remain scientific, you would drop evolution because it doesn't match what the evidence says, but i doubt you will.

while i hold that some force or property of matter causes matter to pull together, i have argued against several theories of gravity that don't fit with what we know to be true. gravity does exist, as does variation, but does it arise out of the bending of space/time as a consequence of mass, or does a small particle called the graviton cause gravity?

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:06 PM by randyvs

reply to post by ProudBird

Well I am very insulted !

I think you know me better than that bird. If I were making up these numbers they wouldn't be these numbers. They'd be higher.

I'm trying to find the source so....Here ya go Is impossible a good sub for those numbers ? I will find those figures if you like.

They're right there at the bottom of the page Randy.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300. "The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").

edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:10 PM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by BBalazs

Evolution in dummy terms means: things change. Are you or anyone suggesting otherwise? Then dont reply, cause you are stuck in infinity. Devolution is wishful thinking, thinking that the universe cares about higher, lower life forms. Things change. They evolve.

i'm noticing that you can only communicate in dummy terms. macro-evolution holds that beneficial mutations are responsible for variation, i have given evidence that variation cannot arise from beneficial mutations due to the prevalence of deleterious mutations. i've been trying to get you to explain this, but you've only been dodging. so much for "conclusive evidence".

there are some intelligent people who believe in evolution, yet i find the majority seemingly slept through their highschool science classes and accept the "evidence" without understanding any of it.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:16 PM by BBalazs

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

why would i explain it?
i already have.
devolution is a form on evolution fantasized by some, but still evolution.
can't get around that fact can you?
or do you suggest this dewhaetver you suggest is not an evolution?
a degredation is evolution also.
you just force your view on a natural process, that cares not about forward or back.
but even your theory cannot escape evolution, you just change the name.
magic trick it is.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:16 PM by Firepac

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by BBalazs

Anyone could have started life, etc. but they sure as hell programed it to evolve.

That's one of the most profound statements i've seen in support of evolution...well said.

Oh, and i'm not arguing for God. I'm just not convinced we started off as a mixture of liquid stuck by lightning.

I question why there are no obvious animals in transition everywhere.

All organisms are in transition because all organisms are constantly evolving. Why is that even a question?

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:20 PM by crankyoldman

reply to post by BBalazs

I'm not going to weigh in on the debate on which 'theory" is right or wrong - as right or wrong is simply a far to limiting concept for me. Instead I'd like to understand, for my own edification, why you feel better knowing it is a "fact?"

It is clear to me by the post that you have thought long and hard about both sides, investigated the theories deeply, and have come to the conclusion that evolution is fact. The emphatic way in which you present your conclusion means this makes you feel good.

I'd like to know why this conclusion makes you feel good?

Is the idea that you have proven creationism wrong, as the origin of the positive feeling? Often people feel the thrill is related to the wrong thing, in this case is it simply that one has proven the idiots on the other side wrong and that is the high? Is that one is so deeply troubled by not having a conclusive theory to get behind that when one is tipped 51-49 in favor of one or the other that the good feelings pour out?

I'm just not clear as to what satisfaction is achieved by aligning with one theory over another and what that satisfaction actually is?

Others may weigh in as well, but why does deciding that one of the two polarities presented is "it" make one feel better?

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:24 PM by BBalazs

reply to post by crankyoldman

I have no feeling for words.
What makes me feel good?
Well this is not an adult site.
But if i watch this, it humbles me, and makes me feel part of a living universe:
www.youtube.com...
My dog makes me feel good.
Also my friends, and family.
How about you?

I dont know what sides you refer to.
Evolution is a fact.
If you truly are religious you should embrace it as the glory of god.
It is humbling, perfect is symetry and variety.

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:31 PM by randyvs

reply to post by BBalazs

Are you going to start with that creation and evolution can join hands and sing kum baya crap? Because they can't, so forget it.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:32 PM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by BBalazs

why would i explain it? i already have. devolution is a form on evolution fantasized by some, but still evolution. can't get around that fact can you? or do you suggest this dewhaetver you suggest is not an evolution? a degredation is evolution also. you just force your view on a natural process, that cares not about forward or back. but even your theory cannot escape evolution, you just change the name. magic trick it is.

um, no. i don't believe in devolution. i said it is one of the options that evolutionists can choose from now that macro-evolution has been thoroughly debunked.

for the record, evolution holds that the genetic information for everything came from beneficial mutations. this has been proven false. information is lost over time, not gained. so somewhere in the past the information had to come from something or someone.

variations in species occur, but not for the reasons evolution says, and they can never produce a new organism. i keep waiting for these "facts" of yours. if you can't provide any credible facts with sources, i'm going to assume you're a troll.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:33 PM by ProudBird

reply to post by randyvs

I saw your edit, and the credit to the "source".

Sorry but, that "source" is just more ill-informed Creationist babble. THEY are the ones who just plucked "1 times the power of ten to 300" out of thin air, and you repeated the fallacy, the falsehood, the unsupported-in-any-way-but-from-their-imaginations claim. They are desperate to cling to myths and 'beliefs'. It's called 'magical thinking', not reality-based rational thinking.

That sort of fallacious "argument" is addressed in the video I embedded. Should watch it.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:34 PM by BBalazs

reply to post by randyvs

Well, creation and evolution may do as they wish.
None of my business really.
So sure they can sing together.
Why not?
They could also get jiggy with it.
Only your imagination is the boundry.
But facts remain facts.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:37 PM by BBalazs

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

What you question is theory.
One way or another it will be sorted out.
What I write about is fact.
2 very different things really.
So it understandable you got them confused.
Glad its been sorted.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:41 PM by Firepac

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i see lots of evolutionists tout this as support for evolution, but in the end it is a kind of bravado to shield against criticism because evolutionary theory has no answer for how life began from non-life. so instead of address this glaring issue, evolutionists say "not our problem".

This is one of the biggest strawman ever perpetuated by creationists. You have to ask, how come creationists never say this about the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the gazillion other scientific theories out there - none of which addresses the origin of the subject it explains? Why does evolution have to explain the origin of life? Evolution deals with change. Now what does that have to do with the origins of life?

The dishonesty of creationists can't get any more transparent.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 04:03 PM by randyvs

reply to post by ProudBird

At least you moved away from me making crap up. I suppose Sagan was just pulling things out of his butt to then right ? Or that's reserved for creationists only or what ? Because to say it's impossible for a protien molecule to just fart itself together sounds more than reasonable to me. Can you tell me about the magic that does bring it together ? What esoteric force is this ?

Think about this quote " There's nothing you can know that isn't known " We can't discover anything that isn't already known. Get use to it, live it.

I guess that bideo is the finalo word on everthing huh ? Didn't watch it.

edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)