Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution and Creationism is easy as math.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamike
Here is my point: Just because you don't understand Advanced math does not mean it does not exist or is not true! Trust me, Advanced math- evolution is real and it is sound. Take the time to learn it. If you have a question about it or don't quite grasp a concept then don't stop there. Ask the question, Google it. You will find the answer.

You can either take the the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.


Just because you cannot measure with a scientific method ( a philosophy - only one way of looking at data) or math does not mean a being called God did not start life on this planet from a miracle. ( which is just science we can't understand)

It is even entirely possible that God set in motion the ability of organisms to grow and evolve over time - something else your science cannot quantify but that doesn't make it untrue.

Science simply Cannot state by it's very premise that Creationism is false simply because it can neither prove or disprove it. This goes against the very core tenets of Science and the scientific method itself.

Now, choose a pill red or blue because what I see is you swallowing the pink pill.




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It is even entirely possible that God set in motion the ability of organisms to grow and evolve over time - something else your science cannot quantify but that doesn't make it untrue.

Science simply Cannot state by it's very premise that Creationism is false simply because it can neither prove or disprove it. This goes against the very core tenets of Science and the scientific method itself.

There's very hard theoretical and empirical evidence for life starting from abiotic materials, like, e.g. how it was done in laboratory with autocatalytic RNA sets, not forgetting observations of the genetic code in the context of the distribution of codon blocks and abiotic and biotic amino acids. However, of course it's impossible to rule out a divine intervention, as it's with the case of gravity just being the hand of God pushing things down (intelligent falling), or thunder, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. really just being manifestations of God's anger (some fundamentalists actually believe this). Nonetheless, this kind of creationism has nothing to do with the fact of evolution denying fundamentalists who insist that contemporary species were literally created from thin air, which has been proven to be false beyond any doubt.
edit on 14-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It is even entirely possible that God set in motion the ability of organisms to grow and evolve over time - something else your science cannot quantify but that doesn't make it untrue.

Science simply Cannot state by it's very premise that Creationism is false simply because it can neither prove or disprove it. This goes against the very core tenets of Science and the scientific method itself.

There's very hard theoretical and empirical evidence for life starting from abiotic materials, like, e.g. how it was done in laboratory with autocatalytic RNA sets, not forgetting observations of the genetic code in the context of the distribution of codon blocks and abiotic and biotic amino acids. However, of course it's impossible to rule out a divine intervention, as it's with the case of gravity just being the hand of God pushing things down (intelligent falling), or thunder and earthquakes really just being manifestations of God's anger. Nonetheless, this kind of creationism has nothing to do with the fact of evolution denying fundamentalists who insist that contemporary species were literally created from thin air, which has been proven to be false beyond any doubt.
edit on 14-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Show us some good mutations
Explain how two mating pairs mutated together randomly in such a way offspring were possible
Beyond any doubt? Hardly.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
Evolution claims the Big Bang started from nothing and everything evolved from it, so teach me the mathematical formula that explains that

Evolution claims abiogenesis started from nothing and everything evolved from it, so teach me the mathematical formula that explains that

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are different things and one does not make claims about the other.


Special evolution can not take place without abiogenesis and that relies on the big bang

Mathematically 0 + 0 = 0 so the maths doesnt work
sorry, its a stupid thread,



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Show us some good mutations

Look for example here


Originally posted by borntowatch
Explain how two mating pairs mutated together randomly in such a way offspring were possible

You mean, mutated randomly, but under natural selection, i.e. mutations were "randomish", selection was not. Be more specific.


Originally posted by borntowatch
Beyond any doubt? Hardly.

Yes, beyond any doubt.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by borntowatch
Show us some good mutations

Look for example here


Originally posted by borntowatch
Explain how two mating pairs mutated together randomly in such a way offspring were possible

You mean, mutated randomly, but under natural selection, i.e. mutations were "randomish", selection was not. Be more specific.


Originally posted by borntowatch
Beyond any doubt? Hardly.

Yes, beyond any doubt.


So what did these particular organisms evolve into. Dogs cats monkeys men?

They didnt change their species..Micro evolution is not Macro evolutioin



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Micro evolution is not Macro evolutioin

There is no distinction. There's just evolution.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
They didnt change their species.

The idea of 'species' isn't something tangible, it's a man-made concept. To state that life cannot evolve into different species is nonsensical, as the boundary between species is no more real than the boundary between a 'hot climate' and a 'cold climate'. Can a 'cold climate' warm up into a 'hot climate'? Using creationist logic, "No it can't, but I'm not going to explain how or why!". They're invented classifications, they help us fit information into a manageable framework. The concept of species could be done away with entirely and a new classification system put in if scientists so choose.

Just what exactly is this mysterious mechanism that stops a life form evolving too far from it's "kind" (as creationists like to say)? Don't come back with "they just can't!" or "it's never been observed!". The latter is false, but even if it was true, it wouldn't mean that it can't happen unless you can explain exactly where this immutable boundary is and the mechanism that enforces it.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by borntowatch
Micro evolution is not Macro evolutioin

There is no distinction. There's just evolution.


Yeah whatever you believe in faith, I call that a religion
I think that you accepting what you believe makes you far more religious than what I am. You have ecoli turning into ecoli as evidence
Fail



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by borntowatch
They didnt change their species.

The idea of 'species' isn't something tangible, it's a man-made concept. To state that life cannot evolve into different species is nonsensical, as the boundary between species is no more real than the boundary between a 'hot climate' and a 'cold climate'. Can a 'cold climate' warm up into a 'hot climate'? Using creationist logic, "No it can't, but I'm not going to explain how or why!". They're invented classifications, they help us fit information into a manageable framework. The concept of species could be done away with entirely and a new classification system put in if scientists so choose.

Just what exactly is this mysterious mechanism that stops a life form evolving too far from it's "kind" (as creationists like to say)? Don't come back with "they just can't!" or "it's never been observed!". The latter is false, but even if it was true, it wouldn't mean that it can't happen unless you can explain exactly where this immutable boundary is and the mechanism that enforces it.


So when I turn my fridge off that represents evolution

cold becoming hot is evolution
So tell me when hot becomes cold, has no more energy left and never becomes hot again is that evolution

I have heard arguments but never one so completely and totally unthough out and inane.
I have quoted it because I am going to use it in every argument I ever have with an evolutionist.
Please tell me you didnt make that up, tell me where I can reference it.

That analogy is so bad it is gold.
edit on 14-10-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

So when I turn my fridge off that represents evolution

No.


cold becoming hot is evolution

No.


So tell me when hot becomes cold, has no more energy left and never becomes hot again is that evolution

No.


I have heard arguments but never one so completely and totally unthough out and inane.
I have quoted it because I am going to use it in every argument I ever have with an evolutionist.
Please tell me you didnt make that up, tell me where I can reference it. That analogy is so bad it is gold.

Do you understand the concept of an analogy? Did you even understand the point I was making? Evidently not. My point wasn't complicated, it wasn't elaborate, it was (or at least should be) extremely easy to comprehend. I'm genuinely amazed how you can walk away with such an idiotic interpretation of what I said.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by borntowatch
Micro evolution is not Macro evolutioin

There is no distinction. There's just evolution.


Yeah whatever you believe in faith, I call that a religion
I think that you accepting what you believe makes you far more religious than what I am. You have ecoli turning into ecoli as evidence
Fail

Evidence?


What kind of evidence are you looking for? A = modern chimp, N = modern man, the rest are hominids arranged from oldest (B) to newest (M)


Ever heard of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database? You can access it through e.g. the National Center for Biotechnology Information. You can download sequenced, assembled and annotated genomes from for example here. You could somehow try to prove that common descent isn't true, but then, good luck explaining why there are reduced alphaproteobacteria (mitochondria) inside our cells, or why there are reduced alphaproteobacteria and reduced cyanobacteria (chloroplasts) inside plant cells. Good luck answering why about 30% of our genes clearly have a eubacterial origin. Good luck explaining the near identical sequences of human and chimp protein-coding genes. Good luck explaining the incredible synteny of human and chimp genomes. Etc.
edit on 14-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by borntowatch

So when I turn my fridge off that represents evolution

No.


cold becoming hot is evolution

No.


So tell me when hot becomes cold, has no more energy left and never becomes hot again is that evolution

No.


I have heard arguments but never one so completely and totally unthough out and inane.
I have quoted it because I am going to use it in every argument I ever have with an evolutionist.
Please tell me you didnt make that up, tell me where I can reference it. That analogy is so bad it is gold.

Do you understand the concept of an analogy? Did you even understand the point I was making? Evidently not. My point wasn't complicated, it wasn't elaborate, it was (or at least should be) extremely easy to comprehend. I'm genuinely amazed how you can walk away with such an idiotic interpretation of what I said.



Yes
Yes
Yes

My fridge is evolving as it gets warmer.....not

what a dunce



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Ok, what caused the big bang ( thats the starting point) that created everything. Remember all the elements evolved from the big bang, how did that happen.
Here is your chance to put me back in my box. Not only can you attack me personally, you can discredit my logic, show me where my comprehension of your faith is flawed.
Evolution claims the Big Bang started from nothing and everything evolved from it, so teach me the mathematical formula that explains that

Evolution claims abiogenesis started from nothing and everything evolved from it, so teach me the mathematical formula that explains that

What evidence have you offered me, other than that you are clever at maths? Yopu say its complicated, I have a reasonable grasp of maths, so explain away

Oh Boy! I cant wait, probably wont hear from you again though


Too easy.

1. Evolution does not include the big bang or abiogenesis. As I stated in the last post, it is organic life changing over time.

2. The Big Bang does not claim everything exploded from nothing. It claims that a dense singularity of matter expanded.

3. Abiogenesis doesn't claim life formed from nothing. You need to get the 'nothing' out of your head. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that tries to find out how life can go from the basic building blocks to a replicating cell under certain conditions.

So that's 3 fields of study in science that you just demonstrated you have very poor understanding of the fundamentals. If you plan you debunk any of those concepts. You need to address the scientific evidence, not just make ridiculous claims. Which part of evolution do you believe to be false? Genetic mutations or natural selection? Let's start there. Give me your reasons why you think it is wrong with scientific sources to back it.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

It should also be noted that the wall of a H. erectus femur was about twice as thick as that of modern Homo sapiens.
H. Eerctus

If the H.E. femur bones are twice as thick as ours, then we would need up to 20 different species between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens to account for the needed decrease in bone mass. The way it stands now, there was thick-boned H. Erectus, and then POOF! H. Sapiens.

No expert here, but it just doesn't sit right with me.


The problem with using homo erectus, is that he is not believed to be our direct ancestor or even in the lineage. Erectus roamed the earth for 1.5 million years and changed during the that time while he was spreading to Europe and Asia. Human ancestors stayed in Africa much longer. It is really more likely that it was a descendent of homo habilis and a species that we haven't found yet, more likely to be related to homo heidelbergensis. You could say that an early version of homo erectus that still lived in Africa eventually became human, but he was he was definitely more like homo habilis. No magical poofing necessary. Just different species of human leaving Africa at different times and adapting to the different climate.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
sorry, its a stupid thread,

It might be but that still doesn't make your mixing and matching parts of different theories and demanding answers correct.

They are separate theories and they might both be true or false or one might be true while the other is wrong without affecting each other.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
sorry, its a stupid thread,

It might be but that still doesn't make your mixing and matching parts of different theories and demanding answers correct.

They are separate theories and they might both be true or false or one might be true while the other is wrong without affecting each other.


Are you stating that both theories are not theories of evolution.
One theory does affect the other. Its foundational.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Whale legs, are you that brainwashed, that ignorant of biology you think there whale legs.

Next you will say the coxic has no value in the human body, please have yours removed, see if its vestigial.

Find out what muscles are attached to these bones, this will give you two answers.
The first dealing with how brainwashed you are to the truth re whale structure, the second as to how gullible you are to phony science..

If they have no use why are these bones fundamentaly important to the whales existence.

and further are you saying big fat whales use to walk around on the ground, whats the tail for, what food did they eat, why did they need such big lungs if they were ground dwellers. Where are the rest of the vestigial organs.

This is absurd

My fridge is getting warmer, must see if its evolving legs, should I tie it down?


I have this theory that watermelons grow in clouds, evidently watermelons are 99.2% water and clouds are 100% water. Logical isnt it
edit on 14-10-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Are you stating that both theories are not theories of evolution.

Right one is a theory of the creation of the universe and the other of evolution.


One theory does affect the other. Its foundational.

The big bang could be wrong and evolution still be right. Say for example, if the universe has always existed, then there was no big bang. Doesn't mean evolution didn't happen the way the theory of evolution proposes.

Also the theory of evolution could be wrong, the truth could even include a creator of man but not the universe because it was created during the big bang.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
Are you stating that both theories are not theories of evolution.

Right one is a theory of the creation of the universe and the other of evolution.


One theory does affect the other. Its foundational.

The big bang could be wrong and evolution still be right. Say for example, if the universe has always existed, then there was no big bang. Doesn't mean evolution didn't happen the way the theory of evolution proposes.

Also the theory of evolution could be wrong, the truth could even include a creator of man but not the universe because it was created during the big bang.


Galactic evolution and distribution
Main articles: Galaxy formation and evolution, Large-scale structure of the cosmos, and Structure formation


This panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the distribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The galaxies are color coded by redshift.
Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars are in agreement with the current state of the Big Bang theory. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early Universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[64][65]





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join