Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

Because you haven't proven, or made a solid case, for what exists outside of the universe that could have produced this energy. I applaud your research as far as the behavior of energy is concerned, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. Let's see the rest of your solution to this puzzle.

Here is something that might help...

Harvard University Universe Forum

The "inflationary universe."
The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

It is still an assumption. But look at the wording, space..unstable form of energy whose nature is not yet known. OK, just to throw this in because it is what the Biblical account says...

"And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep". This little snippet gives us a snapshot of how the ancients perceived the universe. No form, nothing, and darkness, that means that the ancients perceived a universe without stars, planets, moons, suns, nothing, because the deep was dark. How did they know this?

If the ancients were so superstitious and ignorant, then how did they know of the darkness and nothing? But this isn't the only ancient account. This same thing is mentioned in the Rig Vedas

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

This was an ancient knowledge, not just Biblical.

The Chinese say this...

Long, long ago, when heaven and earth were still one, the entire universe was contained in an egg-shaped cloud. All the matter of the universe swirled chaotically in that egg.

They understood the gas cloud.

How did they know these things long before Western scientists had to use a telescope array and spaceships just to figure this out? They had the knowledge first. The superstitious and ignorant knew all of what scientists are scrambling to understand, and have conceded that nothing was at the beginning, that darkness was there before anything and a gas cloud contained the universe. The fact that scientists have acknowledged this, just verifies for me the accuracy of the Bible.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I think I made it clear from my post that this was my opinion. That means you don't have to take it as absolute fact. I think you were so quick to jump the gun, you missed that bit.

I know it's your opinion, I was asking how you came up with that opinion. I wanted to know how you came up with those connections.

There was nothing before, as evolutionists say, so it remains an assumption that it was inside.

I don't say "there was nothing before the Big Bang". I always tell people that we don't know how it all started.

I don't know about you, but I just don't see how nothing creates something. Nothing means nothing....no energy, and since energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred, then there was something.

This is where the irony starts.

At first you say that nothing means nothing, but you end up saying that there was something.

Was there nothing or was there something?

Of course you will say that god always existed but then I could say that matter always existed.

You can say that matter can't come from nothing and I'll say that a powerful, intelligent, omnipotent being can't come from nothing.

If god always existed then why couldn't matter always exist?

a reply to: WarminIndy

If the ancients were so superstitious and ignorant, then how did they know of the darkness and nothing?

It not that they knew, it's that you are fooling yourself into thinking that they knew by making wild connections.

An example is the "God spoke" meant to you that they knew there was an energy that created the universe.

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Four corners of the Earth? Obviously this verse from the bible is wrong because these people knew things about our universe that we are starting to find out, right?

Or maybe, they didn't know much about the universe. Made up stories using their imagination and you are quoting what you want to quote and ignore what you don't want to quote.

The human mind is powerful enough to make connections where there is none.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

I think I made it clear from my post that this was my opinion. That means you don't have to take it as absolute fact. I think you were so quick to jump the gun, you missed that bit.

I know it's your opinion, I was asking how you came up with that opinion. I wanted to know how you came up with those connections.

There was nothing before, as evolutionists say, so it remains an assumption that it was inside.

I don't say "there was nothing before the Big Bang". I always tell people that we don't know how it all started.

I don't know about you, but I just don't see how nothing creates something. Nothing means nothing....no energy, and since energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred, then there was something.

This is where the irony starts.

At first you say that nothing means nothing, but you end up saying that there was something.

Was there nothing or was there something?

Of course you will say that god always existed but then I could say that matter always existed.

You can say that matter can't come from nothing and I'll say that a powerful, intelligent, omnipotent being can't come from nothing.

If god always existed then why couldn't matter always exist?

Think outside the universal box. Yes, nothing means nothing. You could say matter always existed, you could say the matter was a pink donkey with yellow polka dots. You could say it was a teapot, you could say it was anything you want. The end point is, nothing means nothing.

We don't believe God is material anyway, God isn't natural. God does not exist as a physical being. That is something we have always maintained and no ancient text implies that God is physical matter. But an audio wave is physical and that's is what we call a manifestation, or a physical expression of a supernatural origin.

There is more to the universe than we can even imagine, so why limit it to only physical, when the universe itself has much empty space and other spaces that we won't ever know in our lifetimes?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The "inflationary universe."
The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

I may come up with other questions, but these seem pertinent to me at the present. And please, I would like real answers and not assumptions. Don't tell me "we think" or "scientists suppose", because those are assumptions.

because it is based on assumptions, i feel that your model is ineligible for this discussion. as per your own rules.

a reply to: WarminIndy

There is more than one question and they are far from simply worded. Be that as it may:

1. No. Mutation is an essentially random process.
   
   
2. No. Rates of mutation are not only randomly variable, they are affected by the presence of mutagens in the environment — radiation, chemicals, stress factors and so forth, and may vary as they vary.
   
   
3. As long as they are able to interbreed, they are members of the same species.
   
   
4. No; see (3). Haplotypes are not genotypes.
   
   
5. Mutations are not 'designed' for adaptation. They occur accidentally and most of them are deleterious. Natural selection weeds out the deleterious ones, so that selectively neutral or positive mutations are conserved. Environments — or 'biomes', since you like the word — change continuously, and what is adaptive one day may not be so the next.

The way you phrase the questions shows that you won't understand my answers. The reductio ad absurdum of your logic is that conspecifics must be clones of each other. Still, I do not doubt that you will be able to 'refute' my answers to your own satisfaction, if not to anyone else's.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Think outside the universal box. Yes, nothing means nothing. You could say matter always existed, you could say the matter was a pink donkey with yellow polka dots. You could say it was a teapot, you could say it was anything you want. The end point is, nothing means nothing.

Why is "nothing means nothing" the end point? Are you claiming that there was absolutely nothing?

We don't believe God is material anyway, God isn't natural. God does not exist as a physical being. That is something we have always maintained and no ancient text implies that God is physical matter. But an audio wave is physical and that's is what we call a manifestation, or a physical expression of a supernatural origin.

I don't understand how you went from a "sound wave" to a "physical expression of a supernatural being". But I understand this is your belief.

There is more to the universe than we can even imagine, so why limit it to only physical, when the universe itself has much empty space and other spaces that we won't ever know in our lifetimes?

I don't limit the universe. I just don't try to have beliefs, like the belief of gods, because I don't think they are necessary.

But instead of asking why we limit the universe to only the physical, I would like to ask why add something to the universe that we can't and haven't seen, like the "supernatural"? What is the "supernatural"? Can you explain whats in the "supernatural"?

a reply to: Astyanax

Text No. Rates of mutation are not only randomly variable, they are affected by the presence of mutagens in the environment — radiation, chemicals, stress factors and so forth, and may vary as they vary.

Astyanax,
Am simply a layman not certified in any manner. Was wondering if a closed environment would effect the process of mutation? Is a closed environment possible or feasible? Am I just talking out of the top of my head? Do you believe that a closed environment could have existed or perhaps does exist?

a reply to: WarminIndy

As others have pointed out, some of the things you think are about evolution.. are not, and some are just plain wrong.

Evolution is only contentious to those who do not understand it, or have religious reasons for not accepting it, this is a very very small minority. It is better to start all over with a clean slate, there are resources available if you are truly interested in learning you will pursue studying them and stay away from creationist pseudoscience websites.

Here is a sweet and short video to get you started in the right direction.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Have you not seen the evolution side calling us names like "creatard"? That's clearly the *mark of high intelligence* but one that the evolution side has created without stopping the gang-bullying.

Yes WarnInIndy,
I have experienced the viciousness of a few who try to monopolize several of these forums. If you give an opinion and that opinion threatens them in any manner they will chew on you in a number of ways. You are either a troll or science stupid, as though that is a great badge of super intelligence. You will never get two side of opinion from them because they know everything that the books tell them. You can’t fault them without realizing why they act the way they do.

Out of 65 countries on the PSI tests, we can see the U.S. is 23 in science and much worse in math. This reflects what our universities are producing and they are well over 80 to 90 percent atheists. That is one reason they call intelligent design stupid. Something like the kettle calling the pot black. When you realize that almost all graduates are on the payroll of the money people, then you can understand why our universities are so stupid. I do expect a lot of flak from this post but doesn’t bother me in the least. Facts are facts – right?

a reply to: Seede

Howdy,

If you are indeed not a troll (and I make no claims that you are) then you are indeed scientifically illiterate or spouting disinformation in the form of unfounded assertions. You are wrong about university students, and you will be wrong until you can provide valid sources for your claims. We aren't bullying you, we are asking for evidence of your claims, while providing evidence of our own. Quit playing the victim here and actually attempt to defend your position using some unbiased evidence.

www.christianpost.com...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: RUFFREADY
I'll just say: I don't know.

To many people, God = I don't know. They just don't see it.

a reply to: Seede

Was wondering if a closed environment would effect the process of mutation? Is a closed environment possible or feasible?

What do you mean by a closed environment? One in which mass and energy are not exchanged with the outside? One in which genetic material isn't exchanged? The second is possible; it can be created artificially. The first is impossible, unless the environment you refer to is the universe as a whole.

In the second case — I'm guessing you mean 'affect' here, not 'effect' as you wrote — populations of living species within the closed environment would still be subject to genetic drift and to mutagenic factors within that environment. It is impossible to say how the rate of mutation would be affected without setting more frame conditions and obtaining much more data. Even then it would only be possible for an artificial environment that was very confined and contained only one or two species — a glass container containing bacteria, for example. You could then find out what you wanted to know by experiment.

Organisms and environments are very complex things.

originally posted by: Astyanax

As long as they are able to interbreed, they are members of the same species.

Thought I would add that they should interbreed in the wild, resulting in successfully reproductive individuals. There are some species that are separate but in extreme pressures such as captivity will interbreed yet are still separate species.

a reply to: Seede

does everybody in the US attend university?

If not, then I don't see how the two figures correlate.

Maybe only university graduates were polled!

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Prompted by a rabid youtube watcher who loves to scream at people who believe in Intelligent Design, I will ask the same question here and perhaps it can be answered by someone.

1: No.
2: No
3: Furs
4: No
5: Nothing to do with predation
6: Environmental reasons
7: There was no original Biome

First of all, the north/south polar regions where always going to be different than the tropics. Basic stuff here, which nullifies your ideas that the Earth started out as a single Biome. Secondly, Each environment changed at different rates.

Beyond that, I sense racist overtones here... You're on your own pal.

Your explanation was quite meaningless and contained no explanation. I think what you said shows you negate pretty much anything you don't like, rather than checking first if it is true or untrue, (this gathered from your lack of including any answers besides no, no, no, and racism!)

You sense racist overtones from the OP? WOW, the only racism I see is your accusation as you don't even know what race the OP might be, not that any of it is important. There were no disparaging remarks whatsoever about any race of people in the OP and yet you felt ashamed and embarrassed because of guilt, or resentment, or social justice?
I'm not mad, just trying to understand why you would promote a continued false agenda of always pulling the race card.

I have seen people pull that card just for hearing someone say a race in a conversation that is non white, as if people are not allowed to speak about "different races of people" Or when you see someone speaking about different races of people you immediately think of all those dark times when we had unspeakable race wars here in the western world, and immediately assume that those speaking are going to disparage a race of people. Why else would they be speaking about them right?
This is the kind of mindset that starts race wars. It has gotten a lot of people killed over the years. Can't we do better than that as human beings?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: WarminIndy

Have you not seen the evolution side calling us names like "creatard"? That's clearly the *mark of high intelligence* but one that the evolution side has created without stopping the gang-bullying.

Yes WarnInIndy,
I have experienced the viciousness of a few who try to monopolize several of these forums. If you give an opinion and that opinion threatens them in any manner they will chew on you in a number of ways. You are either a troll or science stupid, as though that is a great badge of super intelligence. You will never get two side of opinion from them because they know everything that the books tell them. You can’t fault them without realizing why they act the way they do.

Out of 65 countries on the PSI tests, we can see the U.S. is 23 in science and much worse in math. This reflects what our universities are producing and they are well over 80 to 90 percent atheists. That is one reason they call intelligent design stupid. Something like the kettle calling the pot black. When you realize that almost all graduates are on the payroll of the money people, then you can understand why our universities are so stupid. I do expect a lot of flak from this post but doesn’t bother me in the least. Facts are facts – right?

Thank you Seede,

I don't let it bother me at all. They always make it into a debate and when they can't offer absolutes for the facts they claim are absolutes, they fall back on "if this were a court of law, you would have burden of proof". Well, isn't it fair that they also have the burden of proof?

There are two things that must be shown in a trial; 1: Evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, or 2: Reasonable doubt.

As long as there is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, hence, seeing how God works in my life and God working in the lives of others, then to me that gives me more reason to believe. As long as I know that then there is reasonable doubt in evolution from nothing.

I have seen the many people who are seriously ill and someone prays for that person and they are healed, while the doctors who treated them concede that it was not anything they did and they can't explain it. I have seen this. I have seen my prayers answered and not because of anything I did but pray and have faith.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Seede

Howdy,

If you are indeed not a troll (and I make no claims that you are) then you are indeed scientifically illiterate or spouting disinformation in the form of unfounded assertions. You are wrong about university students, and you will be wrong until you can provide valid sources for your claims. We aren't bullying you, we are asking for evidence of your claims, while providing evidence of our own. Quit playing the victim here and actually attempt to defend your position using some unbiased evidence.

www.christianpost.com...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Seede is not a troll and someone accused me of the same thing, but I suppose it would be kind of funny to you that now those of us who believe in Intelligent Design are called "creatards". well, not so far on this post because ABS doesn't allow it, but that has how far it has descended. And yet your side does nothing to prevent that from happening.

But you only have the power to bully if I let you, this is not the victim mentality, but the way your side acts is just like the Middle Ages. How ironic is that?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Again, I made no claim as to whether or not Seede was indeed trolling here.

You might find it funny that those of us who understand scientific material and accept that the observable scientific evidence collected thus far points toward evolution are called Darwinist, evolutionists, and evolutiontards. These titles are just as bad as creatard (evolutiontard for obvious reasons), Darwinist because science moved on from Darwin's times, and evolutionists because it implies a belief when evolution is a scientific theory no more based in belief than cell theory.

I think you'll find that often on conspiracy sites people have called people of the opposite position "x"-tards. Look at "climatetard" for example. I don't like the degeneration into name calling either, but that's probably human nature... Perhaps it is a way for the opposition to dehumanize their opponents and call them evil, hateful, or other such things.

Now, I don't think you are troll, I've looked through your posting history a bit (I think that's usually the best way to do things...). That said, I've had experience with at least one troll on these forums (several times) in the very short time since I've joined. What he/she said is almost exactly the kind of thing a person who supports Christian Creation or even Intelligent Design might say. It really is hard to tell whether someone has no understanding of the basic theories of the natural sciences or if someone is trolling and laughing at an attempt to help understand those theories.

If you think I am bullying by asking for valid information and pointing out flawed information, you've got a serious victim complex. I've already pointed out that members of your side do the exact same thing that members on my side have done, and if you think that your side gets more flak than my side proportionally, I'd like to see you back that up with some evidence. Personally, I think there are always going to be people who are being less than perfectly rational on both sides of any argument.

I do take offense to the fact that you are implying everyone on "[my] side acts like the Middle Ages". First, I think I've pointed out that not everyone does what you claim. Second, I think you are implying that because many of the "problems" of the Middle Ages were caused by religious leaders (the Crusades, for example) that it is ironic that someone who understands evolution is... What exactly, somehow at fault for the destruction of large groups of people? Or is it reason and logic that you think "my side" lacks, and thus acts like the mostly religious peoples of the Middle Ages? I would certainly disagree with that statement, on the grounds that people who understand evolution and scientific material understand the logic needed to produce it. Really, I have no idea what you are trying to say... People who are religious (as in the Middle Ages) and don't use critical thinking or use it to try and shoehorn religion and the understanding of nature (as in the Middle Ages) are actually acting like people in the Middle Ages, and I have just described... Well, I think you know who I described.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: WarminIndy

Human beings should be the very definition of this. We have some that look similar, and others who look vastly different. Even in the same family, brothers, sisters, twins, identical twins. All examples of genetic mutations as well as traits continued in the same species.

Again, we can look at cats. No two cats ever look exactly the same, there is always minute differences yet at the same time vast, or minor differences.

How is this not an example of genetic mutation? Is it you do not understand what it is we mean by mutation? It's the offspring that changes, not the parent.

You and I will never have a genetic mutation in our lifetime. We will develop certain tolerances and intolerances that we may pass down to our offspring, and later their offspring may develop the mutation.