Denial of evolution III

Not all believers in creation believe in a young earth.... Its nice that all of you restrict 'creationism' to this, just because it plays to your advantage. So if anyone argues for creationism you bring this up as if it was relevant to his argument. It would be best if you responded to the argument for creation made by that individual rather than respond to someone else's argument.

And I could care less about the Biblical accounts.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right, because your God only wrote the Quran, not the Bible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fair enough - here's an edit:

The notion that the universe was miraculously zapped into existence just a few thousand years ago, but was made in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a universe that appears to be of great age and runs completely autonomously from supernatural control and interference, can never be eliminated entirely.


But if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then the chances are.........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"We're a mess."

This tired Leftist Mantra woud be laughable if it were not so ignorant.

A researcher at Stanford has determined that the human eye can detect a single photon, the smallest amount of energy known.

Your optic nerve uploads data at 5 GB per second.

Your ear performs a Fourier Analysis on all wave functions impinging on your eardrum. How complex this analysis I will leave for each of you to discover yourselves, but it is indeed profound.

Humans have swum the English Channel, run a marathon in little more than 2 hours, free-dived to 200 feet underwater, and simultaneously played 42 games of chess while blindfolded.

That the human mind can perform incredible feats of analysis and recall defies any conceivable excuse prattled by evolutionary theorists.

All of our senses are exquisitely enhanced by the *COINCIDENTAL* values around us, such as the extremely fast velocity of light, and the relatively slow velocity of sound. Fast light permits excellent radio communications and expresses the temperate climate of earth. See if you can figure out how.
Slow sound permits stereophonic hearing and detection of direction owing to the difference in arrival of sounds at our respective ears, roughly 1/10,000th of a second.

How *fortuitous* that all these things just.... *happened*....

When you Darwinian Geniuses have built a machine which can do the above human feats, while healing itself, refueling itself and ultimately reproducing itself, let me know. I'd like to see your brilliant product.

 

Building something would be intelligent design, wouldn't it? Science isn't left or right.

 

Humans aren't the result of intelligent design..they break down and get sick all the time. If we were, our bones would be titanium, there would be lightspeed nerve impulses and certainly not a waste-pipe running through a recreation area..Nobody would die in childbirth and we would be able to synthesize our own alcohol! Just basic stuff really.

 

Intelligent design?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(No offense to the young ladies in the picture, they are the result of a genetic anomaly)

 

I think its pretty obvious we have a satirist in our midst

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

 

That's what everyone here always says, synthesizer-patel, but people like this really exist.

 

Spidey, that's a pretty crude way of putting it to be sure..

 

I dont deny that - what I'm saying is the histrionics of the real ones are so predictably and laughably moronic that they are indistinguishable from someone characterturing them - but I'm a look-on-the-bright-side kinda guy so I'm duty bound to see this person as a joke rather than some swivel-eyed lunatic frothing and dribbling over a keyboard.

and dont forget that people who really think and act like this are way too busy procreating with their siblings to post on the internets - I don't judge them for it - thats just what you do in the backwaters of the world where being a creationist is considered normal

I suppose - if I wanted to be kind - (s)he could just be an impressionable 13 year old boy or lonely 50 year old spinster relegated to the ranks of lolcow tho

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Lolcow

 

Instead of responding to the arguments, Leftists hurl ad hominems.
It never changes.

Nobody even tried to answer the challenge repeated above.

Energy from the sun is proportional to the velocity of light, squared.

So if c were only slightly smaller, the incident radiation reaching earth would be greatly reduced, and life would probably be impossible.

The very structure of matter cries out loudly "DESIGN".
Solid steel is only one part in 10 to the 17th power of stuff.
The rest is empty.

Of course atheists could quite easily improve on this engineering brilliance.

Now given your joint intellects, surely you can come up with something better than childish insults. I blame much of it on the current degenerate system of public education. It's run by leftists.

 

I seem to recall an old member who used to post long, ranting, nonsesical posts filled with multiple iterations of the word "leftist" and blaming every one of the world's ills - and anything she just didnt really like on them.

can anyone else smell socks?

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Cazzo

 

Where did you get this nonsense from?

The sun produces energy by nuclear fusion at rate P. That energy radiates into space and the Earth incepts a tiny fraction of it, say p. The speed of light has nothing to do with the size of P or p.

If the speed of light were half what it is, the same energy would still come to earth every minute, but it would take 16 minutes instead of 8 to travel from sun to Earth.

 

Look at me! Look at me!!

I can quote-mine too:

http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php


On reflection this probably doesn't fit the definition of a quote mine - at it doesn't seek to mis-represent the content of the original article or the viewpoint of the author

 

A photon detectable by the human eye is fairly energetic - far from the smallest mount of energy known.

No it doesn't.

No it isn't.

It would not.

I wouldn't bother except that I hadn't heard that one before - do we have an entry in the "new arguments from creationists" category, heretofore emply, or is this too minor a variation on the standard watchmaker's fallacy?

You are confusing evidence with proof.

We have plenty of evidence that mutations happen by chance, at odds varying with circumstance, and no evidence that they happen by design, nowdays. We also have mechanisms explaining that pattern.

We also have lots of evidence that the world has always, since it came to be, behaved according to the same physical laws and patterns we see now.

This preponderance of evidence and mechanism establishes theory as well as scientific fact, which is not the same as "proof".

 

RM, I am still patiently waiting for your response to my post #736. I answered some of your questions. I asked you some. Afraid to respond?

 

he's had a few throw-downs in the last 24 hours and since then he has been suspiciously absent from the biology subforum.

a lolcow who smells like chicken.

who woulda thunk it hey?

 

I started off a believer in some sort of god. I remember as a kid considering the complexity of the human eye, and knowing that god must exist in some form to have created this miraculous equipment. As I got older and more educated, I became an atheist in practice/agnostic in theory. In the case of evolution, a basic understanding of science showed me that complex life is a natural outcome of the laws of the universe, and the more I learned of science, the more sure I became of this fundamental truth. Or so I thought anyway. I never realized how big of an assumption I was actually making- not until a few months ago.

To those of you here who still believe in evolution.... it doesn't matter the quantity or quality of scientific understanding you pile on, if it all sits atop an incorrect assumption... the assumption that the [unprovable] inter-species evolution can be extrapolated from the [provable] intra-species natural selection.

I just came across an interesting video which actually motivated me to come post here again on sciforums:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NtegAOQpSs&feature=player_embedded

If this video is accurate, please explain how the bees could have possibly evolved this ability. The ability to transmit the information through ambiguous dance by one bee, and the ability to interpret the intended message by another bee would have had to evolve simultaneously. What are the chances of that happening?

 

How did it happen? It's called survival.

:shrug:

I really like the "mystical" background music too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As with all these sorts of things we are looking at the "final" result and it seem god-awful complex, when in fact it started quite simply and was added to over millions of years and billions of generations.