Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Obviously, God created this child using the parents as artistic inspiration.

    Just kidding. I side with mainstream science on this matter.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    I know you have great faith and I respect that, it makes me smile.

    If science annoys you, forget about it. The people you are trying to reach are actually in the right, just stick to mainstream science. Evolution is happening all around you, think about it, it's like poetry.

    EDIT: Do not mix evolution with creation, 2 separate subjects.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I agree.

    However, those people claiming certain things has nothing to do with things that I may be claiming.... no more than my claim is any more connected to yours.

    I agree.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    OK.... but...

    Some of your posts confuse the heck out of me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    First of all, the universe had to begin.
    Then the universe had to make structures, atoms etc, capable of bonding and storing information.
    I can't understand why structures that contain information try to preserve that information by duplicating themselves.
    Perhaps that is linked to how the universe itself began,
    or is the reason why the universe began.

    Unless the universe was of the type it is, we wouldn't exist.
    Either that is chance, or the universe came into being because it could generate life.
    Could preserve increasing amounts of organic information.

    The other explanation is that we are part of a multiverse, which is as unprovable as creationism,
    and some of the people who propose it just as biased.

    I haven't got a proper theory, just an inclination to think that the universe has a lot more secrets to divulge.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    No, they aren't.
    No, that's an error in assumed probability calculation. Dependent events often become more likely with each one, not less. That's a critical feature of the mathematical foundations of Darwinian theory.
    You do not understand the theory of evolution now, as is clear from the various incomprehensions and mistakes in your posts here. So what are we to make of your claim that you used to "believe" in it?

    That's backwards. What happens is: The structures that duplicate themselves thereby preserve whatever information they contain.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Now you're making them look like fools by not replying!
     
  11. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    So based on that logic, at this latter stage of "dependent events" on earth, we should be able to see improbable acts of evolution everywhere. New organs should be popping up all the time.

    It's funny how the forming of life from scratch via basic laws of physics are seen as so very probable by evolutionists, yet this supposedly fundamental creative aspect of the universe can not be naturally simulated to even the smallest degree on the most powerful computer systems in the world.
     
  12. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    blimming heck boy, you replied!
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,201
    4.54 billion years old.
     
  14. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    "All is mind and the mind knows only creation not reality" "Subjectivity"
     
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    i blocked you so i didn't see that...
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    They are. See this flying squirrel below? (actually a mouse) He's growing a wing. That "wing" sticking out is just an extra ulna, but it lets him glide just a little better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In another ten million years he may look a lot more like a bat than a squirrel. Or he may never develop it because there's no niche for a slightly better flying squirrel.

    Not only can we simulate it, we have actually created the basics of life (self-replicating molecules that eat, reproduce and inherit their structure from their progenitors) in the lab.
     
  17. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    gotta love the flying squirrel! bring them BACK!
     
  18. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    I meant bring them BACK use dna of a squirrel - lizard - dove. Go science Go!*seriously*
     
  19. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    perhaps i pulled the moon from my ass in another "plane" of existence? i kept a straight face.
     
  20. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I'm sorry but small-minded arguments come from small-minded people. And your arguments are indeed small-minded here. If you'd like to present a different face on these forums then I suggest you try to elevate yourself above them.

    And as if your previous failings weren't enough this complete and utter nonsense betrays yet another deficiency in your thinking: an ongoing failure to appreciate the fundamental nature of matter. It doesn't want to do random things at the macroscopic scale, it wants to bind and cohere into ever more complex states. And in case that wasn't obvious to you already, which it really should be by now, I linked you to a specific proof that is highly relevant to the context of this discussion. Clearly you didn't bother to peruse it, and if you did you have nonetheless failed to address the salient point about the capacity of certain molecules to transform into more complex configurations given changing environmental conditions (which happen to be even more stunning examples of the precursors to the emergence of life than those produced by the many experiments that have come before it). In the end you simply don't realize that the universe has rigged all the draws in favour of emerging complexity and this is why you're still off with the fairies regarding your probability objection.

    I ask you: how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're not even cognizant of one of the most fundamental features of the fabric of the universe itself?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2015
    davewhite04 likes this.
  21. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Your writing skills are phenomenal man...
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    davewhite04:

    Nice to meet you, too, davewhite. We have barely exchanged two words with one another, yet here you are breaching the site rules by insulting me. You should chat with tali89. You two would no doubt get on like a house on fire.

    If you have specific issues you'd like to raise with me, please start a private conversation and I'll talk to you about them. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the personal insults. If it turns out that you're unable to act like a good Christian and treat people with common courtesy, then I'll have to start enforcing the site rules. I'll let you off this time, but only because it's me you chose to insult. If this was anybody else, I'd be issuing warning point to you.

    Run along now.

    Edit to add: Ah, I see that Bells actually gave you a warning. Fair enough. And...

    I get insulted often enough here that there aren't many insults that I take to heart.

    I thank you for your apology, but I'd suggest that next time you want to make a "quip" you should flag it more clearly, or else somebody might not get the "joke".
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2015
  23. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I am fully aware of matter's ability for self-organization and rearrangement. But all you are doing is extending this basic concept indefinitely, without proof.... or as you said: "it wants to bind and cohere into ever more complex states". Building a self-replicating molecule in the lab proves what exactly? Showing that these molecules have a tendency to change proves what?

    Simply calling something a precursor to life because it happens to be similar to the building blocks of life is faulty logic. And even if something is defined as a precursor to life, this precursor may only stay a precursor until a designer comes along and builds it into life. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm saying it may be the case. It needs to be proven one way or the other.

    Have scientists seen the emergence of spontaneous information in the lab?
     

Share This Page