PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Refuting Creationist Beliefs
       Part 2 of 2

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I mentioned in another post, most Creationist arguments can be broken down to two basic themes.  Here I address the second type.  It goes something like this:

Just look at ( the human eye | a bombadier beetle | DNA ). It's so complicated! There's no way something like that could have happened by chance, God must have done it.

The problem with these arguments is that it treats whatever is being discussed (eyes, beetles, whatever) as a desired end product.  One can almost imagine Nature, with a dice cup full of DNA, shaking it over and over until finally a human eyeball rolls out, at which point she lets out a sigh of relief and massages her aching arm.

The truth is, the universe doesn't care what happens.  While the odds against any specific arrangment of matter might be astronomical, the odds that some arrangment will occur are 100%.

I realize that that last sentence parses awkwardly, so allow me to delve into analogy.  I decide to hold a lottery. 1 billion tickets, 1 dollar each, 1 to a customer, winner takes all.  I sell all the tickets, and on the appointed day reach into the hat (it's a really big hat) and pull out stub # 365,332,875.  A voice from the crowd yells out "Oh my God, that's me! I win! A one in a billion shot, and now I'm rich! It's a miracle!"  And certainly, from her point of view it does almost seem miraculous.  The odds of her winning were so small as to be negligable.  However, from my point of view up on the stage, nothing odd happened at all.  I sold all the tickets, all the stubs were in the hat, someone had to win.  I didn't care who; that was completely irrelevant to me.

The same is true of the Universe.  A cosmos with human eyeballs, one with blind humans, or one where there's nothing but a diffuse cloud of hydrogen spread evenly through space.  Any of these outcomes could have happened, and the Universe wouldn't have cared a bit (please excuse my anthropomorphizing)  It's easy to think, from our limited perspective, that our existence must be the reult of a miracle.  But in reality, there are so many different ways that the universe could have turned out, that any result would look like a miracle compared to the chances of it not happening.  But of course, something had to occur.  Some ticket had to be pulled from the hat, and it just happened to be ours.  Simply put, something had to happen, and something did.  No miracles required.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:51 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  The truth is, the universe doesn't care what happens.  While the odds against any specific arrangment of matter might be astronomical, the odds that some arrangment will occur are 100%

Biologically, one might say that life is the result of chance, time, and chemistry.  However, the chemical bonds that make up our DNA have the wrong kind of relationship for life to form.  True, there is nothing more natural than the relationship between acids and bases, however that 'natural' relationship is the wrong one for life.  That natural relationship is what happens when we age, or when we die and 'chemistry triumphs over biology' as the decomposition process takes place.  For the right kind of relationship to exist (for life to exist) that has to be imposed on the DNA from the outside.  

I am a little confused by the lottery example.  There are far too many variable assumptions and information systems that have to be in place prior to selling the lottery tickets.  For example, you have to have a money system in place, you have to speak the same language so that you can explain the concept of odds and explain why they should buy the ticket etc etc etc.  

And that is typically the point... for one of these things to happen is 10^kajillion power... but for all happen and be in place at once by chance... far beyond impossible.  

Simply put, something had to happen, and something did.

Why did something have to happen?  Where in nature do we see matter spontaneously give rise to information?  What part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that something had to happen from nothing?

Your logic suggests that because something came from nothing, therefore something is the logical result of nothing.  Lets see if this works in the real world -

Is it possible that a tornado would pass thorugh a junkyard and spit out a 747 in mid flight (with a pilot who knows how to fly it)?  Even if all the parts are available in the junkyard, can this happen?

But perhaps the 747 could evolve... hrm... but then, a 747 is made up a thousands of parts that don't fly on their own.  Only when it's put together correctly does it fly, and only then when a pilot who knows what he is doing makes it do so.  

But in reality, there are so many different ways that the universe could have turned out  

But what is the most likly?  What is most natural?  Wouldn't it make sense that it would follow the easiest, simplist, and most likely/natural pattern?  But that's not what we see... we see complexity everywhere - from solar systems to galaxies... from bacteria to human beings.  

For example - we put water in an ice cube tray and put it into the freezer at 25 degrees F for 24 hours.  What can we expect - what is the most likely/natural result?  We will have ice.  Do we ever get hot water?  No.  Why?  Because we understand the nature of water.  It's predictable.  It follows the same course and path everytime it is subjected to the same conditions.  Wouldn't the universe do the same - follow the simplest, most likely, most natural course each and every time?  One would expect so.  But that's not what we see in the complexity of life and the universe.  

The problem with these arguments is that it treats whatever is being discussed (eyes, beetles, whatever) as a desired end product.

So let me get this straight - you are telling us that something came from nothing while it was attempting to go nowhere?  In nothing's trip to nowhere, something came to be.  Even though nothing has no way of getting from nowhere to the somewhere we describe as nowhere else, and someting came to be on the way.  

This sounds like the statement "there are no absolutes".  Are there absolutely no absolutes, because if that is the case there are absolutes, because there being no absolutes is an absolute.  That is what you call circular reasoning.  

But of course, something had to occur.

Yes someting did occur, but it's not the nothing you claim it to be.  God created everything the way it was, and it didn't come about by chance over time.  

This is, of couse, all academic.  We see the meat and potatoes of this argument play out in the creationism vs evoluton discussion.

Again, you seem to be trying to convey a 'big picture' concept here.  As I said in the other thread - our 'big picture' is the Bible.

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:30 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where in nature do we see matter spontaneously give rise to information?

The formation of stars, planets and galaxies for example.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 5:08 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And that is typically the point... for one of these things to happen is 10^kajillion power... but for all happen and be in place at once by chance... far beyond impossible.  

so, by your reasoning, lotteries are divinely inspired?

Is it possible that a tornado would pass thorugh a junkyard and spit out a 747 in mid flight (with a pilot who knows how to fly it)?  Even if all the parts are available in the junkyard, can this happen?

But perhaps the 747 could evolve... hrm... but then, a 747 is made up a thousands of parts that don't fly on their own.  Only when it's put together correctly does it fly, and only then when a pilot who knows what he is doing makes it do so.  

And 747's don't reproduce, with natural selection, genetic drift, etc. acting on them.  Also, there is no set "goal" for evolution.  This analogy is flawed in so many ways...

God created everything the way it was, and it didn't come about by chance over time.  

There is no evidence to support this assertion (in act, all the evidence points away from it).  And the ToE doesn't say that life evolves from chance.  If you're going to argue against something, you should at least know a little about it.  For example, evolution says absolutely nothing about the creation of the universe, solar system, etc.  It says nothing about how life began.  It only applies to the evolution of existing life.  



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:12 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2004 :

I am a little confused by the lottery example.  There are far too many variable assumptions and information systems that have to be in place prior to selling the lottery tickets.  For example, you have to have a money system in place, you have to speak the same language so that you can explain the concept of odds and explain why they should buy the ticket etc etc etc.  

Oh come on now.  If you can make your way through Jesus saying "I and the door." "I am the vine" than this simple analogy really shouldn't be giving you that much trouble.  Let's try to keep this debate on a serious level and not resort to faux obtuseness.


Quote from Gup20 at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2004 :
Your logic suggests that because something came from nothing, therefore something is the logical result of nothing.


Actually, you're the one who brought up nothing, I never mentioned it.  My argument holds for any non-static universe
regardless of its origin.


Quote from Gup20 at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2004 :
But what is the most likly?  What is most natural?  Wouldn't it make sense that it would follow the easiest, simplist, and most likely/natural pattern?


And how do you know what that is?  You say the complexity is antithetical to the nature of the universe, presumably based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics?  If that is the case (please let me know if it is) then I have to tell you that your understanding of physics is flawed.  Nothing prevents a local increase in entropy as long as you have a corresponding decrease in entropy somewhere else.  

Quote from Gup20 at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2004 :

The problem with these arguments is that it treats whatever is being discussed (eyes, beetles, whatever) as a desired end product.

So let me get this straight - you are telling us that something came from nothing while it was attempting to go nowhere?


Nope, you got it completely wrong.  This "coming from nothingness" is entirely your brainchild, and I really don't know where you got it from.  All I'm saying is that the universe rolled the dice (that's another analogy there) and the fact the some numbers came up isn't a miracle.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:19 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  If you can make your way through Jesus saying "I and the door." "I am the vine" than this simple analogy really shouldn't be giving you that much trouble.  Let's try to keep this debate on a serious level and not resort to faux obtuseness.

I am the door - the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ... that makes sense.  I am the vine - there is therefore found no condemnation for those who are in christ jesus... yeah.. that makes sense...

But trying to liken the universe to a lotto dealer just doesn't jive, man.  For exactly the reasons I stated.  In the beginning (before the 'big bang') was nothing.  Somehow from nothing came everything is the basis of evolutonary paradigm.  

Kronus: My argument holds for any non-static universe regardless of its origin.

But that's just what evolution and creationism speak to - origins.  Are you telling me your analogy of Nature rolling the dice and selling lotto tickets has nothing to do with origins?  Then I have completely mis-understood you.  If THAT is the case (that you were not refering to origins) would have to say that your analogy makes no sense whatsoever and lacks any sort of point whatsoever.

Kronus:  Nothing prevents a local increase in entropy as long as you have a corresponding decrease in entropy somewhere else.

When you take my statements in context of - you were making analogies for origins, speaking about how nothing became something, the 2nd law fits nicely into that discussion, and is was in fact the way I used it.  Your assertion that "something had to happen, and something did" is assumptive at best - why did something have to happen?  What caused something to happen?  What conditions were present that suddenly out of nothing, something became?  Indeed... where did the material for the causation of 'something' come from?  What caused that something to be in the condition for anything to happen?

Kronus:  All I'm saying is that the universe rolled the dice (that's another analogy there) and the fact the some numbers came up isn't a miracle.

My point is - where did the Universe get the dice with which to roll and derrive our existance?  Did they pop out of thin air?  And where did the Universe (the analogus guy rolling the dice) come from?  Did that just spontaneously materialize as well without cause?  Matter simply does not spontaneously give rise to information.  It just doesn't happen.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:51 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Once again gup, why is god (an eternal being outside of space/time) more likely than an eternal universe which came from outside space/time?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:00 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Once again gup, why is god (an eternal being outside of space/time) more likely than an eternal universe which came from outside space/time?

Which is greater; the paintbrush that paints the canvas, or the painter who wields the brush?

The universe, in itself, is powerless to produce life and the complexity we see today.  The creator who created the universe, however, is not powerless, but all powerful.  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:22 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thanks for not answering the question.  I'll put that down as an "I don't know"


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:58 PM on April 28, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The universe, in itself, is powerless to produce life and the complexity we see today.  The creator who created the universe, however, is not powerless, but all powerful.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:21 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

which is your personal opinion, not science


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:43 AM on April 29, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote: Gup20 wrote: But trying to liken the universe to a lotto dealer just doesn't jive, man.  For exactly the reasons I stated.  In the beginning (before the 'big bang') was nothing.

On the proviso that the Big Bang is the only explaination for the origin of the physical universe. This is a question that is still being explored by science.

What would you say if the universe could not be explained in terms of a begining or an end? what if always had been, abeit it not always in a form that could be related to whyat we see today?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:47 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would ask what sort of mechanism could cause this.  I would say that matter does not spontaneously give rise to information anywhere in nature - and that it was a 'natural impossibility'.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 9:24 PM on April 29, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would ask what sort of mechanism could cause this.  I would say that matter does not spontaneously give rise to information anywhere in nature - and that it was a 'natural impossibility'.  


Please define the numerical metrics used to support this claim.

If you cannot measure information, you can make no statements regarding "increase" or  "decrease".

Since you make this statement so often, you must have a solid mathematical justification that backs it up.  We would like to see it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:55 AM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:55 AM on April 30, 2004 :


Please define the numerical metrics used to support this claim.



Personally, I'd rather he didn't.  The phrase "matter does not spontaneously give rise to information anywhere in nature" is one of those phrases that sounds like it might mean something but is actaully so ambiguous as to have null content.  It's the sort of trick you expect in high school debate teams.  Say something that sounds good and seems to support your position, but does't provide enough actual content to be directly refutable.  Then, shy away from actually clarifying your meaning.  It's a cheap debating trick, not worthy of a serious response.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:45 AM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis:  Please define the numerical metrics used to support this claim.

Kronus: Personally, I'd rather he didn't.  It's a cheap debating trick, not worthy of a serious response.


Do some research on Information Theory, and you will understand what I said.  To get you on your way:    Information Theory

This link is by an evolutionists, but it explains information theory in a straight forward way(without being excessively derogatory to creationists).  It should answer your question.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:55 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've taken a number of courses on information theory.  

There is no mathematical measure of information in the linked article, although it links to Yockey's book.  It appears that he is arguing from the standpoint of sponaneous creation of cytochrome-C, which is not a correct analysis of the probablities.

If he does indeed provide a numeric measure of information, I believe you will find it allows an increase of information due to evolutionary forces.

In fact, the arrticle states this fairly directly:

did not find a rejection of Darwinism. His discussion of protein evolution (chapter 12) seems to imply that Darwinian evolution is possible. It looks as if once life got started, there are no big obstacles to further evolution. So he is not opposed to evolution understood as common descent and evolution as a fact.



(Edited by Apoapsis 4/30/2004 at 2:41 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:25 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would say that matter does not spontaneously give rise to information anywhere in nature


Yes it does. The natural formation of stars and galaxies is a rise in information.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 2:33 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 9:24 PM on April 29, 2004 :
I would ask what sort of mechanism could cause this.  I would say that matter does not spontaneously give rise to information anywhere in nature - and that it was a 'natural impossibility'.  


In response, there are actually several.

There is the view held by Non-standard Cosmologists that there was no Big Bang but the universe is more of a steady state affair.

There is also (rather interestingly I might add as well) the quasi-steady state theories as proposed by Narlikar, Vishwakarma, and Burbidge, which (roughly speaking) envisage a cyclic universe, in which Big Bangs occur repeatedly. See the link for an brief overview of their paper on this:

Interpretations of the Accelerating Universe

As I said, the Big Bang is not the only model of the universe, although it is the most widely accepted within the field of Cosmology.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:57 PM on April 30, 2004 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:







-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:51 PM on September 18, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you interested in debating this topic?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:43 PM on September 27, 2007 | IP
The Voice

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Louis Pasteur the incredible French Chemist was the man that PROVED that life can ONLY come from life. Biogenesis... No matter how small something that lives is, it HAS to come from life.

Furthermore: When the "Big-Bang" exploded into a quardrillion planets stars ect. Then everything that came from the spinning mass HAD to spin in the same direction. Again this is scientificly proven:

Say u have a electronic merry-go-round (it doesn't have to be electronic btw). U place a bunch of 6th Graders on it, and set the speed on "High". U wait until it picks up enough speed to where the kids r horizontilly grabbing the merry-go-round (a tremendous amout of energy).

Then the kids start to fly off... Lets be a little more close to the relation between this and the "Big-Bang" and say that a final burst of speed caused all the kids to fly off at once... What will happen? They will fly off spinning the same direction that the merr-go-round was.

Therefore if the "Big-Bang" is everything that Evolutionists say it is, then ALL of the planets, stars ect. Would be spinning in the same direction... Do we see that with our own eyes today? No. Venus spins clockwise (not sure if If I'm geting the direction right but I know that they're different), while Mercury spins counter-clockwise.

In a scientific opinion, you must open u'r mind to the truness of these facts and see that there is no way that the "Big-Bang" could have happened.

And in my own experience, I have admited my-self not opening my mind to certain things because I didn't want to believe it. But in the end when I relized that I lost I finally admited that I was being ignorant. Please do not let this get in the way of proper debate (I'm speaking to Creationists as well here). Thank you.

Mark~

GOD Bless


-------
John 1:23 KJV
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 4:14 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And where did he material for the big bang come from?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:25 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Louis Pasteur the incredible French Chemist was the man that PROVED that life can ONLY come from life. Biogenesis... No matter how small something that lives is, it HAS to come from life.


Poor Monsieur Pasteur's claim is less than two decades from falsification, and that's an estimate on the generous side.

Furthermore: When the "Big-Bang" exploded into a quardrillion planets stars ect. Then everything that came from the spinning mass HAD to spin in the same direction. Again this is scientificly proven:


The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Now onto your PRATT about angular momentum...

Say u have a electronic merry-go-round (it doesn't have to be electronic btw). U place a bunch of 6th Graders on it, and set the speed on "High". U wait until it picks up enough speed to where the kids r horizontilly grabbing the merry-go-round (a tremendous amout of energy).

Then the kids start to fly off... Lets be a little more close to the relation between this and the "Big-Bang" and say that a final burst of speed caused all the kids to fly off at once... What will happen? They will fly off spinning the same direction that the merr-go-round was.

Therefore if the "Big-Bang" is everything that Evolutionists say it is, then ALL of the planets, stars ect. Would be spinning in the same direction...


You were doing so well up until the underlined part.

In a scientific opinion, you must open u'r mind to the truness of these facts and see that there is no way that the "Big-Bang" could have happened.


Wrong. The big bang was quite different from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe aren't related to any cosmos rotation. It is expected that galaxies arose from denser regions of the early universe, and they coalesced and combined because of gravitational and viscous interactions. These early density fluctuations were largely random, so we would expect galaxies to have random orientations. Even solar systems within galaxies have different origins than one another, and with that come additional random influences on their orientations.

Furthermore, conservation of angular momentum does not claim that everything must spin the same way. It means only that a change in spin in one object must be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in another object. Retrograde planets do not violate angular momentum, as other bodies in the early solar system account for the required compensating spin.


Try again!

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/11/2007 at 4:36 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:34 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 4:34 PM on October 11, 2007 :
Louis Pasteur the incredible French Chemist was the man that PROVED that life can ONLY come from life. Biogenesis... No matter how small something that lives is, it HAS to come from life.


Poor Monsieur Pasteur's claim is less than two decades from falsification, and that's an estimate on the generous side.

Furthermore: When the "Big-Bang" exploded into a quardrillion planets stars ect. Then everything that came from the spinning mass HAD to spin in the same direction. Again this is scientificly proven:


The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Now onto your PRATT about angular momentum...

Say u have a electronic merry-go-round (it doesn't have to be electronic btw). U place a bunch of 6th Graders on it, and set the speed on "High". U wait until it picks up enough speed to where the kids r horizontilly grabbing the merry-go-round (a tremendous amout of energy).

Then the kids start to fly off... Lets be a little more close to the relation between this and the "Big-Bang" and say that a final burst of speed caused all the kids to fly off at once... What will happen? They will fly off spinning the same direction that the merr-go-round was.

Therefore if the "Big-Bang" is everything that Evolutionists say it is, then ALL of the planets, stars ect. Would be spinning in the same direction...


You were doing so well up until the underlined part.

In a scientific opinion, you must open u'r mind to the truness of these facts and see that there is no way that the "Big-Bang" could have happened.


Wrong. The big bang was quite different from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe aren't related to any cosmos rotation. It is expected that galaxies arose from denser regions of the early universe, and they coalesced and combined because of gravitational and viscous interactions. These early density fluctuations were largely random, so we would expect galaxies to have random orientations. Even solar systems within galaxies have different origins than one another, and with that come additional random influences on their orientations.

Furthermore, conservation of angular momentum does not claim that everything must spin the same way. It means only that a change in spin in one object must be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in another object. Retrograde planets do not violate angular momentum, as other bodies in the early solar system account for the required compensating spin.


Try again!

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/11/2007 at 4:36 PM).



What expanded?, Where did it com from?



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:29 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What expanded?, Where did it com from?


Matter expanded. There is no doubt about that. Our universe shows sign after sign of past expansion, and it is still expanding today. You could better ask why the universe expanded. That's the exciting question cosmologists get to think about.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:28 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Louis Pasteur the incredible French Chemist was the man that PROVED that life can ONLY come from life. Biogenesis... No matter how small something that lives is, it HAS to come from life.

Sorry, no, Pasteur did NOT that life only comes from life, this is a common creationist misconception.  What he did show is that complex life doesn't spontaneously arise from dead organic matter.  For crying out loud, he did his experiments with soup broth!  What does this have to do with the conditions that existed on a pre biotic earth?  How does this disprove abiogenesis?!?!  

Furthermore: When the "Big-Bang" exploded into a quardrillion planets stars ect. Then everything that came from the spinning mass HAD to spin in the same direction. Again this is scientificly proven:

Another common creationist mistake, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was a rapid expansion and there wasn't even any matter for hundreds of thousands of years.

And in my own experience, I have admited my-self not opening my mind to certain things because I didn't want to believe it. But in the end when I relized that I lost I finally admited that I was being ignorant.

Take your own advice and do some real research!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:22 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
The Voice

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh burn. For u'r information (and not to be rude) I DID do the research... What do u think this internet is for? And I have another refute (which I think is being used in another part of the forum).

The Second Law of Thermodinamics:

Right right right u've heard it all before of course... Well gues what: The repetitive and "old" resources r in lots of way the best... Think about how smart people were in the ancient times??? U think they were dumb... Well I've got news for u.

1. In Africa they found weird lines in a desert... what were they? Well they found out by helo-view it was a spider that was like... HUGE. And the weird thing was that one of the legs was longer then the other ones... Weird? I think not! It was a certain kind of spider that when in mating season stuck out his :ahem: "leg" for a short amount of time... BUT, this was so small that it is only visible through microscope. Those ancient people (who they were anilysing) had to of had microscopic vision somehow.

2. The Pyrimids: Selfexplanitory.

3. The Bible itself: Lets be more then fair and say that the Bible is complet rubbish and not the least bit true... So. How did they know in the Bible to wash u'r hands before u touched an unclean person or did anything a Docter is suposed to do? How did they know about germs wayyy back then? Even if the Bible is not true, we KNOW it's VERY old. How did they know? ...

Well I'm done talking about how ancient man was smart. So. Back to the SLT:

The law states that all matter is wearing down. For instance... Look at u'r home is everything becoming more clean and neat by the day? ... Well I know it's not in our house because I'm the fourth out of 11 kids.

So even if u said yes (which could be possible esspecialy if u'r one of those smart people that buys houses and fixes them up and sells them again), That doesn't prove the law wrong. BACAUSE! The SLT states that things can possibly reverse the SLT WITH effort. SO u have to put an effort into it... Well. What happens if u leave things alone? The SLT takes over and u'r back to breaking things done and things becomeing less complex... For instance: A brand new Lexus is FAR more complex then a car in a dump (even if it's the same car)... That's beacuse the SLT took over and the car eventually wore out and doesn't even work anymore.

So what does the Evolustionists believe?:

"That everything is becoming more complex and that we came from rocks" (btw help me if this is "old" Evo info... the rock part. I'm not very up-to-date with u guys, hence this account... Partially)

SLT?:

"That everything is wearing down and becomeing less complex"

Now: The Evolutionists belief IS a belief. For it to be a SCIENTIFIC theory it has to be:

Oh burn. For u'r information (and not to be rude) I DID do the research... What do u think this internet is for? And I have another refute (which I think is being used in another part of the forum).

The Second Law of Thermodinamics:

Right right right u've heard it all before of course... Well gues what: The repetitive and "old" resources r in lots of way the best... Think about how smart people were in the ancient times??? U think they were dumb... Well I've got news for u.

1. In Africa they found weird lines in a desert... what were they? Well they found out by helo-view it was a spider that was like... HUGE. And the weird thing was that one of the legs was longer then the other ones... Weird? I think not! It was a certain kind of spider that when in mating season stuck out his :ahem: "leg" for a short amount of time... BUT, this was so small that it is only visible through microscope. Those ancient people (who they were anilysing) had to of had microscopic vision somehow.

2. The Pyrimids: Selfexplanitory.

3. The Bible itself: Lets be more then fair and say that the Bible is complet rubbish and not the least bit true... So. How did they know in the Bible to wash u'r hands before u touched an unclean person or did anything a Docter is suposed to do? How did they know about germs wayyy back then? Even if the Bible is not true, we KNOW it's VERY old. How did they know? ...

Well I'm done talking about how ancient man was smart. So. Back to the SLT:

The law states that all matter is wearing down. For instance... Look at u'r home is everything becoming more clean and neat by the day? ... Well I know it's not in our house because I'm the fourth out of 11 kids.

So even if u said yes (which could be possible esspecialy if u'r one of those smart people that buys houses and fixes them up and sells them again), That doesn't prove the law wrong. BACAUSE! The SLT states that things can possibly reverse the SLT WITH effort. SO u have to put an effort into it... Well. What happens if u leave things alone? The SLT takes over and u'r back to breaking things done and things becomeing less complex... For instance: A brand new Lexus is FAR more complex then a car in a dump (even if it's the same car)... That's beacuse the SLT took over and the car eventually wore out and doesn't even work anymore.

So what does the Evolustionists believe?:

"That everything is becoming more complex and that we came from rocks" (btw help me if this is "old" Evo info... the rock part. I'm not very up-to-date with u guys, hence this account... Partially).

SLT?:

"That everything is wearing down and becomeing less complex"

Now: The Evolutionists belief IS a belief. For it to be a SCIENTIFIC theroy it has to be

Requirements of a Scientific Theory
It must explain observed aspects of nature in terms of physical processes.
It has useful explanatory value. It “works”
It must be consistent with established physical LAWS and logical principles.
It is rational; it doesn’t appeal to magic, miracles, or authority.
(Fundamentally new physics should be viewed with suspicion!)
It is testable; it offers predictions that can be compared to OBSERVATIONS.
It has predictive value and/or suggests new phenomena to be observed.

Ok, so does Evo size with this? No! Evo's believe that Evo can NOT be repeated ("let me see that Big-Bang one more time please). Therefore, it can NOT be observed... Besides, Evo's believe 1 of either of these things:

1. Evo is happening to fast for us to see.

2. Evo is happening to slow for us to see (observe).

Therefore it can't be a theory. PLUS: It DOESN'T match up with the Laws (SLT for instance).

So in the end: What wins? The Belief? Or the Law? U do that math... I was never really good at math :P

Mark~

GOD Bless


-------
John 1:23 KJV
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 1:12 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dang. Gotta eat lunch. This junk will have to wait until I'm done with class.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:25 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Voice at 12:12 PM on October 17, 2007 :

So. Back to the SLT: . . .

The law states that all matter is wearing down.


No, it states that heat doesn't flow from a cool body to a hot body.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:00 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

SLT doesn't have anything to do with evolution.  The earth does not exist in a closed system.  The sun provides us with a constant supply of usable energy.  

The SLT argument that creationists use is dead.  That they still use it is to merely to try to impress scientifically ignorant people with something that sounds scientific, but is actually nonsense.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:32 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The second law of thermodynamics?!?!  Someone is STILL trying to claim this refutes evolution?!?   What nonsense.  The Voice doesn't even understand it and it's obvious he's done NO research on the subject.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:09 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Kidarias01

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus your are sooo dead (no that is not a threat) That argument of complication comes from DNA you gave me a great analogy, lets take that lotto, if each person gets to pull 5 tickets ok? Now as long as you get 1 right ticket with a 9/10 chance of each being right. Good chances right? Now say that each generation gets to pull. if you get all wrong then you die. VERY few pull wrong. Now a desiese goes through killing everyone with R's noone will ever have R's again, then B's, Then W's... eventually you have only 3 letters left after 1000 years. More Mutations=weaker species. Please don't aplaude just throw money.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 3:06 PM on December 16, 2007 | IP
Kidarias01

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look every time a mutation happens the gene pool gets smaller, smaller gene pool less chance of survival and less mutations. no mutation after 1000yrs
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 3:30 PM on December 16, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's no where near truth... Where do you guys get this stuff.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 7:27 PM on December 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look every time a mutation happens the gene pool gets smaller, smaller gene pool less chance of survival and less mutations. no mutation after 1000yrs

Demonstratably wrong!  There are a number of gene duplications on this page (gene duplication increases the size of the genome, which means your statement is 100% wrong):
GeneDuplication

And here's a specific example from the same page:
"When microbes evolve in a continuous, nutrient-limited environment, natural selection can be predicted to favor genetic changes that give cells greater access to limiting substrate. We analyzed a population of baker's yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition. These changes are correlated with increased levels of mRNA hybridizing to probe generated from the hexose transport locus HXT6. Further analysis of the evolved strain reveals the existence of multiple tandem duplications involving two highly similar, high-affinity hexose transport loci, HXT6 and HXT7. Selection appears to have favored changes that result in the formation of more than three chimeric genes derived from the upstream promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence of HXT6. We propose a genetic mechanism to account for these changes and speculate as to their adaptive significance in the context of gene duplication as a common response of microorganisms to nutrient limitation. "

So no, every time a mutation occurs, the "gene pool" doesn't get smaller, as I've shown, sometimes it gets bigger.  And science shows us that this is a common occurence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:59 AM on December 21, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.