By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Evolution Forum

Rath on 19 May 2009
thanny said:
highwaystar101 said:
thanny said:
I know that this is about Evolution, which starts with a single cell, and can not explain how life began in the first place...

but how can all these scientists who are so sure evolution is true still have absolutely no clue about how life actually began? No evolutionist has even come close to being able to explain it. it is simple not possible for life to create itself. Richard Dawkins himself acknowledges this, and even he says there is evidence in the details of molecular biology you can find evidence of some sort of designer.

Out of interest, who of you who believe in evolution also believe life created itself? and for that matter, who believe in the big bang? because im interested to know why you actually believe that

I understand evolution, that is correct in my view. No creator though, life formed by itself (because who created the creator, it's a logical paradox, one which discounts one). As for Big bang, the theory is far from complete, why every week I seem to read something new about it, such as big bounce and so on. The big bang happened but we are from from understanding what really happened. But at least we are exploring it and I'm sure instituions like CERN feel as though they are on the right tracks due to the course of their research.

 

 

Theres such a huge difference though, between evolution and big bag/ how life began. Evolution has evidence for it, which is why many people believe in it.

The other two... It is a pretty well known law of physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and yet you believe that everything came from nothing?

From a singularity, there is a difference. In any case the laws of physics would not have existed in the same way in the very very early universe.

  apart from that, it is scientifically impossible for life to create itself.

You should probably show your research that proves this to the thousands of scientists studying abiogenesis, they'd be most interested.

 Darwin believed that life started from a single cell, right. At the time it was believed that a single cell was fairly simple... It is known now, though, that one single cell is infinitely complex.

Err no. Not even the universe is infinitely complex. And while a single cell is quite complex, a single cell would also not have been the very start of life. The start of life would have been something more like this (probably not exactly like that mind). A simple replecating molecule. 

The idea that it just came together by chance is no more believable then the idea of someone making it. Believing in the big bang/ random creation of life is essentially a religion.

 Chance is a very poor word to use, we came together by a process determined by natural laws as well as chance.

(sorry if i sounded like i was 'attacking' you, just questioning)

 

 

 



Around the Network
Quickdraw McGraw on 19 May 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

I think anybody who doesn't believe in evolution or is on the fence should read Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It's a well written book that just goes over the copious amounts of evidence in evolutions favor. It's in no way comprehensive, but it's still an interesting read.

I don't think disagreeing with evolution is a crime (freedom of thought should always be encouraged), but doing so out of ignorance should be (willful ignorance should always be discouraged). I feel like in most debates the evolution side is just trying to educate the other side (against their will no less) so that a legitimate debate could take place. But the anti-evolution side is usually grossly uneducated in the topic and proud of it. Which is never conducive to a productive discussion. If the other side would at least learn about it, there could be much more interesting discussions rather than regurgitating explanations as to why evolution is not against the laws of thermodynamics, the scientific definition of "theory", why Darwin wasn't the father of Nazism (not that it's even relevant), how the eye isn't irreducibly complex, and other stupidity pulled out of religiously inclined books and magazines. But that's too much to ask. Which is why I stay out of it nine times out of ten.

And, as if by some divine prophecy, this is exactly what has happened.

Thanks for the book recommendation, by the by.



fmc83 on 19 May 2009

I just saw an interesting movie lately, Religulous. To watch just google (video) it.

It's from an atheist point of view and how religions manipulate people, but as far as I see it without losing respect about religious people themselves.

Funwise it shows, how religion and things like creationism are used by christian extremists and the Islam, while a priest-scientist of the Vatican-observatory says: Sure there's evolution, and a 2000 year old book can't be taken literally.

That's what I never understood about many extremist christians. Hey, the bible is a great book and the genesis included the days are not that far off as well. There was first the heaven (universe) than earth (well the sun/light was there before the earth, but that's ok for a 2000 year old book to be wrong on that) the water, the land, vegetations, animals and mankind. It is wrong though about the stars, but again that's okay for me.

But to suggest by that:
1. a day for god is a thousand years
2. a day is as long as the next (if you don't believe me, go out in winter and then in the summer and count the hours of light)
3. and quote "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens" (Gen 1. 20 if that's wrong, sorry I haven't cited the bible for a long time), as their source for creationism (while this could be brought along with evolution with no problem)

is all beyond my understanding.

Same thing for the creation of mankind (well there are two totally different tellings anyway in the bible), but hey again, why shouldn't it be taken as god gave the final spark to mankind to create a conscience or a spirit or whatever you call the ability to recognize that you are.

I think this whole debate in the USA is controlled by christian wing-nuts, who just want to prove their point. Let the moderates jump in.

Just don't take everything in religious context literally it never was meant to be like that in the first place.



http://nintendo-geheimtipps.blogspot.com

highwaystar101 on 19 May 2009
Sommernacht said:

Well, it is called the "Evolutionary theory", no? I think that is , because it is afterall still a theory, with a lot of missing links and far from being universally accepted, although there definately is a lot of scientific evidence behind the whole thing.

 

If I have to explain to one more person what a theory is my head is going to explode... so for my health I will not, just look at the multitude of times I have explained it in the past.



ManusJustus on 19 May 2009

I cant believe that a person in the 21st century would deny evolution, with its mountains of evidence, yet blindly accept a collection of fairy tales from thousands of years ago.



Around the Network
ManusJustus on 19 May 2009
tombi123 said: 

Energy and matter are transferable, this could be key to life creating itself.

The problem a lot of people have is they think the origin of life is much more complicated than it actually is.  The beginning of life didnt include highly developed single celled organisms.  We know that organelles like mitochondria have their own DNA and were at one time seperate from cells, so 'life' started long before the first cells came around.  The origin of life includes simple things such as the Kreb's cycle or RNA.

All life needs to get started is a self replicating chemical cycle.  It wouldnt be difficult for something like the Kreb Cycle to develop in the presence of organic molecules, water, and an energy source.



FootballFan on 19 May 2009

Evolution has evidence, Religion goes with creationism with no evidence. I think ill stick to the known rather than the possible.



stof on 19 May 2009

In regards to science, this interests me about as much as a gravity discussion thread.

In regards to cultural perceptions and beliefs... I'll be watching this one closly.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

highwaystar101 on 19 May 2009
stof said:
In regards to science, this interests me about as much as a gravity discussion thread.

In regards to cultural perceptions and beliefs... I'll be watching this one closly.

 

Stof that is the best idea ever, let's have a gravity thread.



Bitmap Frogs on 19 May 2009

I hope the sweeping wave of ignorance that's leading us back to a controversy that had already ended a century ago ends up or else we are headed towards a rerun of the Dark Ages.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).