Doom3world

Evolution is about natural selection. There's nothing natural about ethnic cleansing or birth control when people decide who lives and who dies.



What does evolution amount to in a closed system? Without natural selection (external influence) all you have is a bunch of random mutations. It's the influence of the outside world that determines the impact they have be it beneficial or not.

That said, the accumulation of mutations in an organism doesn't falsify the second law of thermodynamics. That's physics not biology. Although I'm sure if you crammed enough DNA into a cell it would rupture.



If god exists, you certainly won't get away with lying to him. But you can avoid getting burned at the stake as I imagine a few people on your list did.



Mendel studied heredity. He proved that inherited traits were passed on unchanged when Darwin believed those traits were mixed. And while Darwin was wrong about heredity, Mendel's work ultimately reformed and strengthened the concept of evolution.

Because genes from both parents are passed on unchanged, a mutated gene from one parent is guaranteed to be passed on to offspring even if the associated trait does not manifest itself.

Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is the result of biogenesis as opposed to spontaneous generation. The argument here is that evolution somehow explains the origin of life through spontaneous generation when the current theory does no such thing.

As for the big bang, again evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It simply defines a process through which life becomes more complex.

Who is that a response to? I thought we were talking about evolution but you seem to have gone off on a tangent.

Because it's true.If you want to claim evolution isn't true then I'm afraid the onus is on you to show exactly where the flaw in that argument is.

WTF? Hitler believed it so if you believe in evolution then you support all of Hitlers views? Your logic is the worst I've ever seen. You think that evolution can't be true because there would be no accountability. Even if that were true (which it isn't), it's a meaningless statement as far as whether or not evolution is true (which it is). Nature destroys the weak genes because they don't get as much chance to be passed down.

It doesn't. How could it? How does it disqualify me? Besides, I'm not a desk jockey. That would be an office job. And anyway, it's what I do, not who I am. I'm a labourer. I saw Richard Dawkins the other day. He was staying at the hotel. He walked right past me and smiled. Weird. I checked out Kathy Sykes at the weekend. She's really nice.

Does it fuck! Mutation has been observed. There are species that you can line up to show how one slowly evolved into another which is supported by carbon dating. You totally ignore the rules that are inconvenient to your paper thin belief system and use the ones that you think support it, but even they don't. You've total misinterpreted them. This is the trouble with using backwards logic. You start with a statement, like God is real, then you desperately try to work backwards to the real world using dodgy logic and out of context laws. Entropy doesn't really increase chaos because there is no chaos. Everything does what it's supposed to. Think of it as an increase of complexity instead.

How does that stop it from being complete bullshit? I meant bullshit from them, not you.

How big do you think the list would be of those that didn't. Besides, like Rich said; they weren't free to express their views. Not without a heavy price anyway.

Everything that's real can be understood.

Maybe i have more faith than you.

You have no cause to. Your trying to undercut decades of research by people who know more than you ever could and all your using to do it is dodgy premises and misunderstood concepts. That's what religion will do to you.

Then why is it still considered by far the most likely explanation? My religion doesn't involve ingrained philosophies or immovable viewpoints. I'm brainwashed into not being brainwashed.

Did you write any of that? Well, I did ask you to back yourself up I spose.

It would come from every direction! The universe doesn't have a centre or a point of origin. That would be a meaningless concept anyway because of relativity. It started out as a single point which then expanded. The big bang happened everywhere! The wrong temperature? Are you sure? It's not too even. It's spot on what was predicted by Hawkins extension of general relativity, which is the best description of reality that we have.

It's not like I'm deliberately leaving out the stuff which doesn't support what I've said.

Actually you don't need inflation to explain that. At least not the way it's worded there. There are no opposite regions. If you were to draw a straight line through the first circle of the first attachment to slit it in half then the point in space at one end of the line would be the exact same point in space at the other end. Your making light go the long way (which of course it does as well). That picture is misleading anyway. It makes it look as if the explosion and expansion has a centre.

Where are you copying these from?

The moon didn't start at the Earth. It used to be a planet called Thea. It collided with Earth and gave our planet its crust (at least some of it anyway) and put a lot of rubble in orbit. It's this impact that tilted the Earths axis and gave us our seasons. At this point the Earth had a planetary ring. This ring in time accreted and gravitated into the moon. It was a lot closer and it would have pulled the whole ocean around the planet (twice a day I think).

What does that prove? That people can walk backwards?

Nufin t' do with me. Talk to the spell checker. I' carn't spel f' shit! I didn't spell anything wrong in that quote. Oh, favour. That's how it's spelt. You Americans like spelling words differently (especially dropping Us), but as you claim to speak English; you're wrong and we're right.

That's ridiculous. You think the Earth and moon and stuff were put there as is by God. Seriously, you need a mental health check. People like you shouldn't be walking around unchecked. You could be capable of anything if you think it's what your imaginary friend wants. The vast majority of observable facts support the big bang model.

Yea, and it's getting sillier my the post.

hi there,

been following this discussion quite a while. What i want to know, despite the fact, that the bigbang realy is a theoretical model at the moment. How explain the creationism or the genetical designers (scientology) people, the fact that there are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria]bacterias[/url] which eat nylon?

Mutation - a response to new material made available by human engineering.
If you can read up on plastic and how it effects the environment in general, a truely shocking topic, far more shocking than the posts made by our resident creationionist and / or waterboarders.

think you misunderstod my pretty bad english =)

The fact that its mutates and adepts to new enviromental conditions. Seems to me, like an evidence that mutation leads to information increase in the genetic pool, without a God! Thus proving that there is no creationism.

Now there's something I totally agree with. Plastic is simply devastating to animals and our environment: http://www.iwma.com/programs-events/Imp ... astic.html

- Over 1,000,000 seabirds and marine mammals die each year from plastic ingestion or entanglement.
- 86% of ocean debris is plastic
- Plastic degrades due to solar radiation and oxidation into smaller and smaller pieces, all of which are still plastic polymers, eventually becoming individual molecules of plastic dust. In 2004 English scientists reported on tiny, even microscopic plastic fragments that have worked their way down and are polluting deep ocean sediments and are now in the plankton, the very bottom of the food chain. (Richard Thompson, Science magazine)

If anyone truly believes in God then they should feel forever ashamed over this, and what we have done with 'Gods gifts'.
So I see anyone that calls himself a Christian and does not recycle as a hypocrite.

Also know that when you eat Fish, you are actually eating plastic.

I haven't got time right now for a proper reply, and I wont have for a few days or more so I'll be brief.

The person who withheld information because it didn't support his view should be shot, or at least discredited.

That red shift thing is because of the way space works. It's expanding everywhere, so the further away from Earth we look, the more red-shifted it will be because there's more space between the observer and what they're observing. But it would look like that no matter we were. There's nothing special about our planet, star system, spiral arm(Orion), galaxy, the local group, or the Virgo cluster. We're nothing, but of course that's relative to the universe. It doesn't mean we're any less important.

I couldn't watch that video because this bloody pc wouldn't let me.

The universe doesn't have an edge or a centre in three dimensions. Think of it as a sphere like the Earth with the big bang in the centre. As you go into the future, it gets bigger. Were there's mass, it will expand slower creating dips. That's why I said earlier to think of the past as inwards and the future as outwards. The universe is four dimensional so it does make sense.

You still haven't found any flaw in the survival of the fittest argument and you still haven't backed up your position with anything real. Your taking huge leaps and either expecting no one to notice or you don't realise your doing it.

I'm sorry but you are very religious. Perhaps not by American standards, but you lot do love to go over the top with everything. Sorry, racism is bad.

I think the path this thread went with all directional changes is proof enough for Random mutation.

Wait, did you really just say this: IMHO, man can not destroy the earth because it's not his to destroy. ??

We CAN NOT destroy the earth (even though we have proven facts that claim otherwise) because it is not OURS to destroy? Am I getting you correctly: If I don't OWN anything I can not DESTROY it? Sorry, no offense, but that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard and the great flaw that undermines all of your other attempts at trying to convince us that 'God' exists.

Listen carefully to what this you wrote:
IMHO, man can not destroy the earth because it's not his to destroy.

I do hope you see the flaw in this seriously flawed counterargument. I'll repeat it: If anybody is truly honest in believing in God than he will FEAR GOD'S WRATH over what we as humanity have done to this earthly paradise. Why do you respond to that with circular rhetoric? I'll state it again, and I'm very interested in hearing your counterarguments: Anyone who does not recycle and believes in God is a hypocrite.

I'm always pro "me" and enjoy discussions flowing back and forth like the tides.

Yes I get the points you make, but I am not sure you and me have the same understanding of the definition of "points made".

No, it doesn't make sense at all. God gave us the freedom of choice and the responsibility to deal with our choices.
It doesn't take God to judge that we are screwing up our national resources, it doesn't take God to judge that fact that millions die from starvation while there is no real need to, 1% of the earth's population is consuming 80% of it's resources. It doesn't take God to judge all that.

We can't simply deny these facts by waving our responsibilities.
Give me argumentation as to why you think you can continue to pollute our earth and how this is not hypocritical towards God, not quotes from the bible. YOUR opinion, YOUR responsibility.

ps: Don't hack people's replies into 100's of little quotes, it's etiquette not to, quote everything in 1 single quote, otherwise it looks like you are intentionally misquoting people.

I can hear you very well thank you, and my understanding of English is very good, eventhough it is not my native language.
With this I also bid you farewell where this conversation is concerned. All I see is rehashed circular argumentation coming from the bible and intentional misunderstanding of my arguments as to be able to continue to dance and flirt around the real matter of this subject (which is that --inevitably-- any conclusion must lead to the fact that God does not exist and we ourselves are Divine)...

How come every Christian I debate with ends up with personally attacking me instead of attacking my arguments?
(That's a rhetorical question I need not answered, it is now--and always has been my firm belief--that one cannot reason with anybody religious, we can only hope for recovery).

b.t.w. Did you by chance get the version of the bible without the parental advisory warning?