Evolutionism.

qwizoking said:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate

Click to expand...

Doesn't contradict thermodynamics. Things spontaneously arranging themselves into sophisticated things goes against things wanting to be at their lowest energy state. In layman terms things combining themselves into complex organisms in something like a week highly highly opposes entropy. Kind of like an explosion reversing itself. I'm not saying biogenesis never happened, I'm just saying biogenesis was highly unlikely to happen without one common ancestor and a lot of slow progression. I've considered there actually being more than one similar common ancestor when some kind of life started and there are theories about it.

Next move, is they push for an alien ancestry. Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.

Alien ancestry doesn't imply the super natural at least.

Anyway science doesn't deal in absolutes and it's really hard to prove something false using science as opposed to proving something true. I don't know, man. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Science is, however, reproducible and able to be peer-reviewed.

Rrog said:

Science is, however, reproducible and able to be peer-reviewed.

Click to expand...

I agree, don't you think there's always some measure off uncertainty though?

Shouldn't be with reproducibility and peer review.

Scientific theory is still just that. Not scientific law.

how come monkeys are not still evolving?speech,up right posture,etc?

Takes millennia. Don't hold your breath

Look at canine DNA and you're see why dogs are so varied. Breeding easily causes expression changes. Very easily. This is well understood

Anyone who would deny evolution is one of two types of person, they are either deceivers or they themselves are deceived.

Ill admit, watching the Kent Hovind type is entertaining. Dude is a phenomenal public speaker and a smart guy. I doubt he believes what he says, to him, a lie told in service of the Lord is not a lie. He is the deceiver. Many deceivers are out there, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, William C. Lane, and many many more.

The fossil record and DNA evidence combine to give such an overwhelming evidence to Darwinian evolution that its simply not credible to deny it.

Apes are still evolving, come back in millions of years and the Chimpanzee with have continued to evolve, so will have we.

It really really obvious that people will literally believe any conspiracy. Doesn't matter how preposterous. Logic isn't needed to be deluded.

it's logical to believe that a giraffe evolved? how could that even be possible - unless it was made the way it is the first time it wouldn't have made it because of the blood that rushes to it's head when it drinks. there are many other examples. Humans have all the resources to solve any problem that arises but can't seem to capture the knowledge to do so. So your carnal knowledge is as limited as your idea of what is logical.

Devolution makes more sense than evolution if you study it "logically"

SamsonsRiddle said:

it's logical to believe that a giraffe evolved? how could that even be possible - unless it was made the way it is the first time it wouldn't have made it because of the blood that rushes to it's head when it drinks. there are many other examples. Humans have all the resources to solve any problem that arises but can't seem to capture the knowledge to do so. So your carnal knowledge is as limited as your idea of what is logical.

Devolution makes more sense than evolution if you study it "logically"

Click to expand...

Yes actually, Its funny that you mention the giraffe because Dawkins does a great bit on this on youtube you can find...

lol, his idea of what he believes is true?

It is hard to know where to begin a conversation like this. The guy in the video is promoting creation. An intelligent design view that tries to pass off the world as a designed place. Let's just for one second pretend that's true. It doesn't get us any closer to the Christian God. IF we had rock solid evidence that the world and all life was designed by some sort of creative force, it wouldn't be evidence for the god of Christian theology. At best it would be evidence for some sort of deistic god.

This guy has obviously not spent a lot of time watching or reading Dawkins. The giraffe bit is simply evidence. It is evidence of the theory of evolution. If you watched the video I liked you would see towards the end a graphic where the nerve in question is compared to fish, and then all sorts of mammals. IT is one tiny piece of evidence, in a large theory.

The guy in your video says evolution cannot serve to make predictions. Well that simply isn't true.

There was always said to be a fish that crawled out of the water to start living on land. We knew it didn't exist 400 million years ago. But by 350 million years ago there were lots of land animals that were descendents from this one species. So scientists set up an expedition to look into sedimentary rocks about 375 million years old, and after just a few years they found the fish, and it was almost exactly like they predicted it to be.

Whenever there is a gap in the fossil record the theory of evolution can predict with almost certainty what that intermediate species will look like.

I would also like to point out some logical fallacies the dude in your video had that made me laugh a little.

He said bad design is not evidence of no designer. If that is true than good design is not evidnce of a designer.

ThickStemz said:

It is hard to know where to begin a conversation like this. The guy in the video is promoting creation. An intelligent design view that tries to pass off the world as a designed place. Let's just for one second pretend that's true. It doesn't get us any closer to the Christian God. IF we had rock solid evidence that the world and all life was designed by some sort of creative force, it wouldn't be evidence for the god of Christian theology. At best it would be evidence for some sort of deistic god.

This guy has obviously not spent a lot of time watching or reading Dawkins. The giraffe bit is simply evidence. It is evidence of the theory of evolution. If you watched the video I liked you would see towards the end a graphic where the nerve in question is compared to fish, and then all sorts of mammals. IT is one tiny piece of evidence, in a large theory.

The guy in your video says evolution cannot serve to make predictions. Well that simply isn't true.

There was always said to be a fish that crawled out of the water to start living on land. We knew it didn't exist 400 million years ago. But by 350 million years ago there were lots of land animals that were descendents from this one species. So scientists set up an expedition to look into sedimentary rocks about 375 million years old, and after just a few years they found the fish, and it was almost exactly like they predicted it to be.

Whenever there is a gap in the fossil record the theory of evolution can predict with almost certainty what that intermediate species will look like.

I would also like to point out some logical fallacies the dude in your video had that made me laugh a little.

He said bad design is not evidence of no designer. If that is true than good design is not evidnce of a designer.

Click to expand...

The point about bad design was followed up by the point that many things have been labeled as bad design until the reason behind why the design is the way it is is later figured out (knowledge gap?).

I don't understand what you're trying to say about the "christian god" - especially since there about 30,000 different denominations all with a different god. You obviously have not spent a lot of time studying the word of god. All these worldly churches preaching ignorant theology that is diametrically opposed to what the bible actually says is not a way to get closer to the true god or the meaning of the bible. I studied with the catholics (as i have many churches to see what it's like to be a catholic, jehovah's witness, baptist, pentacostal, etc...) who tried to tell me that the bible doesn't NOT say their isn't evolution. That is retarded. Simple as that....retarded. They all have their own interpretations when the bible itself says it is of no one's private interpretation. It's rather a puzzle with pieces that must be put together in the right way and at the right time. That's another subject.

As far as your evolutionary arguement, i'm going to bow out before you realize how little i know about that subject as opposed to biblical knowledge and truth.

SamsonsRiddle said:

The point about bad design was followed up by the point that many things have been labeled as bad design until the reason behind why the design is the way it is is later figured out (knowledge gap?).

I don't understand what you're trying to say about the "christian god" - especially since there about 30,000 different denominations all with a different god. You obviously have not spent a lot of time studying the word of god. All these worldly churches preaching ignorant theology that is diametrically opposed to what the bible actually says is not a way to get closer to the true god or the meaning of the bible. I studied with the catholics (as i have many churches to see what it's like to be a catholic, jehovah's witness, baptist, pentacostal, etc...) who tried to tell me that the bible doesn't NOT say their isn't evolution. That is retarded. Simple as that....retarded. They all have their own interpretations when the bible itself says it is of no one's private interpretation. It's rather a puzzle with pieces that must be put together in the right way and at the right time. That's another subject.

As far as your evolutionary arguement, i'm going to bow out before you realize how little i know about that subject as opposed to biblical knowledge and truth.

Click to expand...

He listed two, he said something about a retna being upside down but gave no explanation, and then went on to talk about a quala or panda thumb but it eats bamboo well. I didn't address that point because he gave no evidence and that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

He compared the bad design of a pinto with no one would say then that it didn't have a designer. The reason there is relevance to the Christian god is that Christians are behind this Intelligent Design movement (ID) but there is a vast difference between the god of ID and the Christian God, who is supposed to be perfect.

I know more about the bible and theology than the average person, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert. I grew up in a fundamentalist home and never remember believing it. Of course I felt guilty and that there was something wrong with me. I tried for years to force myself into belief, and I couldn't. I finally realized it was total bullshit. Even the bible. It isn't a coherent message and its all mixed up. The OT is just one of gods failures after another, he keeps screwing up and blaming it on man.

The NT has 4 anonymous gospels with different incompatible stories about Jesus, then you have Acts and the letters that never really talk about jesus except through revelation. I don't think the man actually existed. Have you looked into Dr. Richard Carrier's work on this? He makes a compelling case.

Its difficult to have this conversation with a Christian because I could do a complete dissection of what I see as Christianity, and because of the number of denominations you'd have wiggle room. Its like trying to nail jello to a wall.

I know why youre opposed to evolution. With evolution there is no Adam and Eve, which means no original sin, which totally negates the need for Jesus to come. Evolution is a death nail to Christianity.