Conquer Club

Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby suggs on Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:27 pm

Its important to expose bollocks like creationism for the bollocks that it is. To be technical about it, its just bollocks.
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class suggs
 
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: At the end of the beginning...

Postby Guiscard on Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:24 pm

Neoteny wrote:As a biology major, I have to say that reading these threads is one of the most painful, depressing experiences. Observing such disrespect and closed-mindedness to my field of study, not to mention individuals much more intelligent than I, is nothing short of breathtaking. The distortions of facts and red herring tactics are amusing, albeit overused.

However, the masochist in me loves coming to these threads and reading the creative arguments that make for good conversation. :P

I'm going to go ahead and preempt WidowMakers fossil argument as follows: I don't know where that "less than 0.1% of fossils are vertebrate fossils" statistic comes from but it doesn't sound improbable so I'll use it. If every organism died today and fossilized, I would bet that vertebrates would make up about 0.1% of the fossils. There are probably enough arthropods (insects, spiders, etc) in the world to dwarf vertebrate fossils to such a small statistic, and that's not including other inverts.

Additionally, if you, for some unknown reason, broke down and decided that the earth really is billions of years old, you might see that the amount of time that invertebrates have been around is much, much, much, much longer than vertebrates have been around, leaving plenty of time for those invertebrate fossils to build up. But then again, all that evolution nonsense is based on faith, right? :)


Best post yet. Please keep contributing.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby Carebian Knight on Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:44 pm

That's the thing about these two, some things can help prove both theories.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby Carebian Knight on Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:16 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
Carebian Knight wrote:
Just wondering, are you still working on that? They've re-opened the thread and I don't have much time to argue with them.


Yes I have about 12 pages done. with about 12 more to go. I have had a lot to do with the foundry lately and outside of CC.

Here are the topics I will be discussing

DNA
Laws of Thermodynamics
Probability

Mutation Types
Micro Evolution vs Macro evolution
Irreducible Complexity

Rock Layer Ages
Fossils
Radiometric Dating

Plus some others.


Feel free to post this PM in the thread

WM


You guys wait, it's coming. 8)
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby Neoteny on Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:02 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Yes I have about 12 pages done. with about 12 more to go.


Whoa! Does he mean 24 pages of anti-evolution goodness? WidowMakers could probably write out an intro, throw in a bibliography, and get published if that's the case...
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby unriggable on Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:06 pm

My only concern is that if radiometric dating supports itself in the many types it comes in, how will it be disproved?
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Neoteny on Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:22 pm

It should be interesting to see, especially since radio dating is supported not only by itself, but by biological clock dating, stratum dating, and common sense. I'm more curious about the DNA topic. Genetics and molecular biology are my forte, as well as microbiology.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby unriggable on Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:24 pm

A common argument against DNA resemblance is the introns, which is full of holes.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Neoteny on Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:41 pm

Oh yeah. I forgot about "junk" DNA. That's actually pretty technical stuff. I can see where some misunderstandings might come in to play. The problem with introns (and why it's so readily seized on by creationists) is that there is not a full scientific consensus on intron theory. Because we don't yet understand it fully, it is just assumed by fiat that the alternative (usually god) is responsible. Irreducible complexity and similar arguments (like junk DNA) where the opposing argument is just declared the winner are my least favorite to hear because they encourage intellectual laziness and irresponsibility. If we were to throw up our hands at everything we didn't know we would be without modern medicine, air conditioning, and ::gasp:: even computers.

"You don't understand the evolutionary patterns of antibiotic resistance in E. coli? It's ok. God will heal you. All the rest of us will look for ways to avoid shitting ourselves to death while you pray."
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Stopper on Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:08 am

I am quivering with anticipation to see exactly what Widowmakers has to say about the laws of thermodynamics, and how they (probably the Second) contradict evolution because I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY MAKE THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby Jehan on Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:26 am

you can only make the second law argument if you have a good definition of the number of available states, which is consistent, I'm not sure how one would apply this on a macroscopic level. so though the argument has been made before, i would like to see if this can be done properly.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant Jehan
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:22 am
Location: Wales, the newer more southern version.

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:02 am

Could someone (preferably Neoteny who seems to know about it or unriggable who mentioned it) explain this "junk DNA" to me? I'm assuming that it's DNA that does not fulfill any function per se. But I also assume that the chance that I'm dead wrong is about 99%.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby unriggable on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:54 am

MeDeFe wrote:Could someone (preferably Neoteny who seems to know about it or unriggable who mentioned it) explain this "junk DNA" to me? I'm assuming that it's DNA that does not fulfill any function per se. But I also assume that the chance that I'm dead wrong is about 99%.


Introns are DNA that are completely unused. For anything. Since they serve no purpose, they are prone to mutation much faster. We use introns to know what genetic background you are from...people with a lineage in the middle east will have introns that resemble each other. People from france, same. Creationist scientists use introns to make the similarities in DNA between humans and animals lower to about 94%. The used DNA is still 99% identical.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby unriggable on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:56 am

The whole '2nd law of thermodynaimcs' is used to apply to atoms, not to organisms. I think siamese twins disprove that.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Neoteny on Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:35 pm

Another creationist argument regarding introns is "if they don't do anything, why don't we 'evolve them away?'" The short answer is that just because we don't know of anything they do doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose, and even if they were useless, evolution wouldn't take effect on an organism unless it was actually hurting the organisms reproductive success somehow. If the introns aren't killing us, there's no pressure to get rid of them. I imagine that it isn't impossible for a useful mutation to arise in introns as well.

I do enjoy the thermodynamics arguments. They tend to indicate a total lack of understanding of the laws.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Neoteny on Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:38 pm

Stopper wrote:I am quivering with anticipation to see exactly what Widowmakers has to say about the laws of thermodynamics, and how they (probably the Second) contradict evolution because I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY MAKE THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE!!!


For the record, I actually had to read that twice before I caught the sarcasm. :?
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Snorri1234 on Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:50 pm

Neoteny wrote:Oh yeah. I forgot about "junk" DNA. That's actually pretty technical stuff. I can see where some misunderstandings might come in to play. The problem with introns (and why it's so readily seized on by creationists) is that there is not a full scientific consensus on intron theory. Because we don't yet understand it fully, it is just assumed by fiat that the alternative (usually god) is responsible. Irreducible complexity and similar arguments (like junk DNA) where the opposing argument is just declared the winner are my least favorite to hear because they encourage intellectual laziness and irresponsibility. If we were to throw up our hands at everything we didn't know we would be without modern medicine, air conditioning, and ::gasp:: even computers.

"You don't understand the evolutionary patterns of antibiotic resistance in E. coli? It's ok. God will heal you. All the rest of us will look for ways to avoid shitting ourselves to death while you pray."


I'm gonna second guiscard on this.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby Bavarian Raven on Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:34 pm

...what really gets me about this arguement is the basic facts...if the world was only created, what, 6 thousand years ago, how did so much errosion (sp) take place in that time???

i'm studying bio right now in first year and just by using common sense you can see that evolution is the more 'fact based' theory...

as for why didn't we evolve away from something not needed? look at your appendix (i don't know the proper way of spelling its name but i think u get the idea). some animals have uses for it, some don't...go figure...proving that at one time it was actually useful...

sigh...i could write more but i have to leave...
Sergeant 1st Class Bavarian Raven
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Canada, Vancouver

Postby Carebian Knight on Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:05 pm

Bavarian Raven wrote:...what really gets me about this arguement is the basic facts...if the world was only created, what, 6 thousand years ago, how did so much errosion (sp) take place in that time???


I really hope you aren't talking about water erosion, because if you are then I feel sorry for you.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby Frigidus on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:06 pm

Carebian Knight wrote:
Bavarian Raven wrote:...what really gets me about this arguement is the basic facts...if the world was only created, what, 6 thousand years ago, how did so much errosion (sp) take place in that time???


I really hope you aren't talking about water erosion, because if you are then I feel sorry for you.


I really hope you aren't referring to the biblical flood, because if you are then I feel sorry for you.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Postby Carebian Knight on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:48 pm

No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well. I'm talking about the fact that under creationism, everything is made like it is. Meaning that just because there's erosion that has made rivers wider and such, doesn't mean that's it's taken billions of years to do so.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby Bavarian Raven on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:38 pm

...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever... :roll:
Sergeant 1st Class Bavarian Raven
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Canada, Vancouver

Postby Carebian Knight on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:45 pm

Bavarian Raven wrote:...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever... :roll:


That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby Neoteny on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:50 pm

Carebian Knight wrote:No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well.


"Flood geology" is never a good point... picking "facts" to support a hypothesis is not the way science is done.

Carebian Knight wrote:
Bavarian Raven wrote: wrote:
...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...


That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.


Bavarian Raven is referring to the infinite regress that a god causes. If you need some power to create anything, then you need something to create that power, and another something to create that something, etc etc. Then we have to assume multiple god creating gods. It's just more logical to assume a gradual rise from simplicity to complexity, especially when we've found a convenient mechanism to explain how that complexity arose.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Carebian Knight on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:53 pm

Neoteny wrote:
Carebian Knight wrote:No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well.


"Flood geology" is never a good point... picking "facts" to support a hypothesis is not the way science is done.

Carebian Knight wrote:
Bavarian Raven wrote: wrote:
...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...


That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.


Bavarian Raven is referring to the infinite regress that a god causes. If you need some power to create anything, then you need something to create that power, and another something to create that something, etc etc. Then we have to assume multiple god creating gods. It's just more logical to assume a gradual rise from simplicity to complexity, especially when we've found a convenient mechanism to explain how that complexity arose.


Aha, you've basically contradicted scientific idea. You say power must be created through other power. Meaning that God can't exist because something else would've had to create God. But yet, the science you are agreeing with as far as evolution, says that the universe was created by a cosmic event, The Big Bang, are they not the same thing.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur, mookiemcgee