One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Evolutionary Teachings Are Absurd, Asinine, and Amusing!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 next>>
May 10, 2019 22:53:29   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Evolution is not so far-fetched when you consider it being guided by an intelligence. To think it happened by chance ties probability into a cosmic sized Gordian Knot. The probability of evolution sans intelligent direction just happening is less than that of a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a fully functional 747. The probability of evolution happening as a guided process is quite likely, in spite of the holes in the actual mechanics of the theory.
No one has come up with a satisfactory explanation of the Cambrian explosion of life forms. Claiming man descended from an ape-like ancestor is nothing compared to the unlikelihood of the complex plant and invertebrate life that just appeared in a Geological eyeblink from one-celled organisms.
The transition from amphibian to reptile, even though the two are physically similar, is far more complicated than the evolving of man. Matter left unattended tends to devolve, rather than evolve.
Evolution is not so far-fetched when you consider ... (show quote)


If evolution is guided by an intelligence then instead of just creating everything why bother having it evolve? Why would an all powerful being do that?

| Reply
May 10, 2019 22:54:30   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
If evolution is guided by an intelligence then instead of just creating everything why bother having it evolve? Why would an all powerful being do that?


Why would He create science and natural laws?

You'll have to ask Him

| Reply
May 10, 2019 22:58:17   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Why would He create science and natural laws?

You'll have to ask Him


That has nothing to do with the question.

| Reply
May 10, 2019 22:59:06   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
That has nothing to do with the question.


How not?

| Reply
May 10, 2019 22:59:32   #
Smedley_buzkill (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
If evolution is guided by an intelligence then instead of just creating everything why bother having it evolve? Why would an all powerful being do that?


I don't know. Amusement? You are asking me to second guess a Supreme Intelligence.

| Reply
May 10, 2019 23:03:54   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
I don't know. Amusement? You are asking me to second guess a Supreme Intelligence.


No thats not my intent. It just doesn’t seem logical in light of the story of creation.

| Reply
May 10, 2019 23:06:51   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
No thats not my intent. It just doesn’t seem logical in light of the story of creation.


Which day did God Create the sun?

| Reply
May 10, 2019 23:15:42   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Which day did God Create the sun?


You tell me

| Reply
May 11, 2019 00:19:59   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
You tell me


Third day?

| Reply
May 11, 2019 02:22:55   #
JW (a regular here)
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Evolution is not so far-fetched when you consider it being guided by an intelligence. To think it happened by chance ties probability into a cosmic sized Gordian Knot. The probability of evolution sans intelligent direction just happening is less than that of a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a fully functional 747. The probability of evolution happening as a guided process is quite likely, in spite of the holes in the actual mechanics of the theory.
No one has come up with a satisfactory explanation of the Cambrian explosion of life forms. Claiming man descended from an ape-like ancestor is nothing compared to the unlikelihood of the complex plant and invertebrate life that just appeared in a Geological eyeblink from one-celled organisms.
The transition from amphibian to reptile, even though the two are physically similar, is far more complicated than the evolving of man. Matter left unattended tends to devolve, rather than evolve.
Evolution is not so far-fetched when you consider ... (show quote)


The reason the Cambrian explosion is referred to in that manner is because most of the three billion years of the Cambrian period no longer exists in the fossil record. There is very little of that period still in existence. At the end of the Cambrian, there are many fossils but those that came earlier have been recycled into the Earth along with the strata they died in.

When you consider that DNA is nothing more than charcoal dust mixed with hydrogen and nitrogen gases, (in the case of the base, adenine), plus a sugar (more carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) and a phosphate (basically oxygen and phosphorus with some chemical impurities like calcium added in), not a living thing among them, the idea that life is a chemical process fully to be expected really isn't so hard to grasp.

As for matter evolving or devolving, complex structures break down into their fundamental parts but chemicals throughout the universe are creating compounds all the time. There are nebulas made entirely of drinkable alcohol.

As for holes in the theory of evolution, enlighten me, what are those holes? I'm aware of only one "hole" and that is filled by faith, no matter which way (science or religion) you go from there.

| Reply
May 11, 2019 03:52:27   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
Manning345 wrote:
The theory of evolution seems to violate thermodynamic law: it wants entropy to decrease while the universe's entropy is increasing.

This is wrong. The second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any part of a system increases: if it did, ice would never form and vapor would never condense since both of those processes involve a decrease of entropy. Rather, the second law says that the total entropy of the whole system must increase. Any decrease of entropy (like the water freezing into ice cubes in your freezer) must be compensated by an increase in entropy elsewhere (the heat released into your kitchen by the refrigerator). There is no violation of any of Newton's laws by Darwin's theory. This would have been easy enough to straighten out by simply using google...

| Reply
May 11, 2019 04:12:25   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Evolution is not so far-fetched when you consider it being guided by an intelligence. To think it happened by chance ties probability into a cosmic sized Gordian Knot. The probability of evolution sans intelligent direction just happening is less than that of a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a fully functional 747. The probability of evolution happening as a guided process is quite likely, in spite of the holes in the actual mechanics of the theory.
No one has come up with a satisfactory explanation of the Cambrian explosion of life forms. Claiming man descended from an ape-like ancestor is nothing compared to the unlikelihood of the complex plant and invertebrate life that just appeared in a Geological eyeblink from one-celled organisms.
The transition from amphibian to reptile, even though the two are physically similar, is far more complicated than the evolving of man. Matter left unattended tends to devolve, rather than evolve.
Evolution is not so far-fetched when you consider ... (show quote)

If god "guided" evolution then why couldn't man have evolved from an ape-like creature? You've made evolution dependent on god so man could have evolved from a worm and it would have had the same probability. Also, given that god can create elements and compounds what purpose does the universe serve since it can do the same? Did god make it redundant just in case he happened to zone out?

| Reply
May 11, 2019 04:15:09   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
I don't know. Amusement? You are asking me to second guess a Supreme Intelligence.

You've got a brain in your head though, don't you? You don't have to second guess god to ask why he doesn't act logically. Would it be logical for a god to act illogically during creation?

| Reply
May 11, 2019 04:17:28   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
If evolution is guided by an intelligence then instead of just creating everything why bother having it evolve? Why would an all powerful being do that?

I couldn't have worded it any better.

| Reply
May 11, 2019 05:28:42   #
Smedley_buzkill (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
The reason the Cambrian explosion is referred to in that manner is because most of the three billion years of the Cambrian period no longer exists in the fossil record. There is very little of that period still in existence. At the end of the Cambrian, there are many fossils but those that came earlier have been recycled into the Earth along with the strata they died in.

When you consider that DNA is nothing more than charcoal dust mixed with hydrogen and nitrogen gases, (in the case of the base, adenine), plus a sugar (more carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) and a phosphate (basically oxygen and phosphorus with some chemical impurities like calcium added in), not a living thing among them, the idea that life is a chemical process fully to be expected really isn't so hard to grasp.

As for matter evolving or devolving, complex structures break down into their fundamental parts but chemicals throughout the universe are creating compounds all the time. There are nebulas made entirely of drinkable alcohol.

As for holes in the theory of evolution, enlighten me, what are those holes? I'm aware of only one "hole" and that is filled by faith, no matter which way (science or religion) you go from there.
The reason the Cambrian explosion is referred to i... (show quote)


For one, the lack of evidence to support some theories of what evolved from what. When you have a large fossil record of one species, a large fossil record of the species from which it is supposed to have evolved, there is a dearth of transitional fossils to back it up. It is guesswork being presented as proven fact.
When you have a fairly complete skeleton of a dinosaur there is not much doubt what it's appearance was. Presenting an "artist's conception" of what another looked like when the fossil record is a few bones as a factual representation is a crock. Call it what it is... a guess.
Current scientific thought is that dinosaurs have avian rather than amphibian ancestors, yet for years, despite the lack of evidentiary fossils, the amphibian theory was taught as established fact. Evolution is not in question; but the mechanics of the process involves much theory taught as fact.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.