Evolution v. Creationism

[westwall]

As I've tried to argue before, faith and religion are two separate things. I may be an atheist and defend evolutionary theory, but I also have faith in something important. Religion just says we're all wrong, and is done with it... We all go to hell if we don't agree...

Maybe. I think faith in and of itself is a religion. Or at least it has a religious aspect. It is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Religion requires faith because face it, there ain't no evidence for a God. The modern theory of the creation of the Universe requires faith as well.

There actually is evidence to support the theory of evolution. It is limited, but it is there.

 

[westwall]

Of course creation science exists because the creationists have hard evidence that science backs it up. In fact, I'm the one here providing hard evidence while the evolutionists and atheists have none. You have been tricked and lied to, but more and more people start to believe it along with long time. If long time was true, then you'd have history of people from millions of years ago, but evolutionists have no history. It can't explain how the sexes came to be. Furthermore, there are no transitional fossils or evidence. There was no ape-human. We also have the creatures from millions of years ago alive today with no transition.

You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve. If a critter is successful, it continues on. Horses evolved 55 million years ago, and were the size of cats. Now they weigh hundreds of pounds.

The problem that you creationists have is you truly don't understand just how rare fossils are.

Anti Jesus people have the same problem. They don't understand just how rare literacy was in Jesus's time, so they can't wrap their heads around the fact that there is so little to be found written about him when he was alive.

Both sides have fundamental levels of ignorance. I enjoy speaking with my religious friends about their faith, and philosophy, they enjoy learning about science from me.

It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, but many decide to make it so.

Sanctimonious behavior, no matter who is engaging in it, is never helpful. Both sides need to figure that out.

 

[surada]

The Leakey Foundation

The Leakey Foundation’s mission is to increase scientific knowledge, education, and public understanding of human origins, evolution, behavior and survival.

leakeyfoundation.org

 

[ding]

I did that. That's how I showed you don't understand basic chemistry. LOL.



LOL. I love how easily LYING comes to you.

You KNOW damn well that I have posted a TON of science.

You lying sack of excrement.

Lies, lies, lies.

That's how you need to see it for your world to make sense to you.

 

[ding]

At least I'm not a lying JACKASS.

Neither am I. I'm a smart ass.

 

[ding]

Men lead. Women follow.

 

[Woodznutz]

The parents would abort the girls because boys were more valuable to them. Apparently girls didn't make the grade.

It was the largest act of genocide in history.

 

[Woodznutz]

Now, write out your argument.

I just did.

 

[Blues Man]

You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve. If a critter is successful, it continues on. Horses evolved 55 million years ago, and were the size of cats. Now they weigh hundreds of pounds.

The problem that you creationists have is you truly don't understand just how rare fossils are.

Anti Jesus people have the same problem. They don't understand just how rare literacy was in Jesus's time, so they can't wrap their heads around the fact that there is so little to be found written about him when he was alive.

Both sides have fundamental levels of ignorance. I enjoy speaking with my religious friends about their faith, and philosophy, they enjoy learning about science from me.

It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, but many decide to make it so.

Sanctimonious behavior, no matter who is engaging in it, is never helpful. Both sides need to figure that out.

Don't ignore the impact of selective breeding by humans and don't confuse that with evolution.

 

[Woodznutz]

Utter nonsense. It doesn't concern itself with iron age mythology anymore than any other field of science.

You have the same choice with evolution as you do any other robust, true scientific theory:

You can embarrass yourself and deny it, or you can point at it and say "God did that!"

Just like you do with electromagnetic theory, or star formation.

The problem here is yours.

Unintended consequences are still consequences.

 

[Woodznutz]

You expose your own intellectual fraud.

You say that someday, somehow,, somebody (else) will provide the reason or evidence for a belief you already adopted and insist is true.

See if you can spot the intellectual fraud...

I think the weakest block is the 'first life form' upon which all of evolution is based. Science is still puzzling over that, yet went ahead and used it as the basis for the evolution of all life. A shaky foundation wouldn't you agree?

 

[zaangalewa]

Of course creation science exists

No. Creation is a singular individual process without parallels or any form of other systematics. About such single singular events exists not any form of systematic science because it exists no system.

because the creationists have hard evidence that science backs it up. In fact, I'm the one here providing hard evidence while the evolutionists and atheists have none.

You do not speak in the name of spiritual people (="believers"). Very most of them do not agree with people like you and their weird political nonsense which they like to sell under the wrong label "Christian religion".

You have been tricked and lied to, but more and more people start to believe it along with long time.

Nonsense feeds nonsense.

If long time was true, then you'd have history of people from millions of years ago, but evolutionists have no history.

Again: Nonsense feeds nonsense.

It can't explain how the sexes came to be.

You explain never anything. You agitate.

Furthermore, there are no transitional fossils or evidence. There was no ape-human.

Every living biological structure on planet Earth has in the past a common biological structure (="ancestor") together with any other biological structure. Or with other words: the biological structure behind the avatar "James Bond" has very concrete together with "Mary Poppin's tree" - a real concrete tree somewhere in England - a common ancestor. Saint Francis would say you and "Mary Poppins's tree" are sisters and brothers. And the scientific evidence for this sentence of Saint Francis' way to feel and to interpret the world is today called "theory of evolution".

We also have the creatures from millions of years ago alive today with no transition.

I know. With nearly no transitions exist for example the species "crocodiles" since about 300 million years. Another species exists even since 400 millions years. Not so the biological species "homo sapiens sapiens".

And by the way: We learned "selective breeding" from "natural breeding" - and Charles Darwin is not half as intellligent as the most city dwellers seem to think. For a normal farmer or shepard is since thousands of years the "practice of evolution" not very astonishing. Since Christians exist - and longer - we live with the facts around biological evolution.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's how you need to see it for your world to make sense to you.

Thanks for your opinion! It is much appreciated. I think the most interesting aspect of the chemistry you are talking about in your previous posts is the Nilbog Effect. I assume you are familiar with it, I believe the bond energies will be surprising to you. Here's a summary from some Nobel Laureates.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Men lead. Women follow.

Spoken like a real man. I suspect you are a manly leader IRL. You have that cut to you. Your posts on biochemistry are actually pretty impressive when I look back on them now.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Neither am I. I'm a smart ass.

LOL. I have to admit I laughed at that. I'm a sucker for witty reparte. As you are, clearly.

 

[ding]

Thanks for your opinion! It is much appreciated. I think the most interesting aspect of the chemistry you are talking about in your previous posts is the Nilbog Effect. I assume you are familiar with it, I believe the bond energies will be surprising to you. Here's a summary from some Nobel Laureates.

Never heard of it. But all you really need to do to win this debate is show how life can form from elements that aren't hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

"...Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.​

​

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.​

​

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.​

​

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.​

​

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.​

​

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.​

​

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

Spoken like a real man. I suspect you are a manly leader IRL. You have that cut to you. Your posts on biochemistry are actually pretty impressive when I look back on them now.

Yep. It's true. Men lead and women respond.

 

[ding]

LOL. I have to admit I laughed at that. I'm a sucker for witty reparte. As you are, clearly.

Sometimes

 

[Woodznutz]

Yep. It's true. Men lead and women respond.

It's in their genes.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Never heard of it. But all you really need to do to win this debate is show how life can form from elements that aren't hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

​

Never heard of it??? That's surprising, given your advanced knowledge of Gibbs. Perhaps the description wasn't clear enough.

Needless to say ALL scientists know about it.