63 of 63
63
Evolution takes a beating, live coast to coast!
Posted: 05 October 2009 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 931 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  106
Joined  2008-05-28

Nice brief history of the universe there, Cody. You forgot to mention something that most people have a lot of trouble comprehending: Time is a dimension of this universe, and started at the big bang with everything else. This means wondering what was “before the universe started” is not logically possible, which precludes having some all-powerful being already existing at the moment of the Big Bang without creating all kinds of impossible paradoxes.

 Signature 

“Despite the cost of living, it’s still popular”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2010 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 932 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2008-09-24

Very true MH!

My personal favorite is that an omniscient being “choosing” to create something like the universe requires a decision being made temporally, which then requires the time needed to do so, even for a god prospect. Since time gets created with the universe, this causes a conundrum in chicken-and-egg terms for the god of the gaps.

This is a major problem indeed for your run of the mill “God is all that” monotheist.

Loving the discussion everyone. I skipped some pages. Did Champ ever man up and answer the 40 questions?

Dadvocate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2011 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 933 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2011-01-06

It looks like The Champion finally relented his masturbational, and seemingly, provocational rantings…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2011 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 934 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

I checked back in and reread my original post that started this 950 message monstrosity. I have to say that I was a bit harsh and not at all Christ like. But I must say that I still believe that evolution is an obvious “untruth.” Design is everywhere in the natural world and chaos is explained by the fall of man during the interim before the return of Christ.

That being said, regardless, God loves evolutionists as much as he loves Creationists.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2011 07:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 935 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
TheChampion - 20 April 2011 07:44 PM

I checked back in and reread my original post that started this 950 message monstrosity. I have to say that I was a bit harsh and not at all Christ like. But I must say that I still believe that evolution is an obvious “untruth.” Design is everywhere in the natural world and chaos is explained by the fall of man during the interim before the return of Christ.


Yes, your intellectual integrity is genuinely compromised and you’re very proud of it. We know.

You’re able to suppress your sense of incredulity enough to pull of real religious faith, not just the artificial rhetorical faith for which believers who aren’t so good at self-deception have to settle.

You’re truly blessed ... or touched, or something.

Congratulations.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2011 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 936 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
TheChampion - 20 April 2011 07:44 PM

I checked back in and reread my original post that started this 950 message monstrosity. I have to say that I was a bit harsh and not at all Christ like. But I must say that I still believe that evolution is an obvious “untruth.” Design is everywhere in the natural world and chaos is explained by the fall of man during the interim before the return of Christ.

That being said, regardless, God loves evolutionists as much as he loves Creationists.

I didn’t realize that you had returned.  Evolution has not taken a beating.  It is the predominant scientific theory, and is generally accepted by everyone except religious fundamentalists.  Christians like us are well-advised to accept it.  It does not change one iota of the gospel.  Even if we evolved, that does not change the basic gospel which is stated succinctly in I Corinthians 15.  Battling evolution is like the “birther” argument: it’s irrelevant, besides being wrong, and just becomes a distraction.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2011 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 937 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2075
Joined  2007-07-20
Ecurb Noselrub - 27 April 2011 09:41 PM
TheChampion - 20 April 2011 07:44 PM

I checked back in and reread my original post that started this 950 message monstrosity. I have to say that I was a bit harsh and not at all Christ like. But I must say that I still believe that evolution is an obvious “untruth.” Design is everywhere in the natural world and chaos is explained by the fall of man during the interim before the return of Christ.

That being said, regardless, God loves evolutionists as much as he loves Creationists.

I didn’t realize that you had returned.  Evolution has not taken a beating.  It is the predominant scientific theory, and is generally accepted by everyone except religious fundamentalists.  Christians like us are well-advised to accept it.  It does not change one iota of the gospel.  Even if we evolved, that does not change the basic gospel which is stated succinctly in I Corinthians 15.  Battling evolution is like the “birther” argument: it’s irrelevant, besides being wrong, and just becomes a distraction.

Thought he’d vanished as well.  Something about being abducted in West Texas….

 Signature 

Truth, especially “moral truth,” is that elusive human creation whose exclusive apprehension is claimed by many, who then sanctimoniously condemn anyone else who does not agree with their particular apprehension, while denying that any question can be posed about their own apprehension.  I will try to avoid that tendency.  DEC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 938 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-04-11
Alan Slipp - 15 March 2005 01:30 PM

Blue, if you can’t beat em, insult them? Nice re-direct.

There is a big difference between saying someone is moronic and dangerous, and saying that the ideas they accept are moronic and dangerous. One does not, of necessity, imply the other.

Quite frankly, Champ, it’s difficult to communicate with someone who doesn’t want to listen. If you present a *coherent* examination of a large body of evidence, one that falls within acceptable bounds of scientific discourse, we will give you a fair hearing. That doesn’t mean we will automatically believe you, but we will give what you say consideration. If all you say ultimately boils down to “Believe in the Lord because the Bible says if you don’t, you’ll go to Hell”, we will naturally have difficulty taking you seriously, because that isn’t actually an ARGUMENT. The only reason to take the Bible as literal truth is because the Bible says to, which is no reason at all because it’s circular logic.

Of course, you could be just a troll, in which case we have no obligation to listen AT ALL. If that’s the case, please go away, and leave us godless intellectuals at least one place where we can get away from “God is Great, God is Good, Let Us Spill the Heathen’s Blood”.


GOOD JOB! Words out of my mouth.
charwiz

 

 Signature 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 939 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-04-11
Cody B - 30 September 2009 08:18 AM
TheChampion - 30 September 2009 03:02 AM
Cody B - 27 September 2009 06:03 PM

Evolution never stated nothing came from something.  You’re confusing cosmology with biology.  Also, you’re confusing a singularity with nothing.  It’s something.

I don’t know, doesn’t sound logical. You got to start with something to create something.

Cody B - 27 September 2009 06:03 PM

Also, you’re “goo hit with lightning” statement - glad you brought it up!  Back in 1952, the Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce 5 amino acids in the laboratory simulating lightning exposure to your “goo”.  Last year, we were able to reproduce the experiment yielding 28 amino acids.  The more you know!

I heard that there have been experiments like this, but nothing has really come of it. But thanks.

Well if it’s logic you’re seeking…here you go! By looking into deep space, you look into the past.  Light has a finite speed, the maximum speed we believe that which can be obtained by matter within the universe. (Note, it is believed that the expansion of the universe itself occurred much faster than the speed of light.  It was an expansion of space, not within space) The story we’re seeing in space is one of expansion.  Naturally, if the universe is expanding and cooling, then it must once have been much smaller and hotter. Makes sense, right?

So, let’s wind back the clock.  Our best equipment can trace back the temperature and expansion to 13.7 billion years ago.  The point of singularity.  I think this is where you are confused or misinformed.  A lot of people think the big bang theory states that there was just ‘bang’ a universe out of thin air.  Not so much - the singularity as far as we know was infinitely dense and hot.  No one knows why the universe came to existence.  For all we know, another universe could have collided setting off a budding universe.  Perhaps ‘why’ is the wrong question to ask.  The pertinent question is how. 

What we have verifiable facts for show us this much:

Background Radiation: The strongest evidence for the big bang is the radiation it left called the cosmic microwave background radiation.  It indicates a uniformly hot early universe.  (Another reason to believe the singularity was actually matter and not nothing) George Gamow predicted the radiation’s existence in 1948 and in the 1960’s it was confirmed.

Balance of Elements: Big Bang exactly predicts the proportion of light elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium) seen in the universe today.

General Relativity: Einstein’s theory predicts that the universe must either be expanding or contracting - it cannot stay the same size.

And of course you could just go look outside at night - if the universe were infinitely large and old, we would receive light from every part of the universe.  The night sky would be bright as day from all the incoming star light.  This is called Olbers’ paradox.  The big bang resolves the paradox by proposing the universe has not always existed.

Now to the “goo” and you - as a carbon based life form, this is important, so listen up! Once the universe cooled enough (roughly 300,000 years after the big bang), energy levels came down to a level where protons and atomic nuclei began to capture electrons forming the first atoms. These first atoms were Hydrogen and Helium, the two lightest elements known in the universe.  Gravity, one of four forces in the universe, pulled these elements together until it’s mass collected enough to collapse on themselves.  The resulting friction created enough heat to start fusion reaction, and you’ve got the first stars being born.  During the course of their lives and deaths, the first massive stars created and dispersed new chemical elements into space and into other collapsing protogalatic clumps.  New elements, such as carbon, oxygen, silicon, and iron were formed from the nuclear fusion in the hot cores of these stars.  Heavier elements like barium and lead were formed during their deaths. The violent deaths of these stars dispersed the ingredients for life into the universe - from then, it was only a matter of time.

The origins of life - Most scientists agree the beginnings of life on Earth were linked to the accumulation of simple organic (carbon-forming) molecules in a primordial soup (your goo) in Earth’s oceans not long after their formation.  The molecules originated from reactions of chemicals in Earth’s atmosphere, stimulated by energy, perhaps lightning.  Within the soup, over millions of years the organic compounds reacted to form larger and more complex molecules, until a molecule appeared with the capacity to replicate itself.  By its nature, these types of molecules - a rudimentary gene - became more common.  Through mutations and the mechanism of natural selection, variants of this gene developed more sophisticated survival adaptations, eventually evolving into a bacteria-like cell - the precursor of all other life on Earth.  The decisive event was the appearance of the self-replicator, after which living organisms would inevitably follow.

Where’s the proof?! - Ever gotten sick? It may have been due to a virus.  Viruses are on the border between living and non-living matter.  They self-replicate but can do so only by hijacking the metabolic machinery of animal, plant, or bacterial cells.  Here we have the stepping stone from a chemical reaction to a living organism. 

I certainly understand why the humans in the Bronze Age would think some all powerful god must be responsible for life.  They had no knowledge of physics, DNA structure, chemistry, astro-biology, molecular and cellular structures, or nuclear reactions.  Religion got people asking the right questions - unfortunately, their best guess was an invisible spaceman did it and somehow it stuck.  However, my expertise lies in biology and not human society or memes so someone else can tackle the evolution of religion from our primal shamans to today’s priests and bishops.


Great Job!
charwiz

 

 Signature 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 940 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-04-11
Cody B - 27 September 2009 02:03 PM
TheChampion - 26 September 2009 05:26 PM
thomascrosthwaite - 26 November 2008 12:59 PM

I was raised a fundalmentalist in the rural South [Church of Christ to be exact]. While I believe that many Creationists are good honest misgided people, I must say that I do question the honesty of some of these preachers, i.e. the better educated ones. No. 1, the reason why these people are so closed minded and determined, is that they are taught to never lose an arugment.

They still try to claim that they won the “monkey trail” in Tennessee, when the truth is that no scientific evidence was allowed to be presented.

While evidence supporting evloution is intensive and the deails still debateable,the concept is now university accepted among literate people.

Universally accepted among literate people (who don’t have the spirit of God).

Sorry, you missed a phrase.

You know, on its face, evolution can’t work. You mean nothing created something? It would be very hard to believe the the primordal slime and goo got hit with lightening and the tadpoles grew, and adapted, and then various species developed, grew, and adapted, and a food chain just happened to be the result. You got to be kidding me.

I guess I’m a skeptic. Sorry.


Evolution never stated nothing came from something.  You’re confusing cosmology with biology.  Also, you’re confusing a singularity with nothing.  It’s something. 

Furthermore, it seems you like to target gaps of knowledge.  Any respectable biologists would never pretend to have all the answers.  There’s a lot we need to still figure out.  But we need to move in that direction without the arrogant certainty that religion provides - we need to move forward into the 21st century with the humility of a confused lifeform who’s trying to sort this crazy universe out. 

Also, you’re “goo hit with lightning” statement - glad you brought it up!  Back in 1952, the Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce 5 amino acids in the laboratory simulating lightning exposure to your “goo”.  Last year, we were able to reproduce the experiment yielding 28 amino acids.  The more you know!


    Actually according to Dr. Lawrence Kraus a well-known physicist , everything did come from nothing. i.e. his book “A universe From Nothing”  but you are most correct that there is a big difference from A-BIOGENESIS AND COSMOLOGY…even though they interconnect.  And I sometimes think one could say that from the Big Bang to now the cosmos evolved. However ...this is not the same as the Charles Darwin natural selection evolution that we are talking about when referring to the biosphere on Earth.

 Signature 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 May 2013 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 941 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-04-11

[
Also, you’re “goo hit with lightning” statement - glad you brought it up!  Back in 1952, the Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce 5 amino acids in the laboratory simulating lightning exposure to your “goo”.  Last year, we were able to reproduce the experiment yielding 28 amino acids.  The more you know!


You can also add the fact that they can now produce in the lab self replicating RNA! Some day soon, i hope A-BIOGENISIS will be a fact as strong as the fact of Evolution by natural selection!

Charwiz

 Signature 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2014 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 942 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2014-08-23

Good Answer

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2014 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 943 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2014-09-13

How come evolutionists can not definitely pinpoint the origin of life?  All they have is Theory?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2014 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 944 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2013-12-11
Torah - 13 September 2014 09:47 PM

How come evolutionists can not definitely pinpoint the origin of life?  All they have is Theory?

That’s easy. Evolution doesn’t address the origins of life. How come creationists have to be reminded of this over and over? Also, if you’re going to denigrate theories, better watch out, because the theory of gravity is one of them! Jump off a building, see if the lowly theory holds up

Profile
 
 
   
63 of 63
63
 
‹‹ great stuff!      The End of Why ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed