False ideas about evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2011, 07:15 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Very good (and interesting) point. Pop culture is a big source of error that I really had not considered at depth. Thanks

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2011, 08:51 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Quote: In light of today's present knowledge about evolutionism: The evolutionism ITSELF is the mechanism created by God. Because you must remember: Something has to create the first being in the first place. And don't talk about the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, something had to create the mass which created the Big Bang in the first place. That is the IDT. God created this whole mechanism of creatures evolving. In other words, the IDT claims that God created the first creature, and the DNA within the creature which allowed the creature to evolve. You're thinking too much in terms of Scientism. Scientism has too many flaws, more than almost all other systems of belief. To answer your example about the retina, being an adaptation, remember, something MUST create the adaptation, and the existence of it thereof. A complex object must be taken at its whole, not just what one sees. The IDT still stands.


Not sure about this one, what do you people think? Smile

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
24-08-2011, 09:11 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Wow. That is the type of mindless dribble that people thinks sounds intelligent because the person acts like they know what they are talking about so they accept it as fact.

The errors abound in this person's statement. Prior to the Big Bang existed nothing. There is no need for something to have created it and once again this ignores the beginning of the creator.

The first "life-form" was probably similar to a virus and did not have DNA but RNA.

"something must create the adaptation"? Complete bullshit. Any trait that any organism has is either beneficial, neutral or detrimental to their survival. What determines this is the environment and competition. Eyes are a useless adaptation in the dark and are therefore neutral to an organisms survival.

This is a great example of what I started this thread for. Good find.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 06:38 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
in sub atomic form we know that things can come and go almost like magic (my science of the day lol) therefore the big bang does not require a creator. i cant remember all of it, but people who dont read about it then dispute shoud just get hit in the head with a 2x4 then taken to a science lab to read science books forever ^_^

"In real life , as opposed to that happy, clappy, rainbow fantasy world that you see fit to fly through on your winged unicorn of delusion" - Mitchell and Webb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2011 10:31 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: False ideas about evolution
(24-08-2011 09:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The first "life-form" was probably similar to a virus and did not have DNA but RNA.

I used to think that same thing. The problem with it is that viruses require cells of other organisms to be able to replicate which is also the only sign of life they exhibit. So logically virus like lifeforms must have evolved after or at a similar time as single celled organisms.

It's bizarre as people often think of viruses as life in it's most basic form after all they are just DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein shell or coat. It's easy to see why you think of them as being the earliest life forms but it leaves the question of how they reproduced.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 10:41 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(25-08-2011 10:26 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
(24-08-2011 09:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The first "life-form" was probably similar to a virus and did not have DNA but RNA.

I used to think that same thing. The problem with it is that viruses require cells of other organisms to be able to replicate which is also the only sign of life they exhibit. So logically virus like lifeforms must have evolved after or at a similar time as single celled organisms.

It's bizarre as people often think of viruses as life in it's most basic form after all they are just DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein shell or coat. It's easy to see why you think of them as being the earliest life forms but it leaves the question of how they reproduced.

You are not the first to point that out. Saying they were virus like really just means that they were likely to be an RNA lifeform. No protein shell just RNA. Of course the issue still remains for needing proteins first before you can form the RNA and that is where biologists are right now. Trying to engineer an RNA lifeform that can self-replicate without needing proteins produced by a cell. It is not a trivial process. And it also does not necessarily have to be the first lifeform but it is the simplest imaginable thing that would capable of replication.

That is an important point to make though. Thanks for bring that up FSM.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
25-08-2011, 02:49 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(25-08-2011 10:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You are not the first to point that out. Saying they were virus like really just means that they were likely to be an RNA lifeform. No protein shell just RNA. Of course the issue still remains for needing proteins first before you can form the RNA and that is where biologists are right now. Trying to engineer an RNA lifeform that can self-replicate without needing proteins produced by a cell. It is not a trivial process. And it also does not necessarily have to be the first lifeform but it is the simplest imaginable thing that would capable of replication.

That is an important point to make though. Thanks for bring that up FSM.

No problem Beardeddude. I know what you mean now.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2011 08:56 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: False ideas about evolution
Evofairytales is a huge waste of time. Either it is a huge troll site like Land Rover Baptist church forum or they are complete idiots.

Evolution is observable, provable, demonstrable science. You can literally see micro-evolution at work over the course of years. You can account for things like the banana and other artificially selected fruit and livestock over the course of thousands of years. And for the matching genomes and ladder of fossils, well it's the smoking gun.

It truly is funny to watch creationist, who the majority of are theist, attack evolution at every angle as if it will prove THEIR god exist. As if debunking how we know that we came to be would prove everything about their bible. Like Richard Dawkins said, show me a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian period. Until then, go fuck off.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/...arning.htm

Obvious troll site.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 09:31 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(24-08-2011 08:51 AM)robotworld Wrote:  [quote] In light of today's present knowledge about evolutionism: The evolutionism ITSELF is the mechanism created by God. Because you must remember: Something has to create the first being in the first place. And don't talk about the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, something had to create the mass which created the Big Bang in the first place. That is the IDT. God created this whole mechanism of creatures evolving. In other words, the IDT claims that God created the first creature, and the DNA within the creature which allowed the creature to evolve. You're thinking too much in terms of Scientism. Scientism has too many flaws, more than almost all other systems of belief. To answer your example about the retina, being an adaptation, remember, something MUST create the adaptation, and the existence of it thereof. A complex object must be taken at its whole, not just what one sees. The IDT still stands.

It would be logically IMPOSSIBLE for a "god" to begin, (and perform, and then end, (finish) an act)... to "act" in a "time" BEFORE it created time. There can be NO "before", in a "period" "before" time even existed. There IS no "before" anything, if time does not already exist. Space-time BEGAN at the Big Bang. Thus logic tells us there is no creator, "acting" or "doing" anything in a "period' before it created time itself. It MAY be that this is another example of a non-intuitive occurance, but for the present, humans have no words or concepts which allow logical expression of a "creation" act, which cannot begin before time began.

There is a good program on this coming Wednesday evening on PBS, part of the NOVA series, on evolution. I believe all three parts will air this Wednesday consecutively. It's called "Becoming Human", or something similar. Cheers. Great thread.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-08-2011, 10:55 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
The evolution fairytale site is frustrating but I don't think they are trolls. I think they legitimately believe it. I posted on there for a few weeks and I was banned for...well I don't know why I was banned other than making sense.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: