Creation or Evolution? (Maybe both)

Nope you got the theory of evolution all wrong. Refer back to this video and continue the discussion please: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

The planet did not have humans on it during the time I refer to nor polar bears.

Here is a time table:
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/cour...e/origins.html
Part 2: The appearance of Life

• The timetable
  • 3.6-3.7 billion years ago: appearance of life
  • 2.5 billion years ago oxygen-forming photosynthesis
  • ~2.2 billion years ago: aerobic respiration
  • ~1.5 billion years ago: first evidence of fossil eukaryotes
• The appearance of Life: anaerobic heterotrophes
  • 3.6-3.7 billion years ago: appearance of life
  • Most likely first cells were anaerobic, heterotrophic bacteria
    • anaerobic = does not require free oxygen
    • heterotrophic = does not make its own food
• The next step: anaerobic autotrophs
  • Were able to fix CO2
    • turning CO2 + H into organic molecules
  • Hydrogen donors initially were H2, H2S
• Energy sources for autotrophics
  • First used chemical energy from elements in surrounding medium
    • chemoautotrophs (deep-sea vents)
  • As this energy ran low, evolved ability to capture energy from light
    • Photoautotrophs
• Life' s first major crisis
  • Easy hydrogen donors (H2, H2S) used up quickly
  • Key innovation around 2.5 billion years
    • oxygen-forming photosynthesis (cyanobacteria)
    • Use of H2O as a hydrogen donor
• Life' s second major crisis
  • Huge amounts of toxic O2 released
  • Most of the initial O2 was locked up by iron in the oceans and soils (Banded iron formations) = rust
  • More O2 from water keep coming, leading to an O2 rich atmosphere
• Life' s next major innovation
  • Aerobic respiration
    • much more efficient than anaerobic respiration
    • Allowed larger cells and the future potential of multicellular organisms

The species adapted to the changes of the planets over an unfathomable number of generations and species changes. It was not like throwing a cat underwater and expecting it to turn into a fish and develop gills in seconds. Again the video would help you, i'm not trying to be a jerk, you clearly don't fully understand the concept if you need to use those examples. I was as stalwart of a defender of traditional creationist beliefs for a long time and would do the same thing yet refuse to look at the theory directly. Those are pre-concieved notions about the theory but not accurate. Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

Can you prove any of that info that you just posted???? Why is it when a scientist says such in such has been around for 1.6 billion years do we assume it's factual??? Prove with a shadow of doubt that the above timetable is accurate?

Can you prove any of that info that you just posted???? Why is it when a scientist says such in such has been around for 1.6 billion years do we assume it's factual??? Prove with a shadow of doubt that the above timetable is accurate? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Because they go through years and years of advanced learning to stringently test their theories and undergo constant peer review on the accuracy of their statements. They use equipment to determine various aspects of their findings that you or I do not have access to. They stand on the shoulders of giants (other great minds that came before them) and yes, I respect their research. I even understand challenging it, as long as you have something more than a gut feeling to present as evidence of your null hypothesis.

Is everything stated there 100% accurate? Of course not. Every last line of data any scientist presents will be nitpicked to death by peers and each little value will be adjusted again and again. Still the overall premise isn't what is being challenged by the community at large, the fine details are and will be.

The mistake you keep making over and over is that you think everything must evolve in the same direction.

The cheetah adapted over time to become faster and faster in order to catch the fasted prey. A lot of little improvements over time added up to a fast animal. But it also made the cheetah very weak in other respects. It's body overheats rapidly and it runs out of breath quickly. It is all burst and no endurance. After 30-60 second of running the cheetah has to rest for 15-15 minutes.

Lions adapted for power and mass rather than speed. They may not catch a gazelle, but they do not need to. They can bring down the big but slow water buffalo that would kill a cheetah.

A sloth does not need to outrun its predators. It climbs high up in trees and hangs upside down from branches. Lions and cheetahs cannot get to them. Therefore, there is no evolutionary advantage if a sloth has a genetic variation that makes it a little faster than other sloths. It does not survive in larger numbers than the slow sloths and does not procreate more often.

And somebody made a ridiculous comparison to evolution being like laying out the parts of a machine and coming back years later and finding a fully assembled machine. That's a dumbass comparison.

The machine parts are not living. They do not have offspring. Their non-existent offspring do not have genetic variations that may confer on them a reproductive advantage.

Instead, the machine parts will lie on the ground and rust and deteriorate until nothing is left.

By contrast, if you take a bunch of living creatures and leave them alone for a million years, when you come back you will find that the original living creature, like the original machine parts are all DEAD. However, their offspring after many generations may have evolved into something radically different.

That's how evolution works. Originally Posted by ExNYer

My dumbass comparison is exactly what they propose,
that life came from dead matter.

And actually I gave them a little with the machine comparison.
A machine is just an inanimate constructed object. A cell is
an animated constructed object, one that has Life, LIFE.


And actually it takes just as much or more faith to believe
in that as it dose to believe in a God that did it.

Both sides believe in MIRACLES, MIRACLES, ha ha ha ha.
Could be the ultimate irony of all time.


Ask them how it happened and they can give you no reasonable answer.
Just that you should stop being so unscientific and just accept
that it did.

To answer someone else's argument there are a lot of
creationist scientist, but they probably don't get invited
to many of the parties.

Quantum Physics is also pushing the Materialistic Scientist
to the side, but sssssshhh don't tell anyone it's suppose
to be a secret.


Science is suppose to be objective and all about finding the
truth, but you don't have to go very far to see that they
have as many and more agendas as anyone else.


I didn't know this thread would be so much fun.

Huh?

Time for your monthly medication adjustment. Originally Posted by bojulay

As usual, insults are the best laughable creationists can muster when confronted with their errors and flawed thinking. So pathetic, you must have attended the worst public school in the nation

As usual, insults are the best laughable creationists can muster when confronted with their errors and flawed thinking. So pathetic, you must have attended the worst public school in the nation Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

Apology accepted.

It takes a big man to admit they are wrong.

Comical- and a waste of time.
Bojulay and Mr. Bill- two of a kind-?the same Person?
Structure of their posts is similar in written architecture and approach.

Definition- Ignorance is a lack of education. There are many things of which I am ignorant- and i try to remedy that with education every day of life.
Stupidity- lack of education and accompanied by a closed mind- Curable only with a bullet in the back of the head. The Russians have it right.

Mr. Bill and Bojulay- Join the Flat Earth Society and agitate with them for your ignoranceity to magically transmogrify into reality. You will fit right in with that group.
oeb11

Here is another question for evolutionist.

Never mind the dead matter to life question, that was easy
when compared.

How do you get everything from nothing, nothing is nothing.
No space, no time, no matter, nothing.

From nothing, to everything that is. What masters of faith they are.

And they believe that matter is all there is.

If anyone is truly wondering MATTER is their GOD.
Not evolution or any kind of evolutionary process,
but matter.

Matter is what everything can ultimately
be reduced down to, proteins, amino acids, salts, etc.

From no matter we get all matter.

Uhm---Not very scientific, is it?

[QUOTE=oeb11;3084588]Comical- and a waste of time.
Bojulay and Mr. Bill- two of a kind-?the same Person?
Structure of their posts is similar in written architecture and approach.

Definition- Ignorance is a lack of education. There are many things of which I am ignorant- and i try to remedy that with education every day of life.
Stupidity- lack of education and accompanied by a closed mind- Curable only with a bullet in the back of the head. The Russians have it right.

Mr. Bill and Bojulay- Join the Flat Earth Society and agitate with them for your ignoranceity to magically transmogrify into reality. You will fit right in with that group.
oeb11[/QUOTE

Many, don't be so modest.

If the earth was flat ships would fall off the edge silly.

Keep working on it and you might get there someday.

Evolutionist believe in fairy tales much more than I do,
I envy them in a way.

Comical- and a waste of time.
Bojulay and Mr. Bill- two of a kind-?the same Person?
Structure of their posts is similar in written architecture and approach.

Definition- Ignorance is a lack of education. There are many things of which I am ignorant- and i try to remedy that with education every day of life.
Stupidity- lack of education and accompanied by a closed mind- Curable only with a bullet in the back of the head. The Russians have it right.

Mr. Bill and Bojulay- Join the Flat Earth Society and agitate with them for your ignoranceity to magically transmogrify into reality. You will fit right in with that group.
oeb11 Originally Posted by oeb11

Well said!

LMAO@Flat Earth Society ....but how appropriate.

Evolutionist believe in fairy tales much more than I do,
I envy them in a way. Originally Posted by bojulay

Evolutionists believe in fairy tales? Like Noah's Ark? Or the talking serpent in the Garden Of Eden? Or the Tower Of Babel, which is why there are so many languages in the world? Or any of the other fables in The Bible?

Get a grip. If you believe in a wizard-like, magical Grandpappy in the sky, you have bought into the biggest fairy tale ever sold.

It's a great read, much like Aesop's fables. Basis for proof of how the universe was created? Hell no.

Evolutionists believe in fairy tales? Like Noah's Ark? Or the talking serpent in the Garden Of Eden? Or the Tower Of Babel, which is why there are so many languages in the world? Or any of the other fables in The Bible?

Get a grip. If you believe in a wizard-like, magical Grandpappy in the sky, you have bought into the biggest fairy tale ever sold.

It's a great read, much like Aesop's fables. Basis for proof of how the universe was created? Hell no. Originally Posted by TheOriginalDannie

Everything from nothing, with nothing as the catalyst.

Fairy Tail.

What are evolutionist left with then, nothing.

ha ha ha

Where did everything come from daddy?
Nowhere sweetheart, nowhere at all.

I think your full of shit daddy.
Yes sweetheart, yes I am.

Everything from nothing, with nothing as the catalyst.

Fairy Tail.

What are evolutionist left with then, nothing.

ha ha ha

Where did everything come from daddy?
Nowhere sweetheart, nowhere at all.

I think your full of shit daddy.
Yes sweetheart, yes I am. Originally Posted by bojulay

Actually, there is no such thing as 'nothing'. Energy and matter are the two ingredients needed to start up a universe. Both exist even where you can't see them, feel them, etc. Quarks are a great example of this 'nothing' you speak of. Dark matter, as well. Even the fabric of time/space is something. E=mc2 or, energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.

Now, I know you will say the energy comes from magical-baby-in-the-manger Jesus, but that's not the case. Pre-big bang, when it was an infinitesimally small and TIMELESS point, all that was there was energy and matter. No one was there to say for sure what made it 'bang' (including this "God" of yours), but that also means you can't know for sure that a supernatural magic man made it happen.

hahaha

I have been a programmer for years and I am outside of my system although I can compile a program to execute and form into its own virtual universe. I am not bound by the physical laws within and to the minds of the elements/processes/classes contained within my program if they could independently think they might consider a need for my design to be non existent based on the requirements of the programmed universe itself.

In other words, God could exist outside of the scope of our program so to speak and be the programmer. We could find no real purpose for the intervention of a said developer, but it wouldn't rule out the developer.

However like a program, the big bang would act like the point of execution and the evolution of every living thing the execution of classes within the program which end up more or less blossoming into a full state or continue to change.

So while I don't think we can rule out a great wizard in the sky (the almighty programmer that sits at a desk outside the big computer we live within and our universe runs on), we cannot deny how we have discovered the program executes (big bang/cosmogenesis, abiogenesis, evolution, etc).

We are on just one layer of the great interdimensional OSI model.

/geek

I have been a programmer for years and I am outside of my system although I can compile a program to execute and form into its own virtual universe. I am not bound by the physical laws within and to the minds of the elements/processes/classes contained within my program if they could independently think they might consider a need for my design to be non existent based on the requirements of the programmed universe itself.

In other words, God could exist outside of the scope of our program so to speak and be the programmer. We could find no real purpose for the intervention of a said developer, but it wouldn't rule out the developer.

However like a program, the big bang would act like the point of execution and the evolution of every living thing the execution of classes within the program which end up more or less blossoming into a full state or continue to change.

So while I don't think we can rule out a great wizard in the sky (the almighty programmer that sits at a desk outside the big computer we live within and our universe runs on), we cannot deny how we have discovered the program executes (big bang/cosmogenesis, abiogenesis, evolution, etc).

We are on just one layer of the great interdimensional OSI model.

/geek Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

Very intelligent argument.

Unlike the one above yours that claims such an event
would somehow negate the need for a creator.

Very intelligent argument.

Unlike the one above yours that claims such an event
would somehow negate the need for a creator. Originally Posted by bojulay

Thanks for the kind compliment, I think a lot of people just get too frustrated with the rules and regulations brought on in society based on various religious persons. Finding a way to negate a God could finally put an end to theocracy which has caused a lot of pain throughout the history of mankind.

Think about the inquisition, crusades, witch burnings, Muslim holy wars, and even the laws in societies like our beloved anti prostitution laws. We want to see an end to these infringements on our rights and I think there has been a hunger to knock God right out of the equation at all costs to end the trampling of freedoms that occurs as a result of the theocratic values these religions have represented in the name of God.

The interesting thing is, sexual laws are often not the result of religious theocracy but a fear of others being different than them. Otherwise countries like China would not have a need to be so sexually moral. India would not likely be more sexually moral, there are entire sects in the Hindu faith that should embrace extreme deviant natures. In Japan, pubic hair is considered an immoral thing to show off and so they blur it out.

Our society will fight to the death to keep prostitution illegal because most people want the wife, dog, kids, white picket fence for everybody and if others are not a cookie cutter mold then it should be illegal. This also leads to our racism problems, distaste for gays, etc. (at least that's my two cents, believe what you will.)

Point being, I understand why they fight to rule out God. It just isn't a scientific claim to assert God doesn't exist based on lack of evidence. It is however a scientific claim to assert we do not know, nor can we empirically test it, but we do not have scientific evidence OF a God.

Evolution is no more than a scientifically observed and tested mechanism for the overall growth of all living things collectively.

We do not need to resort to any disrespect toward each other over this.