Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Death VS God

Ah, Thanks! :p  Well, off to work.

EDIT - I found my error, while looking up Josef's site, it gave me the other one.  Tricky Google.

i was being sarcastic

i would like to see you reinstate why the second law has no effect. Cause if you can't, you yourselve do not understand a single thing he said there.

You can't comprehend why the second law of thermodynamics as ONE person says does not apply here.

And you still can't cope with any of my posts. Cause then, you would have directly answered my question.

hahaha, unbelievable! :-)     

creationism is a science? lol, babies are made by flowers and bees? or they come out of cabbages?

and why is it so strange that ice floats on water? (it weighs the same, but has a bigger volume ... hence, it floats! omg it's a miracle!)

So let me understand this, you think that because I don't know something that makes you right? I understand why the second law of thermodynamics isn't broken by evolution, but I don't have to remember the proof for it just so I can type it to *beep* like you and I don't really feel I need to copy/paste it here from another site either.

The website whos link I posted has the full proof for it, I can't say the same for yours, your website is just some hear say from some guy that probably heard with from somebody else just like him, with a website like christiananswers, it's only to be expected.

I'm waiting for you to prove that the proof on TalkOrigins is false, until than you're just blowing bull*beep*.

To be honest...the thread is called Death VS God. Its about a page by page dissection of the bible. For those who want to debate "creationism vs any other ism" you want, then read the forum posting rules and create your own threads.

Death VS God = Page by page dissection of the Bible? You must be a real genius when it comes to titles.  I still think a narrow minded imbecile like yourself shouldn't read the Bible and then literally tell us what you read.  Undertones and symbolism is something I cannot imagine you seeing.

EDIT - I just looked back.  I change my mind from "I still think a narrow minded imbecile..." to "I KNOW..."  I swear, 13-year-olds could explain it better.  As for you trying to explain easy and simple English in your double post, try reading what you wrote in your responses to the Bible and see how immature and stupid you sound.

PS - Don't talk down to me if you can't spell worth sh*t you little monkey.

I wouldn't know, must be your kindergarten grammar for starters? If you want to use numbers and little symbols, try leet.  Funny how you try to insult me with the old intelligence or age attack and then fall flat on your face in a load of fail.

L37$  7@L|<  1|/|  1337!

or their to lazy to google it and look for the support :)

primate the nubmer of places has nothing to do with it. no where does it say that one planet in our solar system HAS to support life. the chances come from how intricate the planet that supports life is. With everything working so well with everything else on Earth the chances of it becoming the way it is by chance are astronomical.

"it just got lucky to be in the right spot,"
Lucky...?

You clearly missed my sarcasm Josef. You said Earth was lucky, take a good look at the world and what mankind has done to it. I wouldn't say Earth was lucky, more like doomed...

:-)

I only know of two types of evolution. One is that the improvements in species happened in a very short time through large mutations most likely caused by some sort of radiation. The other is a bunch of very small improvements that happened over millions and billions of years. I take it you believe in the second one Josef?

I should have looked up the names because I couldn't quite remember them but those are the two that I know of and you were right it is neo-darwinism and not neo-evolution, my mistake.

But if you do beleive in the idea that species changed gradually over a long amount of time, then I have another question for you. How do you explain the fossils in the cambrian layer of rock?

According to the Macroevolution that took place over a great amount of time the cambrian layer of rock (second to the lowest estimated to be formed about 570-500 million years ago) should only contain the very simplest multicellular life forms.

Although this is what SHOULD be in that layer of rock, in the early 1900s a paleontologist named Charles Walcott found thousands of fossils in a layer of cambrian rock called the Burgess Shale. These fossils, much to the surprise of Walcott, were not just simple multicellular life forms. In fact he found fossils from every major animal phylum that exists. Some of these fossils showed very complex life forms existed during that time period 570-500 million years ago.

How did those fossils get there if these life forms should not have appeared for atleast another 100 million years?

Another question i have about evolution which I've never seen asked before and has always made me curious. When a mutation occurs that improvements the way of sexual reproduction, how does that organism have offspring?

You have a ton of single celled bacteria that all reproduce a-sexually. Eventually, in order to progress farther through evolution, one of these mutations will have to change so that an organism produces sexually with a mate of the opposite gender. (after all humans cant reproduce a-sexually) i know im jumping far in the evolutionary process but im just using it as an example from a-sexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. lets say an a-sexual bacteria mutates into a sexualy reproducing fish. In order for that species of fish to survive he/she will need a mate in order to have offspring. How is it possible if mutations only happen over a lot of years that another mutation will happen within the same general area of the last mutation that a fish of the opposite gender that reproduces sexually will be made within the other fish's life time?

"I take it you believe in the second one Josef?"

Yes, that is correct.

"How do you explain the fossils in the cambrian layer of rock?"

Quite easily, Walcott's expectations were a result of the information of the time, at that time most expected that life didn't evolve more than the multicell level during the cambrian period.

They were of course quite wrong, modern day information has pushed the fossil records up to 3.5 billion years back, before the Cambrian period there was the Proterozoic, which lasted about 2 billion years, macroscopic fossils were found belonging to the final period of the Proterozoic called the Vendian Period.

So Walcott's fossils aren't some knife to kill Evolution, they are part of Evolution, just like Darwin predicted.

"Another question i have about evolution which I've never seen asked before and has always made me curious. When a mutation occurs that improvements the way of sexual reproduction, how does that organism have offspring?"

The same way white people can have kids with blacks, or asians. The same way different kinds of dogs from different races can breed with dogs not of their own race. The same way horses and donkeys can breed.

You make a often seen mistake and think we can just draw a line and say race A evolved into race B and the two are now separate, evolution is a slow and gradual process.

As for your a-sexual reproduction to fish, well theer are billions of years between the two as such there never was a a-sexual fish.

A process of slow and gradual evolution by natural selection is possible, at the first levels you didn't have different sexes of a bacteria, you just had genetic exchange between bacteria, sexes evolved a lot later than the act of sharing genetic code.

"So using your logic, there are trillions and trillions of rocks on the earth, one of them must talk."

Oh for *beep*'s sake, can't you tell the difference between something that is impossible, a rock talking, and something that has a very small chance of happening, but it still CAN happen.

One has the chance of happening 0% and the other has only a small chance, say 0.0000001%, but that is still higher than 0%, and any event that has higher chance of happening than 0 will happen given a long enough number of possible cases.

A rock talking has 0% chance, as such it won't ever talk, the chance that a planet be at the right distance from it's star to have liquid water might be small, but it's still higher than 0, in which case giving enough stars and planets, at least some will be in the liquid water zone.

Demonslayer William Berkeley

Report


4/20/2009 9:02:05 PM

Getting an A in Biology doesn't mean you can debate for sh!t..

"My eyes are wide open to the extremely remarkable fact... that Cobra aka Josef... can actually sound so... educated... intelligent... erudite..... heck, CIVILISED!!!"

*beep* you! I was having these debates with my teachers and priests when I was 14, and they couldn't beat me in a debate back than, what possible chance do you think you numb skulls have now? When I got years of debate experience and basically know every argument any deist can bring and how to attack it almost by heart.

The reason I don't go around in every thread and honour it with my knowledge is because none of you are worth my bother, Killstone just got lucky, he left me with the impression that he might actually listen so I gave it a try. Any time I can get a true believer to at least question his beliefs is mission well done for me, these are battles that you win one person at a time.

So for your information, educated, erudite Cobra was here long before badass, troll Cobra was, in fact troll Cobra evolved because educated Cobra realized most of you are *beep*ing imbeciles that aren't worthy of my real attention.

"The same way white people can have kids with blacks, or asians. The same way different kinds of dogs from different races can breed with dogs not of their own race. The same way horses and donkeys can breed.

You make a often seen mistake and think we can just draw a line and say race A evolved into race B and the two are now separate, evolution is a slow and gradual process."

I think you missed my point. All the current beings evolved from eachother according to evolution. At one point the a sexual organism would have to change to a sexual organism. How could the sexual organism reproduce if there were no other sexual organisms to mate with (because they are all a sexual)?

"Oh for *beep*'s sake, can't you tell the difference between something that is impossible, a rock talking, and something that has a very small chance of happening, but it still CAN happen.

One has the chance of happening 0% and the other has only a small chance, say 0.0000001%, but that is still higher than 0%, and any event that has higher chance of happening than 0 will happen given a long enough number of possible cases."

I am going to make an assumption, which could be wrong, but I am going to assume you believe in abiogenesis (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Abiogenesis), am I correct in this assumption?

If I am correct then what is the difference between the idea of nonliving chemicals spontaneously reacting to form a living matter with DNA, and the idea of a non living rock spontaneously reacting with its surroundings developing vocal cords and gaining the ability to speak?

Also, again if my assumption about you believing in abiogenesis is correct, how does the reaction between the nonliving matter gain DNA or RNA?

One more question in this post: If the mutations between species were small and happened over a long period of time, then wouldn't there be some fossil evidence of an animal between species (aka an intermediate link)?

go ahead then pineapple

Killstone.

There are organisms that can reproduce both ways.

here is an example about a whiptail lizard. (search the text)
Most probably, organisms developed sexual reproduction, without losing asexual reproduction at first. Later on, they lost the ability to reproduce asexually. (Evolution)

I knew I remembered right, couldn't come up with a name on such sort notice, thank you Gilth.

"only Creationists claim to know everything."

Is that your opinion or are you stating a fact?

Quite a bit actually...science and religion can overlap pretty well in certain areas.  You don't have to choose A or B because there are some in betweens

Well right now you claim science can prove everything so obviously you are being just like "all creationists."  You cannot even prove all of it yourself because it is only a theory and scientists are still trying to figure out how a ocean full of jumbled organic pieces magically became life. 

Lumping everyone of everything into one group is just generalizing and that is a stupid psychological mindset.

I didn't say I can prove everything, quite the reverse in fact, and I stand by the fact that creationists claim to know everything, since "God did it!" is that, everything.

Just because you're naive enough to think "God did it!" adds anything useful to science only reveals your gullibility, "God did it!" is the end of science, not the begining.

I get the feeling you're trying and failing to troll around here.