How did rocks evolve again?
How does Hydrogen evolve into Uranium exactly?
How did the earth's crust become so rich in some elements in some places if it was formed from dust aggregating?
Why people reject evolution
Sort:
ijgeoffrey wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
ijgeoffrey wrote:
klimski wrote:
Thank god (!?) that there are other voices of reason here. I mean seriously, that 'law of information' stems from creation.com. broken down it says: all information comes from a mind ( assumption based loosely on superficial observation), therefore all information must come from a mind (circular argument concluding in a hollow statement of 'fact'). Nuff said
-------------
What makes the last 2000 years of observation "superficial"? We make laws based on observation, and observation has shown that information ALWAYS comes from an intelligence. Can you give me one observable example of information randomly arising?
Yes - your own genetic code. And the genetic code of every person on the planet.
Not new. The genetic code of every person on the planet is passed down from their parents. Not one shred of their DNA (barring the small percentage of NEGATIVE mistakes) is brand new.
Off couse the shreds are copies. But the mix is new, and the whole code is thius new. Or different or whatever you want to call it.
If it wasnt new you would be an exact replica of your father.
Man evolved from monkeys. My landlord is living proof.
iplaychessnowplease wrote:
How did rocks evolve again?
How does Hydrogen evolve into Uranium exactly?
How did the earth's crust become so rich in some elements in some places if it was formed from dust aggregating?
The sad thing is, I am not even sure if you are joking or a creationist :)
ijgeoffrey wrote:
Estren wrote:
ijgeoffrey - I guess our planet was created with dinosaur bones in the earth, yes?
-------------------
No. Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation, along with all other land animals. Many dinosaurs (along with many other creatures) were buried in sedimentary layers in the one-time, catastrophic event of the flood of Noah's day.
..............................................
So much for no religious debates. You have invalidated your whole argument now that you have crossed the guidelines you yourself have imposed back at #8. Viewing any science as 'atheistic' is obviously religious bias. And now we can all watch as the argument cascades into dogmatic bickering. Until you conduct your own peer-reviewed studies to validate these things, it's best to leave the thinking to the scientists.
The Drunken Monkey Theory of Evolution
One day a monkey was sitting in a plum tree. He became hungry and looked around the tree. He noticed that there were no more plums left in the tree. He felt despondent. But then he noticed that there were plums on the ground. He climbed down the tree and ate his full. The plums on the ground had started to ferment. He became so drunk that he could no longer climb back up the tree. The result: homo sapiens.
@ijgeoffrey: you are a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
klimski wrote:
Who is to say that what we have now is more ordered? Thats a subjective opinion, so there goes your 'refutation' of thermodynamics. As for your other two 'laws' they have nothing to do with physics and are in fact made up by creationists. So, all your posts in summation prove one thing only: the OP is correct.
So basically, only Evolutionary "laws" are acceptable to you?
You expect us to accept your arbitrary standard and use Evolution to argue against its self?
Get real.
ijgeoffrey wrote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the overall entropy of the universe can only increase or stay the same. Entropy is the measure I disorder. Evolution says that everything initially came from a big explosion, and eventually stars, planets, and life formed. Life itself has been evolving into more complex and efficient forms. This is attaining incredibly higher levels of order from nothing but randomly dispersed matter resulting from explosion. But the Second Law says that the universe should only become more *dis*ordered.
....absolutely beautiful ! +1
ijgeoffrey wrote:
The Law of Biogenesis says that life can only come from life. But evolution claims that once in history life came from random chemicals in some primordial pool.
....absolutely beautiful ! +2
ijgeoffrey wrote:
The Law of Information says that information can only come from an intelligence--a mind. But according to evolution all the mind-bogglingly vast amounts of information stored in all the DNA of all living organisms arose by random chance, with no mind behind it at all.
....absolutely beautiful ! +3....goodnite !
Glorfindel_1 wrote:
klimski wrote:
Who is to say that what we have now is more ordered? Thats a subjective opinion, so there goes your 'refutation' of thermodynamics. As for your other two 'laws' they have nothing to do with physics and are in fact made up by creationists. So, all your posts in summation prove one thing only: the OP is correct.
So basically, only Evolutionary "laws" are acceptable to you?
You expect us to accept your arbitrary standard and use Evolution to argue against its self?
Get real.
Real laws are acceptable.
I googled the so-called "law of information" and its something creationists made up. There is no such law.
Some creationist called Git made it up http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1
When you think about it, the so-called "Information law" is total gibberish. Git's article is funny.
Because material things contain information.
Ancient riverbeds on Mars contain information that once there was rivers on Mars for instance.
Smoke containt information that something is burning.
And so on.
Also Stephen j. Gould, anything by the Leakey family and Richard Fortey, if you're into natural history.
it is not evolution per say, it is mutation. Had a certain mutation not occured some 175,000 years ago; we would not be having this conversation today.
The stupidity in these threads are like baited hooks. It makes me sad to see, though; ijgeoffrey is a jew from Israel, a country surrounded by fundamentalist muslims, but even so, ijgeoffrey is a fundamentalist himself. Both sides are banging each other's heads with age-old religious books.
Ijgeoffrey states bluntly that the dinosaurs was covered in sediments after the flood of Noah's time, which occurred between 2500 BC and 2300 BC (according to a creationist site). All the dinosaurs in all the continents, that is. But science find zero evidence of a catastrophic event of this magnitude. On the contrary; they find endless amounts of evidence that most of the dinosaurs disappeared approximately 66 million years ago.
But there's really no point in arguing with a fundamentalist. They see the world through distorted glasses, and act accordingly.
Well, after reading a random selection of posts typed by you monkeys, I haven't found King Lear. So keep typing
Evolution is simply the concept that upon adversities and sexual selection, that there are certain preferable mutations that survive the best and reproduce more, and those traits become gradually the new "species" of that certain animal. There is nothing more to prove about that, evolution is by now as much as fact with as much evidence, as is gravity itself.
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
ijgeoffrey wrote:
latvianlover wrote:
ijgeoffrey wrote:
Might I ask, what parts of evolution can be demonstrated? Are you speaking of speciation/natural selection? Because that I do not reject. It would be foolhardy to reject things which can be observed and tested. I am not unwilling to look at the world around me. This is why I keep asking for observable examples of evolution. (I doubt anyone can give me any.)
It is said that evolution occurs most rapidly in situations of predator vs prey, and also in short lived species which reproduce rapidly. So the place that you should look to find what you say you are looking for is in the area of antibiotics vs bacteria.
----------------
I have already studied bacteria vs. antibiotics. NO NEW INFORMATION IS EVER DEVELOPED. The bacteria can suddenly "resist" the antibiotics because they have a mutation which makes them no longer able to absorb the poison. NO LONGER ABLE--in other words, they have LOST information, not GAINED it.
hahaha
If there is a change in the "code" for the bacteria.
Then this change is new information.
Your own genetic code is also "new". No organism ever had the same DNA you do. And the DNA is the information that built you.
If your code weren't new, you would be a clone of your father or mother, your DNA wouldnt be new. Im assuming you are not.
----------------
You changed what "new" means. All information, in bacteria or humans, is passed down. Parts may be passed from multiple organisms, or lost altogether, creating a "new" genome. But none of the information itself is "new." I certainly hope your genome doesn't have new information which gave you a third leg!
I dont even know what your weird stuff means anymore really.
My DNA code is new because it never existed before ever. And yours is too.