44 replies to this topic

[Fingulfin]

I guess I will gamble that everyone here is a Civilized person. If you are willing to be polite in this debate, please post I want your opinion, scientific facts, etc. I dont want your ¢2 on how stupid I am.

Something a little funny for Creationists, but insulting to Evolutionists. I know that MSpencer will have alot to say about this, and I want no Flaming. I want hard SCIENTIFIC Evidence. Or weak I dont care. Just dont say thats balogna! Your an Idiot! I would prefer: The reason that is not true is that he failed to explain about... or he Completely messed up the concept of...

The Tale Of The Magic Rock Apes
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind

Okay, now sit down now, boys and girls - it's story time! Shhhh.... Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock. It was magic rock. Inert and lifeless, but still magical. And then, magically, water formed in the sky above the rock. The waters rained on the rock for, oh, let's say billions of years. Some of the rock broke down into minerals, and these minerals washed into a pool of water.

Then one day some of these minerals magically formed into a kind of goo in the pool of water. Can you say "goo?" I knew you could. Well do you know what happened then? That's right! The goo magically became ALIVE. So anyway, this bit of magic goo magically found something to eat. Then, magically, it found another bit of magic goo to marry, and they had a whole bunch of magical little goos. Eventually - millions of years later - some of this goo grew up into all the plants and animals in the world around us. If it's alive, it came from that first bit of magic goo! Well, more time went on. Finally some of this goo magically evolved - can you say "evolved?" I knew you could - some of this goo magically evolved upwards and upwards, growing ever more advanced, bigger, stronger, smarter, until it became a kind of magical hairless ape with thumbs.

And do you know who those apes are? That's right! They're YOU and ME! We are the magic rock apes! And you know what else? Someday we'll evolve enough that we'll become the God we all know doesn't exist. Now take a nap.

Remember, Science, not flaming. I wouldnt mind if you posted something as stupid against my faith, that I could defend against.



EDIT: DANGIT! Didnt realise there was already one topic on this. Sorry if this makes anyone mad

Edited by Fingulfin, 17 July 2006 - 03:43 AM.

[AdmiralGT]

If I were to say "I am God", you wouldn't believe me would you? The same principal lies here. By leaving out important details in the story, it sounds absurd and thus makes it the more believable to mock evolution. If I were to take a sample of two people, one who had cancer and one who did not, a story like this would say 50% of us have cancer, when in fact, you would most likely only have 1 in 10,000 and the percentage becomes much less. Leave out parts of a story, and it suddenly sounds a lot better.

[MSpencer]

That's the worst contortion of science I have ever heard in my life. And yes, as GT said, if you leave the connecting parts of evolutionary history out, things sound unplausible. You can't take one part of a theory without taking the rest, and in this case, it's multiple proven theories and hypotheses which have shaped our understanding of the early atmosphere and living conditions of the earth, giving rise to protobionts and later, DNA based life. It certainly didn't have anything to do with rocks or condensed hydrogen...

[Hostile]

Funny you mention DNA, I know you must feel DNA evolved from organic compounds in the primordial ooze.

But if this is the case, than why are there not variations of the double helix. Surelly more than one way of using genetic material to generate organisms must have worked.

I'm not talking some organsims using only a single thread instead of the double helix, I mean a whole differant way of storing genetic material.

Yet there is no other methed to forming complex organisms except DNA. I suppose one could argue that DNA is a homoeostasis form for genetic material.

I still believe there is more to the story than random evolution. There certainly is room for intelligent design.

[MSpencer]

Common ancestor. There were likely other ways to store hereditary information and pass it on to the next generation (They would have undergone chemical evolution from simple nitrogenous bases to being copyable mRNA to transcribe genes in the next generation, to later becoming double stranded RNA and then the more stable DNA), however they would have been much less efficient, if they existed, and would have resulted in errors as far as transcription, translation, etc. DNA has persisted because it is a very adaptable molecule with a structure that makes it easily replicatable, and allows quick transcription into mRNA. Other methods of gene storage would not have that kind of advantage, if they even evolved.
You have to remember that at the time that DNA chemically evolved, the only living things were protobionts, which don't fit our definition of alive. It's quite possible they all died, and the one protobiont strain that developed DNA survived, and thrived, and became the basic species from which life then evolved. And you have to realize, chemical evolution was nothing new at the time. Protobionts dropped like flies, those that were able to respire using CO2 moved on, those that couldn't, died. Later those that utilized efficient nutrient absorption systems survived, and those that used inferior methods, died. Life is only streamlined to us now because it has had billions of years to work itself out through natural selection, and chemical evolution has all but stopped.

[Fingulfin]

Im surprised Hostile takes Nuetral ground here...

One of the Biggest problems is all the missing links... Any evidence for those you guys might have? Missing links like reptile birds, or fish with feet or any evidence of those in-between links that I have heard nothing of.

[MSpencer]

Missing links? There's one missing link in evolutionary biology, and that's the few species that may have developed between Austrolopithicus and your standard African primate, but that might be one species at best.
Austrolopithicus (Essentially a primate with opposable thumbs, and apparently, according to some evidence, the ability to craft tools)
Homo habilis (Early pre-human with the ability to craft and wield tools)
H. erectus (The first upright walking human species which perfected the use of fire)
H. neanderthalis (The next step above H. erectus, notable for communication, forming communities, and intelligence)
H. sapien (Today's humans, able to reason and thousands of years later, develop language skills. Wiped out H. neanderthalis due to greater intelligence, dexterity, and strength)
Want to point out the missing link? There is none.
If you can come up with a DEFINITIVE missing link, one that EXISTS, not one that you say exists and you can't back up, but a DEFINITIVE case where the modern version of the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection cannot possibly work, then perhaps I'll entertain the idea of even listening to you. At the moment, you're working off of unfounded holes in a solid theory and trying to use the incomplete fossil record (Which is the fault of paleontologists and the earth's climate) which does not document EVERY SINGLE species, only the ones who died fast and painful deaths, to try and say that evolution is possible.
Frankly, you're full of crap until you can come up with something legitimate. You want to argue with science? You have to play by science's rules. If we were to play by religion's rules, I could just say "Oh evolution's right because DNA made it happen". In the field of legitimate study, however, you're supposed to back up your conjectures with real proof.

[Hostile]

It appears we are only allowed to have a civil conversation based on something only science can understand.

Does not appear to be a level playing field. Either it passes sciences test or it is not admissable.

Why are not science words placed against the validity of the some great existing religion?

Because you are not allowed to be part of any religion at Revora or you will suffer the wrath of...just about anyone.

I've been sitting back and watching the onslaught of anyone who believes in God as some kind crazy zealot.

You may choose any path that you choose to choose, but any outright assault on peoples faith is not appropriate.

[MSpencer]

Would you prefer we judged everything by the religion standpoint, thus needing only some "holy" book and no supporting proof? I find science to be the far greater tool in attempting to prove something. At least you need to back up your ideas, as opposed to writing a few cryptic verses and submitting them to the Annual Constantinian Bible Review Club which determines if it's cool enough to be in the revised version of the be-all, end-all book to kill by...

[Hostile]

Well some things require faith, you know faith in some silly things like the Big and Small Forces, so silly little things like valence, positrons and such.

You've never on your own seen one, yet you blindly believe in them

There is enough evidence both ways to say that "both sides" need to be better studied before making an absolute judgment either way. Last thing you'd want to be is the one who did not see both sides?

[MSpencer]

I fail to see how 4,000 years of scientific study can compare to 10 years of cryptic writing and storytelling.
If I read The Lord of the Rings on the same level as the Bible, I'd be killing people for not believing in the eternal glorious Galadriel, and cursing people for saying the word Mordor.
Yes, science requires faith, but it's faith in things you can prove, things you can prove through numerous methods, and things which will some day, be proven beyond any shred of a doubt. Religion is believing in a big storybook full of riddles, rhymes, and figurative language. I can believe in science because it's plausible.

[Hostile]

That shit is just dumb. I'm not sure where you where going, it was all smart, than you got all dumb. :( LOTR. WTF are you talking about?

[MSpencer]

Science is plausible.
The Bible is a storybook.
If I were to read any work of fiction as people read the Bible, believe me, I would have fucked up beliefs. So would you.

[duke_Qa]

noone can argue with the lotr vs bible argument

[Ash]

You see, this is what I love about Spence. He says what I want to say while I am actually asleep, and also says it better than I could in any state of consciousness.

[Blodo]

I'd prefer believing people who are living in this very moment, working hard, proving science with bare facts above some book who was written by someone pulling things out of his ass while writing down the life story of some man who apparently had the luck of becoming recognised as the son of god for some reason. Probably no different a phenomenon than the japanese emperor who was the "sun god". Then you people have the audacity to actually question the theory of evolution, when it is that theory that is actually proven. The theory that a god could've created the universe and us all isn't even remotely close to being slightly hinted at it being possible.

So tell me exactly, why do you prefer to believe a book than a scientist slapping you with bare facts right in the face?

[earini]

My opinion is that a god may have set into motion the events that led to the creation of the Earth and the evolution of life. I admit that I have no solid reason to believe in a god, which is why I say a god may have done so. I'm agnostic, so I don't think there is a way for us to know if a god does or doesn't exist. I do have solid reason to believe in evolution, simply because there is so much evidence for it. Therefore, I am an Evolutionist, but I think that intelligent design might be involved with evolution.

Edited by earini, 19 July 2006 - 11:10 PM.

[Tom]

Evolution and religion can still go hand in hand easily. As this planet was born it came to life with "nature." This planet is still living today and we are still living upon it. Nothing has changed in the millions of years of its existence, the planet still lives. Doesn't mean there is no God. The big bang could easily be a part of creation in its infinite cycle. Science still fails to explain the universe and the center of the universe, black holes etc etc and where it all leads too and links together. Quantum physics is already beginning to do so but it might be a few years yet before it makes a real breakthrough.

[Allied General]

science explains how

its like a instruction manual for say a car

it tells you how to operate and look after it but it doesn't tell you why you brought the car in the first place

that subject can't be answered by science and that is the main reason for belief.

Edited by Allied General, 24 July 2006 - 12:41 AM.

[MSpencer]

That's the only sane thing you've ever posted.
Now I'm just waiting for you to try and debunk the chemical structure of DNA... it must be a conspiracy. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine must be anagrams for Biblical prophets or something.
In the mean time, I'm going to go off and read a sciencey book.