• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real

No, you don't understand the discussion at hand. You run from the question of origin. Big Bang is a theory on origin. That, by definition, led to the existence of you and I, correct?

I'm trying to establish the origin of life, and how that evolved into millions of different creatures. And the original point remains, there are no fossil records that link the transition of one species into something entirely different as evolution insists happened.

You know nothing. Read through the talkorigins site, and come back when you know anything at all. Because as it stands you know so little you don't even know what you don't know.
 
Wha...??? Erod, you're really not qualified to be having this discussion.

If he's so " unqualified " then you should at least be able to answer his question.

The people that claim order arose from arbitrary chaos are the ones who are not qualified to having this discussion.

Matter, mass and energy out of nothing violates the laws of thermodynamics.
 
You know nothing. Read through the talkorigins site, and come back when you know anything at all. Because as it stands you know so little you don't even know what you don't know.

This is cute and all, but it still stands that the most basic questions, albeit infinitely complicated, challenge the religion of Evolution. Christianity doesn't argue with evolution as a fundamentally possible process, only its explanation of origin.

But carry on with the "you're stupid" stuff. It's so endearing.
 
All I know is that every time a Twister takes out trailer park there's always a brand new shiney Boeing 737 sitting there in the rubble.

Built by the choas.

Every time they set off a nuclear weapon there appeared a shopping mall complete with infrastructure.

Because mass disorderly destruction breeds order right ?
 
[ouQUOTE=Erod;1063927332]Careful. This is the lifeblood of your party. Without it, you'd all fit in a phone booth.[/QUOTE]
I don't have a party however your assumption of knowledge in your lack is a beautiful display of this effect.

Thank you for volunteering an example
 
This is cute and all, but it still stands that the most basic questions, albeit infinitely complicated, challenge the religion of Evolution. Christianity doesn't argue with evolution as a fundamentally possible process, only its explanation of origin.

But carry on with the "you're stupid" stuff. It's so endearing.

When I went to school I took multiple biology classes that covered evolution starting all the way from the highly simplified in roughly the fourth grade to much more complex aspects of evolution in my senior year in high school. Avoiding the situation of knowing anything at all was impossible for me, no matter how cleverly I could have planned to be sick during those lessons. The topic occupied entire chapters of textbooks, with mid-chapter quizzes and final exams all along the way. So what I want to know is, how do people like you manage to know nothing at all?

If you really want to know something, read through lifeorigins.
 
I'm not attacking science. I'm just saying we have woefully incomplete science.

:translation:

I only like science that says what I want to hear... Screw facts.
 
Once again, atheists fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of Christians accept science

... Unless it's climatology, evolutionary biology, modern medicine (vaccines, blood transfusions, stem cell research), geology...
 
No, you don't understand the discussion at hand. You run from the question of origin. Big Bang is a theory on origin. That, by definition, led to the existence of you and I, correct?
And we know that that Bang left the VAST, VAST, VAST, majority Stars, and of stars with planets with NO life.
which goes for Fenton too:
The Universe is Chaotic, NOT a 747. Galaxies are colliding, Planets and stars being destroyed and created.
Our planet may be one in a Trillion and you make a perspective error by assuming this lucky (but perhaps inevitable corner/corners/tiny locales/oases) is "gods" work.
99.99999999999999999% is Hostile to human life.

Erod said:
establish the origin of life, and how that evolved into millions of different creatures. And the original point remains, there are no fossil records that link the transition of one species into something entirely different as evolution insists happened.
The fossil record is REPLETE with transitional species. (and growing Yearly withOUT contradiction).
Every extant animal has fossil progenitors (look alikes and 99% DNA relatives), and even extinct species have them.

WE have predecessors and relatives.
short list)
team-science-picture67111716-sciam-skulls.jpg

Are those gods screw ups?? or Were they utterly Predictable fossil finds BASED ONLY ON EVOLUTIONARY FACT.

As further and strong Evidence of Evolution, we (and other species) also have Useless ANATOMICAL VESTIGES of our prior relatives.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...g-evidence-evolution-anatomical-vestiges.html
Virtually NO Kreationist Klowns, who haunt/blight that section, even dared enter that string.
Hardly a separate, immaculate, or ID, result.
Like an "Intelligent Landscaper" who left tree stumps and Fence parts from the previous owner's crappy yard.
That's right, even we humans, "created in gods image", are very imperfect and contain Evidence of our OWN incomplete evolution/speciation!
No doubt in a billion years, we will also be treated as transitional and Primitive.

What is not only "woefully incomplete", but has ZERO evidence is god/gods. Tens of thousands of which have all gone by the wayside as their being an explanation for some natural phenomenon HAVE, one-after the other, been Explained by science. Now whittled down to just two.
 
Last edited:
If he's so " unqualified " then you should at least be able to answer his question.

The people that claim order arose from arbitrary chaos are the ones who are not qualified to having this discussion.

Matter, mass and energy out of nothing violates the laws of thermodynamics.

All I know is that every time a Twister takes out trailer park there's always a brand new shiney Boeing 737 sitting there in the rubble.

Built by the choas.

Every time they set off a nuclear weapon there appeared a shopping mall complete with infrastructure.

Because mass disorderly destruction breeds order right ?

Yet clouds produce snowflakes, supernovas produce planets, volcanos produce islands.

All of these phenomena are very well explained, yet they do not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases in a closed system, it doesn't have to go up in every single unit inside that system, as long as the system goes up overall.
 
So far as I can tell, the pope is saying that the big bang and theory of evolution are not contrary to the idea of god, but supportive.

Nothing shocking here.
 
Geez. Do you not understand chicken-and-egg? Where did these first moths come from? Evolutionary theory remains wildly incomplete until that can be answered.

Here's the thing:

No, it really doesn't. Your problem is trying to draw this sharp line in between "chicken" and "not chicken." But in reality, such a line doesn't really exist on the evolutionary path of the chicken. Before the chicken, there was the chicken's dad. Dadchicken was pretty similar to the chicken, but not exactly the same. A little shorter or a little faster or slightly different coloring or whatever. But still a chicken, right? Well grandad chicken wasn't the same chicken either. A little, little bit more different from the chicken than dadchicken was from the chicken. Greatgrandad chicken was a little bit more different than that, even.

If you repeat this for a few hundred thousand generations, your end result is something that doesn't really look like a chicken any more. In fact, if you put it together with a modern chicken, it wouldn't even be biologically compatible anymore. At some point, the DNA has become too different to interbreed properly. But each successive generation was pretty much the same as the next. So where did it become Not A Chicken?
 
Well, as I see it, Francis is making news in restating Church positions because a lot of people see him as more liberal when in fact he is not diverging from Church positions in the slightest.

It seems to be a special skill that Pope Francis has of stating the Church position in a way that sounds fresh to a lot of people.

The difference is he is much more liberal and tolerant in tone, thus people perceive him as more liberal. You see the same thing with politicians. People judge whether a politician is liberal or conservative based more on their tone than their actual positions. The same is true with clergy.
 
Here's the thing:

No, it really doesn't. Your problem is trying to draw this sharp line in between "chicken" and "not chicken." But in reality, such a line doesn't really exist on the evolutionary path of the chicken. Before the chicken, there was the chicken's dad. Dadchicken was pretty similar to the chicken, but not exactly the same. A little shorter or a little faster or slightly different coloring or whatever. But still a chicken, right? Well grandad chicken wasn't the same chicken either. A little, little bit more different from the chicken than dadchicken was from the chicken. Greatgrandad chicken was a little bit more different than that, even.

If you repeat this for a few hundred thousand generations, your end result is something that doesn't really look like a chicken any more. In fact, if you put it together with a modern chicken, it wouldn't even be biologically compatible anymore. At some point, the DNA has become too different to interbreed properly. But each successive generation was pretty much the same as the next. So where did it become Not A Chicken?

This is why the whole concept of a "missing link" is erroneous. At no point in the evolution of any species would a taxonomist at the time classified the offspring of a species as any different species than the parent. Yet, looking back with a much broader view we can certainly delineate speciation.
 
Geez. Do you not understand chicken-and-egg? Where did these first moths come from? Evolutionary theory remains wildly incomplete until that can be answered.
My understanding is that evolutionary theory, in the case of moths, would theorize that first there was a not-moth that could jump further due to wing-like things. It survived because it could avoid attackers better, and thus could pass on it's DNA.
Slowly over thousands of generations, not-moths able to fly further survived and passed on their genes. Eventually something like what we call a moth was the result.

The various species of moths are due to environmental adaptations, like camouflage and/or bright colors...
 
All I know is that every time a Twister takes out trailer park there's always a brand new shiney Boeing 737

Listen. Creationists. We need to have a frank discussion about your tornado in a junkyard. Because you guys keep repeating it over and over and over again.

Here's the problem: it's not an analogy that remotely resembles the actual process of evolution. The tornado in a junkyard is a scenario in which random pieces (molecules, perhaps) are randomly mixed to randomly create a fully-functional, incredibly complex aircraft (human being, or pick any animal really).

But this isn't how evolution works. In fact, this analogy far better suits creationism: a scenario in which an incredibly complex living organism springs to life from a jumble of useless molecules. Or from nothing, whichever. A scenario so improbable that it requires the intervention of a supernatural being to become anything other than ludicrous. But, again, this isn't how evolution works. We need to fix your tornado scenario. So let's do that.

In reality, chemistry is chemistry. Put two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom together, you get water. Doesn't require anything fancy, doesn't require any precision. It's chemistry. Mix a puddle of hydrogen with a puddle of oxygen and you'll get water. Yeah, not all of it mixes perfectly so you don't purely get water, but who cares. So, to fix our basic building blocks of the 737 to be more reflective of basic chemistry, your nuts, bolts, rivets, and wires have an affinity for each other. Screws that bonk into screw holes will stick to the hole and twist their way in. Rivets that contact metal skin will rivet in. Wires that contact, I don't know, capacitors, will link up. I'm not an electrician.

Now, spin the tornado through this junkyard and you still don't get anything really useful. Do it a few times and you might get something that vaguely resembles a small section of one of the wings. (a flat piece of metal with some screws in reasonable places) Certainly not a working aircraft. But there's another missing piece here. See, the tornado is still a purely random force. Chaos, as you put it. But evolution is not purely random. It is driven by survival pressures. Small mutations that provide a benefit increase the likelihood of survival. In our junkyard terms, "being more like a 737" is a survival advantage. Any random jumble of parts that happens to more-closely resemble a 737 has to be selected for. So we'll give our junkyard pieces that trait: if pieces happen to collide in a way that matches the 737 blueprint, they stick together.

We're still not getting a 737. Here and there, a piece of metal with some rivets that resemble something on the fuselage of a 737. Over there, some wires that randomly stuck together in a way similar to the Row 37 No Smoking Sign. Look over there on the other side of the junkyard, a roundish piece of rubber stuck to a roundish piece of metal so they look like part of a wheel. Not a plane. Not even close.

There's a last piece of the puzzle. Evolution is a massively iterative process. Each generation passes on genes to the next, along with a few mutations because self-replication can never be perfect. We need to continue the advantageous genes (correctly-stuck part) on to the next generation. So those pieces stay together permanently. If those part clusters happen to strike another part, or another part structure, in the correct way, they are even more like a 737 than they were before. This is yet another advantageous mutation, it survives on to the next generation. Now we've got something. Spin the tornado through the junkyard a few hundred times, and you'll see clusters of parts that have grown much larger and much more complex. Over there, a fully-formed wheel. Back that way, we've got a working piece of avionics. Near the entrance, an aileron has latched itself onto a wing portion.

In this more-correct analogy, the 737 is not only possible, but inevitable. Spin the tornado enough times, and you're definitely going to get a 737 eventually. It'll take quite a while, right? Well, the universe has been around a very, very, very long time and it is very, very, very big. It's not really just one junkyard, is it? We very, very, very roughly estimate the number of stars in the universe to be literally more numerous than the grains of sand on every beach on Earth. Septillions. And, if the Kepler mission is any indication, planets seem to be freaking everywhere. It's short mission taking a tiny look at the most miniscule fraction of the sky in our own galaxy (let alone the innumerable galaxies each with trillions of stars) has found hundreds of planets, thousands of planet candidates not yet confirmed. We have an uncountably large number of junkyards, each with tornadoes going for a long, long time.

Of course, reality is more complex than this analogy. Not all mutations are beneficial, and outside factors exist that can threaten the existence of even the best-adapted life forms. Some of our junkyards are at the bottom of the volcano, useless. Everything resembling airplane parts just melts. On the other hand, we're not just working from one blueprint. Any blueprint is valid, as long as it survives its current environment and current competition. Evolution has no goal. Human beings, as much as we try to pretend otherwise, are not some pinnacle achievement found at the end of a long road. We're another branch on an infinitely-branching tree that has been growing and expanding for billions of years.

But hey, this was your freaking analogy, not mine.
 
Last edited:
The point is, we don't have record of one species morphing into another species. Saying so is a deliberate lie.

Where does evolution say on species morphs into another species? ???
 
Where does evolution say on species morphs into another species? ???

He might be imagining that Michael Jackson video (I think it's the "It doesn't matter if you're black or white" one) a couple decades ago where one face is constantly morphing into another via cgi.
 
Back
Top Bottom