• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Goddit versus Evolution

calamity said:
The crocodile and alligator were well adapted to their environment and did not go extinct. No big mystery there.
Click to expand...



We're not talking about extinction, Calamity. :lol: Read my post again.

We're talking about how they evolved in 200 million plus years.

How come they still look so prehistoric?
 
tosca1 said:
:roll:

Do you know what origin is?

"Evolved".....isn't necessarily the origin of life, Calamity.

I want you to show me the very first life that got the so-called ball of evolution rolling.
Click to expand...

Sexual dimorphism was the issue raised in the OP. It clearly evolved.

Origin of life was your bailiwick, but I answered it anyway. Quite well, I might add.

Here's more, if you dare read it. It's certainly more plausible than "goddidit."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
 
tosca1 said:
We're not talking about extinction, Calamity. :lol: Read my post again.

We're talking about how they evolved in 200 million plus years.

How come they still look so prehistoric?
Click to expand...

That's a silly comment, T. They look like they did 200 million years ago because they did not go extinct 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs did. The reason they did not go extinct has several potential explanations. Most likely is that they were not as large as dinosaurs, ate less and lived in and out of water.

An alternate theory is that crocs, like the mammals, were slightly smarter than dinosaurs, mostly due to the fact that they were smaller and needed to avoid them, and this gave them an edge, especially in finding food when it was scarce after the extinction event.
 
calamity said:
Sexual dimorphism was the issue raised in the OP. It clearly evolved.

Origin of life was your bailiwick, but I answered it anyway. Quite well, I might add.

Here's more, if you dare read it. It's certainly more plausible than "goddidit."
Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum | Science | AAAS
Click to expand...


Well, don't break out the champagne yet. Let's read your source together. Are you with me? Take note of the title.


Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum



Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start.

Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started,

it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.


Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history.

But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”
Click to expand...
Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum | Science | AAAS



It's all conjectures. It's reeking with the usual assumptive cliches. It even says it's an "idea."

I'd even go far and say, they're just in dream-mode at this point. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Origin of life was your bailiwick, but I answered it anyway. Quite well, I might add.
Click to expand...


No, you did not.


Here's more, if you dare read it. It's certainly more plausible than "goddidit."
Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum | Science | AAAS
Click to expand...



Not so fast. Here's what the National Academy of Sciences says about creation by God.
Read it, and weep.



"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
Click to expand...
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



To say that Creation by God is not off the table, would be an understatement.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
That's a silly comment, T. They look like they did 200 million years ago because they did not go extinct 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs did. The reason they did not go extinct has several potential explanations. Most likely is that they were not as large as dinosaurs, ate less and lived in and out of water.

An alternate theory is that crocs, like the mammals, were slightly smarter than dinosaurs, mostly due to the fact that they were smaller and needed to avoid them, and this gave them an edge, especially in finding food when it was scarce after the extinction event.
Click to expand...

Your response is not only silly, but you're not understanding what is being said.
We're not talking about extinction!!!

You're saying.....with 200 million plus years of evolving - this is all they can come up with??? :lol:
 
tosca1 said:
Your response is not only silly, but you're not understanding what is being said.
We're not talking about extinction!!!

You're saying.....with 200 million plus years of evolving - this is all they can come up with??? :lol:
Click to expand...

The croc, since it was well adapted to its environment and survived, did not need to evolve any further than it did. I believe the cockroach is in the same boat.
 
tosca1 said:
No, you did not.






Not so fast. Here's what the National Academy of Sciences says about creation by God.
Read it, and weep.




https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



To say that Creation by God is not off the table, would be an understatement.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that god created anything. None.
 
calamity said:
At 19:00, right after the Permian Extinction, it begins talking about fur covered lizard-like creature about the size of a cat. Pay close attention through the next three minutes. At 21:12, after discussing how we shrunk, grew more sensitive fur and became nocturnal, it begins discussing how our senses sharpened so that we can see, hear and smell dinosaurs before a dinosaur sees us? And, guess what? At exactly 21:26 it begins explaining how our brain evolves a neocortex, "the home of complex thought." From there, we begin living on our wits, as stated at 21:56.

You probably would have caught that if you weren't so focused on being polemic.
.
Click to expand...
No, i caught it, just don't buy it. A neo cortex does not distinguish any mammal. All mammals have them they have even had a similarity found in birds. Your going to have to do better than say intelligence first appeared around the dinosaur age by just pointing to something that gives a better way of engaging with the environment. All a neocortex does is is help sort out environmental input. It can make an animal behave in a clever fashion. That is not intelligence just a weaker cousin to it.


Neither evolution nor dissecting the myths in the Bible is necessarily a binary, atheist/theist, discussion. One can be anywhere on the theological spectrum to acknowledge that evolution nicely explains the differences we see in living things today. And, the same can be said for seeing most of what is written in the Bible as myth, with some allegorical lesson-plans thrown in. But, we can also see that many of those lessons are obsolete--like the lessons on exactly how to beat your wife, kids and slaves, for example--while a few of the newer ones in the Gospels may actually have benefit in how better to live in a civilized society: love your neighbor as you would yourself
Click to expand...
Again i disagree. The bible is not and has never been a book on the discussion of the environment. It is nothing more than deceit by theists to pretend that the book has some value in that talks about events or gives some kind of scientific examples of our world. A false way of justifying the bible through pseudo science. That some person looks at something and then merely gives a reason as to why it is so is not science, it is just guessing. It is strictly a book of parables meant to create a morality for the reader. And it does a really bad job of that as well.

This is again you being a weak atheist and trying to slip in a "let's try and make the bible into something it is not" act.
 
CrabCake said:
We know he existed. In order to believe the whole story of Jesus to be allegorical, you would have to discard enormous amounts of historical evidence. So, no it would not make sense to believe the gospels are allegorical. It would make sense to consider certain parts of them mythological or symbolic, and many people do.
Click to expand...

There is no great amount of evidence of his existence. There is absolutely no evidence of the events proscribed to him. Given how you have defined what must be allegorical in the bible then jesus fits well into that description. All the stories in the bible are an allegory except one? That does not strike you has highly improbable?
 
calamity said:
I heard something on the Herman Caine radio show that made me shake my head. mostly because I know it's believed by many. "God made men and women."

Uh, no. Sex evolved. God didn't do it. Just like God did not create humans, we evolved...from the same ancestor as did the apes. In fact, God, if it even exists, did not do squat. Almost everything can be quite reasonably explained without the need to pull a god out of your hat.
Click to expand...

A reasonable explanation for everything is what creation myths are for. The Big Bang is just the latest creation myth- a reasonable explanation that can be neither proven nor disproven.
 
Grand Mal said:
A reasonable explanation for everything is what creation myths are for. The Big Bang is just the latest creation myth- a reasonable explanation that can be neither proven nor disproven.
Click to expand...

On the contrary.. the inflation model of the universe does have what is known as 'the preponderance of evidence' for it. It theoretically could be disproven too.. if evidence shows up that contradicts the model.
 
RAMOSS said:
On the contrary.. the inflation model of the universe does have what is known as 'the preponderance of evidence' for it. It theoretically could be disproven too.. if evidence shows up that contradicts the model.
Click to expand...

Big Bang. I said Big Bang, didn't I? As in, a reasonable explanation that can't be proven or disproven, any more than the story in Genesis could be lo those thousands of years ago when it was first told. Every culture has one, and the Big Bang works for now, it explains what can be observed, until science catches up and comes up with something else.
 
Grand Mal said:
Big Bang. I said Big Bang, didn't I? As in, a reasonable explanation that can't be proven or disproven, any more than the story in Genesis could be lo those thousands of years ago when it was first told. Every culture has one, and the Big Bang works for now, it explains what can be observed, until science catches up and comes up with something else.
Click to expand...

The big bang has what is known as 'evidence'. It isn't a creation myth. It can be 'proven' as much as any theory can be. .. which is it is a model that fits the available evidence. It actually is better known as 'the inflationary theory'.. 'big bang' is was a sarcastic term for it that was coined by Fred Hoyle because he was pushing a static universe, a theory which was disproven.
 
calamity said:
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that god created anything. None.
Click to expand...



The point is: science does not eliminate it!
In fact, if you read and understand what the NAS had stated - the possibility of creation exists!

So....I ask you again: on what basis do you stake your claim? NONE!

All you're spouting about is an opinion that stems from you anti-theistic stance!
You're blinded by bias.......that's why your argument is irrational.
 
soylentgreen said:
There is no great amount of evidence of his existence. There is absolutely no evidence of the events proscribed to him. Given how you have defined what must be allegorical in the bible then jesus fits well into that description. All the stories in the bible are an allegory except one? That does not strike you has highly improbable?
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting to engage you on that - because I can prove you wrong. But not on this thread.
 
Grand Mal said:
A reasonable explanation for everything is what creation myths are for. The Big Bang is just the latest creation myth- a reasonable explanation that can be neither proven nor disproven.
Click to expand...


Will you please stop doing the same thing that Calamity does. She's making up stories as she goes along.

NASA disagrees with you!


The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science.

It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.


New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.


It is likely that the Big Bang theory will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains.
Click to expand...
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
 
tosca1 said:
The point is: science does not eliminate it!
In fact, if you read and understand what the NAS had stated - the possibility of creation exists!

So....I ask you again: on what basis do you stake your claim? NONE!

All you're spouting about is an opinion that stems from you anti-theistic stance!
You're blinded by bias.......that's why your argument is irrational.
Click to expand...

There is some evidence, and there certainly has been put forth a logical mechanism explaining how life originated in the chemical soup of the earth's early ocean. Nowhere has such evidence or a logical mechanism been put forth for goddidit. If anything goddidit is illogical since it relies on hocus pocus.
 
calamity said:
There is some evidence, and there certainly has been put forth a logical mechanism explaining how life originated in the chemical soup of the earth's early ocean. Nowhere is such evidence or mechanism been put forth for goddidit.
Click to expand...

Cite your so-called evidence. Just because you keep saying there is, doesn't mean it's going to materialize! Prove it.
Put your money where your mouth is. Cite!


As far as I know - your primordial soup isn't a fact!


Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the “primordial soup” theory. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”10 Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents.
But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.
Click to expand...
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl/


Talk about problem upon problem......



New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life
Click to expand...
https://phys.org/news/2010-02-year-theory-primordial-soup-life.html




And look at the ones who still clings to this primordial soup......just relying on speculations!


Just as species are thought to have evolved over time, the individual molecules that form the basis of life also likely developed in response to natural selection, scientists say.

Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect.
But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.
Click to expand...
How Earth's Primordial Soup Came to Life




Mystery???? Scientists are now spouting off about mystery???? :lol:


At least they admitted that SPECIES ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE EVOLVED!

See? Right from the mouths of these same folks who speculate on the primordial soup!
They admit, evolution isn't a fact!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom