Proof Against Evolution

[Mister_T]

Perhaps he/she confused it for the Republican Party manifesto...

A.K.A. Bush-ism.

 

[painted wolf]

That was quantum physics not atomic physics

Atoms are not six sided in the quantum sence either.

wa:do

 

[wizanda]

Help!!!
inside Atoms are quantum’s, Quantum’s have 6 points according to research...please check Harvard or other universities and don't make me go finding you references for something so simple.

 

[painted wolf]

No, inside atoms are Protons, Neutrons and Electons.
also, Quarks, leptons and Bosons.
If you really want to get into it you can also get into the Hadrons, Baryons, Mesons and the long saught Higgs-Boson.

The numbers of these subatomic particals are what determines the type of atom.
For example One Proton and one electron gives you basic Hydogen.
eight protons and eight electrons (in two 'shells' of 6 and 2, around the protons) gives you Oxygen. Varying the number of Neutrons (8 to 20 ) gives you differnt isotopes of Oxygen.

Please cite sources for your six sided quantums. Nothing I've learned in atomic physics or atomic structure says anything about these things. The closest I could find was vague referances from the Harvard Divinity School...hardly a top source for Atomic Physics.

The term Quantums was orgionally coined in the early 19th century when we were just learning about subatomic principals. It has since been replaced by more accurate information due to better tecnology, such as the atom smasher.

Incidently I had a friend who helped run a partical accelorator, it was a very nfity gadget. Slamming atoms into things to see what happins.

some basic information on the structure of atoms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
http://www.howstuffworks.com/atom.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=atom...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Help!!!
inside Atoms are quantum’s, Quantum’s have 6 points according to research...please check Harvard or other universities and don't make me go finding you references for something so simple.

Sorry, this may be very simple, but it is simply not true. I would also like to see you find a reference for this. According to who's research?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Help!!!
inside Atoms are quantum’s, Quantum’s have 6 points according to research...please check Harvard or other universities and don't make me go finding you references for something so simple.

Yes, wizanda, you do indeed need "Help!!!" For something so simple you should have no trouble citing a credible reference.

 

[Ernesto]

I took a portion of my time in life and devoted it to studying evolution, i like to wiegh propabilities, look at the odds, and see if it is possible in any case.

My beleif- The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time, but not in a evolutionary way.

I was standing outside by my house and i saw a tree. Where does a tree come from? From a seed? and the seed comes from a tree? Which came first? What is the chance that the tree just happened to have roots, that happened to know how to obsorbed water, and the tree happened to have a trunk, which happened to know how to transfer water to the leaves, and it just happened to have leaves, that knew how to obsorbed light from the sun, and it just happened to know how to store it, and so on, and so on.

To beleive in evolution is to believe that almost everything "just happened." Evolution cannot explain the begining. At what point did something exist? Did all things come from that same Big Bang point? What chance was there that life would arise out of all of this?

You're making the biggest mistake that most people make in your understanding of the theory of evolution. Nothing in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' (have you actually read it?) suggests that things came about by 'chance'. As long as we're talking about how likely or unlikely things are, what on Earth makes you think a supreme creator is probable to exist, but living things cannot evolve over billions of years? Which is more far-out; which really makes the least amount of sense? By basic laws of logic, If God exists, anything He creates has to be at least as improbable as He is, if not more. But this simply isn't so. God is the ultimate improbable entity, more unlikely than DNA gradually becoming more and more ocmplex, which is a process which doesn't happen by chance, but instead through a long series of highly probable events.

Oh, and, to quote your: "Evolution cannot explain the begining.", well, neither can God. God can only explain the beginning of the world, but not nearly as well as evolution can, for God existing raises a further far more important question: what created God? whatever brought God about had to have been even more improbable to exist than Him.

 

[logician]

I would have to agree that often times man does think of God in human terms, anthropomorphism I think its called. In our inability to understand a concept like God we tend to think of God as a thing, we ponder whether or not God or gods or a creator exist thereby seperating God and existence as if existence where a property that God either has or does not have. Ifwhen we think of an eternal creator responsibly for all that exists and is responsible for maintaining that existence, as many religions belive, then we cannot seperate God from existence. We must say that God does not exist, God is existence thereby eliminating the confusion. So even if there is an eternal multiverse (which I think takes about as much faith to believe in as God) then if God is existence then all things that are, including an infinite number of universes, exist because they partake somehow in existence. So beleiving in the existence of an eternal multiverse does not eliminate the need for existence. And with an understanidng of God that is not made in man's image, seperated from existrence that is, then it would seem that the multiverse theory does not eliminate the need for God or a creator in that sense.

Are you confusing need with "want"?

 

[anders]

This thread should have matched "Proof for Bible prophecies" in emptiness.

 

[yossarian22]

It is possible to form organic molecules out of the earth's initial atmosphere.
Yes, the first study did not have the proportions tight but a second one did.

 

[Prometheus]

I took a portion of my time in life and devoted it to studying evolution, i like to wiegh propabilities, look at the odds, and see if it is possible in any case.

It sounds like this "time you devoted" was roughly one afternoon.

You missed the point.

 

[Alex_G]

Not had time to read all the reply posts, but saw the first one and had to reply.

I took a portion of my time in life and devoted it to studying evolution, i like to wiegh propabilities, look at the odds, and see if it is possible in any case.

My beleif- The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time, but not in a evolutionary way.

I was standing outside by my house and i saw a tree. Where does a tree come from? From a seed? and the seed comes from a tree? Which came first? What is the chance that the tree just happened to have roots, that happened to know how to obsorbed water, and the tree happened to have a trunk, which happened to know how to transfer water to the leaves, and it just happened to have leaves, that knew how to obsorbed light from the sun, and it just happened to know how to store it, and so on, and so on.

To beleive in evolution is to believe that almost everything "just happened." Evolution cannot explain the begining. At what point did something exist? Did all things come from that same Big Bang point? What chance was there that life would arise out of all of this?

'just happened'? You obviously dont understand evolution. I mean this isnt even an argument agains evolution at all! Sigh, at this level i fear anything i would say would be in vain...

p.s. i want to cry...

 

[Daquine]

One way I look at it is, if you think about it, life as we know it works together a little "too" perfectly.

As an example, take male and females of many species, including us, humans. Let's look at reproduction. It makes me wonder how evolution would create two sexes of the same species, and thus allowing a male and female from that species to basically do the wild thing, and conceive offspring, thus insuring another generation of life, and their species.

Now what I'm wondering is, how would evolution be able to come up with something like that? Why not just make every species asexual? And even then with asexuality, how would evolution be able to come up with such complicated and complex ways to create offsrping?

I think a higher power had to certianly have a hand in the matter. You can take a lump of clay and a potters wheel and expect those two things to evolve into a work of art. It takes something to mold it into being. This is the case for God.

 

[Sunstone]

I think a higher power had to certianly have a hand in the matter. You can take a lump of clay and a potters wheel and expect those two things to evolve into a work of art. It takes something to mold it into being. This is the case for God.

Welcome to the Forum, Daquine!

There are tens of hundreds of books that will tell you just how easily your "case for God" is refuted. A recent one is "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. But any introductory level textbook in philosophy that has a section on arguments for creationism and/or intelligent design will help you understand why your argument holds no water.

 

[Daquine]

Welcome to the Forum, Daquine!

There are tens of hundreds of books that will tell you just how easily your "case for God" is refuted. A recent one is "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. But any introductory level textbook in philosophy that has a section on arguments for creationism and/or intelligent design will help you understand why your argument holds no water.

Thanks!

I'll take a look at that book and see what it's all about.

 

[fantome profane]

One way I look at it is, if you think about it, life as we know it works together a little "too" perfectly.

As an example, take male and females of many species, including us, humans. Let's look at reproduction. It makes me wonder how evolution would create two sexes of the same species, and thus allowing a male and female from that species to basically do the wild thing, and conceive offspring, thus insuring another generation of life, and their species.

Now what I'm wondering is, how would evolution be able to come up with something like that? Why not just make every species asexual? And even then with asexuality, how would evolution be able to come up with such complicated and complex ways to create offsrping?

I think a higher power had to certianly have a hand in the matter. You can take a lump of clay and a potters wheel and expect those two things to evolve into a work of art. It takes something to mold it into being. This is the case for God.

Wondering is a very good thing, and these are all very good questions. The problem comes in the next paragraph where you seem to stop wondering and stop looking for answers to these questions. Once you decide that the only answer you require is “God did it” then the is no need to wonder further. But if on the other hand you are honestly wondering how sexual reproduction evolved then you should do some research on the topic.

 

[meogi]

As an example, take male and females of many species, including us, humans. Let's look at reproduction. It makes me wonder how evolution would create two sexes of the same species, and thus allowing a male and female from that species to basically do the wild thing, and conceive offspring, thus insuring another generation of life, and their species.

Now what I'm wondering is, how would evolution be able to come up with something like that? Why not just make every species asexual? And even then with asexuality, how would evolution be able to come up with such complicated and complex ways to create offsrping?

Sexual reproduction is better at adapting to surrounding environments and allows the spreading/mixing of genetic material. Asexual reproduction has very little in the way of defending against deleterious mutations.

What likely happened is all life reproduced asexually at first, developed some hermaphroditic characteristics that allowed reproduction with similar organisms (or even copies of itself), and then selected for specific roles (male/female). I'm guessing the development of the that characteristic happened shortly (perhaps 200-300 million years?) before the cambrian 'explosion.' Sexual reproduction, shall we say, fast-forwards the natural selection/genetic change process.

 

[Daquine]

Those are some intersting theories on the sepeartion of sex in species. I guess we'll never truely know the answers to these. Well, at least, not until we all bite the bucket and die. Then we'll know for sure. lol

 

[Sunstone]

Those are some intersting theories on the sepeartion of sex in species. I guess we'll never truely know the answers to these. Well, at least, not until we all bite the bucket and die. Then we'll know for sure. lol

My dear Daquine, what makes you so sure you get any answers after death? Suppose you find out no more after death than you do in life?

 

[Daquine]

My dear Daquine, what makes you so sure you get any answers after death? Suppose you find out no more after death than you do in life?

You will most certainly find out if there's an afterlife, at least.