So don't believe me. Just sit back and watch. It'll happen again soon enough.

 

In my experience conversations about abortion, capitol punishment, far right wing extremists, etc all turn into such a coversation. I have never seen dave turn "Injen or K&N intake?" or the like into a christianity debate.

I think you're full of bs (in this instance) and I am calling you out on it. Anyone else share matt's view? links?

 

i don't pose to know every answer, and a lot of questions you pose have nothing to do with evolution. evolution is a process that explains the changing of this animal to that animal.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
Don't know with certainity. It has always existed, as your god, has i guess.

2. Where did matter come from?
Big bang theory describes how all the universes mass can be consolidated into one mass.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Large amounts of mass interact with each other in a certain way.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
perfectly? it is what it is, the universe is still expanding. in a billion years it will be different, but yet equally perfect.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
a combination of dark matter and gravity keep things together. Really there is now just very recently proof of dark matter existing and keeping multiple solar systems moving together.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
electricity + amino acids maybe.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
at the cellular level, things divide. at the animal level, instinct, testosterone, etc...

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
itself through cell division

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
Plants wouldn't exist without being able to reproduce somehow, right?
Individuals of most species have a drive/instinct to reproduce and to protect their young.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Do you know how dog breeding works? I'm a dog breeder myself, it's pretty easy.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Sure, but there's no evidence for it. again, look at the real oddballs like sperm whales.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
animals react to their environment, when the planet becomes hotter or colder, animals will adapt. when a place becomes too crowded, animals move and have to adapt to live in that new place. subtle changes over millions of year

13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) algae became more and more complex. really haven't looked into 2 celled organisms, but since animals/plants that small have cells that do everything for the cell, than 2 would not make any sense. Unless you had an organism that had an digestive system in one cell and everyhting else in the other. it doesn't seem like a good system imo.
b. Single-celled animals evolve? they got apendages, then they needed to create different structures in their body to cope with a new environement. there's this game called spore coming out, which is abuot this. really lookig forward to it.
c. Fish change to amphibians? didn't necessarily happen exactly this way. but fish do evolve different organs, lungs, and such to survive in a new environment of they die.d. Amphibians change to reptiles? again, didn't necessarily happen exactly this way. but there were amphibians that didn't need the water, so their skin didn't need to breath anymore, and they went to straight lung breathing
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) their bones(hip/legs and hollow) and skeletons are very similar actually. and we're not talking about snakes or today's lizards turning into birds, but more primitive flying ones.
f. How did the intermediate forms live? only animals capable of living do. if you only believe the world is 6,000 years old, like the bible says, then no. but if you believe in a 4 billion year old earth, then you'd see plenty of time for it to all happen.


14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve? Some like Sperm whales, evolved from larger land creatures (look at their skeletong, you'll see) not sure on everything else
b. Sea horses evolve? pipefish and like animals
c. Bats evolve? flying, gliding rodents like squirrels maybe?
d. Eyes evolve? from light sensitive eye spots like worms got
e. Ears evolve? from primitive sound sensitive ear drums like frogs got
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? hard coverings developed on animals to protect themselves from the elements.


15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? the stomach evolved to take in whatever food was brought into it. this can happen quickly even in your own stomach
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? ability, cell division
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? lungs or gills change with the atomsphere they breath
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? dna
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? same as c
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? the plants that don't need insects survive without them. the plants that had insects come and eat from them, got their pollen spread easier so they duplicated faster that way.g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? tendons
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? nervous system, like wormsi. The immune system or the need for it? immune system

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
like what? I have saltwater tanks at home, where i have cleaner shrimp/fish living with the animals they service. i also have a goby with pistol shrimp. neither of these defy evolution that i've heard of.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
chance, and usually it's only juvenile versions that mimic. study mimic tangs and the dwarf angelfish they mimic, it's neato

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
love, and feelings are our brains reaction to outside stimuli. as ones brain develops it is capable of many emotions and reactions. dogs love and show mercy to their puppies, right?

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
cells produce food for themselves.

20. How did thought evolve?
as we know more, our thoughts change

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
non-flowering plants?

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
i am a scientist in a sense. evolution is not a grand theory that explains everything, that is what you don't seem to understand. Do you think evolution is on par with a religion for claiming to know everything? evolution is going from noe animal to another. If you want to go from single celled animal to human, i don't know how it happened, no person claims they know every step either.
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
cool, i'm a saltwater aquarist myself

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
horses.

25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
it didnt. where did you get that? remember the same exact substance that makes hydrogen, makes gold. protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc...

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
no, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. the universe will fold in on itself, become unstable and expand again.

 

LOL...you're calling me out?
If you look back at many of those threads, Dave is often times the first one to bring up religion. It is possible to be against abortion or, for the death penalty and not believe in God ya know.

 

Haha... I never got to "call anybody out" before so you will have to forgive me if I didn't do it right.

Oh my god!!! Dave, what do they pay you for? You really took the time to answer those retarded questions!?

 

it's fun, and it's a good diversion at work.
look, if a thread starts leading(or i can see it leading) into religion, history, science, i many times do push it that way. i like to debate, b.s., shoot the breeze, about lots of stuff. not just christianity or religion, but since everyone is interested in it, i bring it up and only intelligent people seem to be able to discuss it. I know alot of things about alot of different stuff because i read only non-fiction reference books and encylopedias, but philosphy is my fav.
i do "bait" my language many times so people will discuss things, because if not, we wouldn't be talking on this forum. People complain "SL is going downhill, no one talks on it anymore". Well, "Here I come to save the day." I just want to keep the conversation going i guess.
Call me manipulative, but I grew up with women, that's probably why.

 

That's the truest thing you've ever said!

 

Hmmm... no girls on any of these threads... maybe correlation DOES mean causation.

 

I concur, i'll have to get back to you on those later, ive got 2 hours of work left and need to answer some emails and other pebkac errors, lol

thanks for responding though, i'm impressed..i'll prob have to get into those tomorrow

 

What's so retarded about them? it's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason, there is no proof yet and so many holes that it's a sinking boat....

 

Evolution does not claim to explain where matter came from so I am sorry but asking "where did matter come from" is a more than retarded question when trying to disprove evolution.

 

My ideas abuot the universe hae changed just in the last couple weeks as there's alot of new stuff going on with the fact that dark matter now exists. again, the big bang and evolution are separate entities. evolution is just small this plant/animal to this plant/animal small changes, nothing more.

But there's no way to get out of the b.s. that is "the flood", the 76 generations between adam and jesus, or creating birds like pigeons before stegosaurus and cochroaches though. you got that written in stone.

 

Oh for the love of Pan... First off, to everyone, please don't start throwing out numbers about how long you've supposedly been in a religion. No one is impressed. It doesn't mean you've actively done anything or actually know anything about your faith. Knowledge and experience are shown through words and actions, not claims. (by the way I've been studying the bible since 1st grade, so )
Evidence: fossils, carbon dating, ice core samples and analysis, geology, physics, genetics, bacterial studies, tide pools, osmosis, entropy, self assembling biomolecules, population studies, migration patterns, symbiosis, blah blah blah. Do you really need it spelled out word for word for you? Read a college textbook on evolution that isn't written by a religious person so you can have a bias-free understanding of it.
No one said evolutionists have all the answers. They merely find and analyze the patterns of genetic expression through the generations. Anything NOT geared around this has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Creation of the world is not explained by evolution. Physics is not explained by evolution. Gravity is not explained by evolution. The existence of god or the lack thereof is not explained by evolution. Get this through your skulls. It is not a religion. It does not describe all. It does not claim to describe all. It doesn't have ALL the pieces yet even. The evidence for the general idea, however, is factual, based on evidence, and completely sound.
First off, your statement is incorrect. These, however, are accurate:
"The test of any theory is its ability to make accurate predictions."
"The test of any theory is to stand up under scrutiny."
"The test of any theory is the degree to which it solves problems and incongruities within a domain."
"The test of any theory is how well it conforms to the real world."
That statement, however, is correct. Misguided and illogical people would think evolution has anything to do with questions about the universe. Logical people know it tries to explain man's questions about the change of genetics amongst the generations and the biodiversity of the species of the earth. And you don't seem to have any concept of actual pagan religions either. Evolution has nothing to do with them. They are simply Earth worshiping polyltheists. Most pagan denominations I've come across don't even have a creation myth or attempt to explain anything in life. They merely have their own rituals and practices.
Matter is not alive or dead. These are man made definitions and have no bearing on the matter.
Read a genetics text. Maybe you'll understand. I'll throw out one and maybe someone will pick up the idea. The gene that codes for melanin allows the body to create a pigment that will help to both soak up sunlight to create vitamin D and also protects the cell's DNA from UV damage. In a fair skinned person, there is, let's say, one copy of this gene. Now an error occurs during reproduction and the gene is duplicated in the chromosome. We now have two copies of the gene that encodes for melanin. The body of that organism will now produce twice as much melanin, thus darkening the skin. The body can produce twice as much vitamin D and is protected better from UV damage. The organism has less chances of dying from skin cancer and less chances of being effected from insufficient vitamin D levels.
Similarities in design to not equate to a common ancestor. Read up on "convergence." (bats and birds both developed wings, they do NOT, however, have a remotely close common ancestor)
Incorrect assumption. Just because we don't have an organism's genetic information doesn't mean it wasn't affected by natural selection. As for the latter part of this. Think about mankind's inventions. Did we just one day go from living in a cave to building skyscrapers? No. The buildings we made started out small and simple and got more and more complex as the technology was further developed. Same with the genetic code. It started off simple and over the years more and more mutations built onto the code until it is at the complex point it is at right now. It will continue to get more and more complex in the future as well.
These will take a while but I can answer all of them and explain them to you in detail if you wish.
Name a few and I'll explain them to you. The reason we teach evolution is because that's the only one with evidence to support it. In science class we don't teach things that aren't backed by at least some facts.
Feelings are based off of neurochemicals, which are encoded for in the DNA, which is mutable.
What do you mean by "kinds" of evolutionist?
Nothing cuz we'd both not have been born yet.
What the hell are you even talking about here???
No evolutionist believes everything came from nothing. That is what your religion believes, not scientists. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

 

Yesssss!!! Thermodynamics! I love watching theists flounder about trying to twist these laws to thier own liking. Second law anyone?

 

Appolonius Christ... Again with the incorrect understanding of the term theory.
Found a nice sum up of the term. Pay attention now children...

 

Eh... I wasn't going to bother. If they don't know by now that everything is a theory in science then why should it be our responsibility...

 

After over 2 pages I noticed, some people don't have a sense of humor.

 

there's nothing wrong with any official being of any religion it's when they push their ideological beliefs beyond fair and equal that I have a problem.


and i dislike pretty much all religions as well.

 

ok, what do you think about Bush's stance on ___ civil unions and stem cell research? The majority of americans support both of these, yet he does not, because of his "morals", which are there because of his christian faith.

Take religion off the table for a second, morally and ethically how is using the 400,000 stem cells we currently have in storage for medical research, wrong?

It's not. Smart people know, stem cell research does not mean using aborted fetuses, and even in 10+ years if we need to gather more eggs from women, again without religious bias, it's not wrong in any sense.

this is the problem i have with religion in politics. Religion needs to stay alll the way out of our political system. I wish elected politicians would take a second to question their public policy. In many situations, a politician needs to ask, "am i making this decision based off of my personal religious views? What would I do if I had no religious bias?"

They should just do what's best for our country and what's best to further the human species.

 

Like you say...let's take religion off the table for a second. You said that "the majority of americans are for stem cell research and ___ civil unions."
I disagree. I think the numbers from the popular vote in our last presidential election clearly showed that the country is more conservative than you want to admit. Your opinion would seem to be true if you only listen to the mainstream media. But most people realize that the media is very liberal.
As far as stem cell research goes...I'm against it for one simple reason. I feel that life begins at conception. No religious reason needed...that's just how I feel. And I don't feel that one human life is any more important than another. Many people were all upset when Chis Reves died. We heard all kinds of people say stuff like, "If we were allowed to do stem cell research, people like Chris could be saved". Maybe so, but, in my opinion, the life you destroy to harvest the cells is every bit as important as Chris Reves or Michael J. Fox. Besides, there has been new developments that indicate it is just as useful to use umbilical cells. That would be a win-win.