Author Topic: How many here believe in evolution? (Read 14477 times)

Wlfgng · « **Reply #255 on:** December 02, 2002, 12:54:20 PM »

creationists: look closely at a flounder

hardcase · « **Reply #256 on:** December 02, 2002, 12:55:51 PM »

Gravity is nothing but the space-time continuum being warped by mass. Everything travels in a straight line, but on a curved surface so things orbit. More energy, they Hyperbole out, too little they spiral into the mass. General Relativity breaks down at the Quantum level. String theory was proposed to overcome the "point" particle causing 1/r and higher functions of 1/r^x going to infinity when R approches zero, the singularity. All this takes place in Plancks distance which is 10^-33 centimeters, where space gets spongy. Dogs from Wolves, same species, just look different. Your Evolutionary dollars at work.

HC

Furious · « **Reply #257 on:** December 02, 2002, 12:57:18 PM »

Crap, I misread the subject. I thought it said, "How many here believe in the revolution?"

...and I am all for a good revolution.

my apologies, please continue with your previously scheduled semantics.

F.

Hortlund · « **Reply #258 on:** December 02, 2002, 12:57:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish

now will you please answer my question?

since you are a creationist- and the bible is presumably your authority - do you believe genesis, yes or no? if no then let's hear your grand theory instead of just hearing your attacks against evolution....

How's this: I'll answer your question about what I believe about the creation if you answer mine about exactly how the first protein was created from the primordeal soup? Is that a deal?

mrfish · « **Reply #259 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:02:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
How's this: I'll answer your question about what I believe about the creation if you answer mine about exactly how the first protein was created from the primordeal soup? Is that a deal?

that's a biology question and i am straight up not qualified to answer that - i'd defer to myelo or mathman for that one probably. all the theories i have "seen on tv" seem solid enough but that's the extent of what i know about it.

but i think you've had more than enough lattitude already- if you won't state your alternative then you won't.

Thrawn · « **Reply #260 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:04:21 PM »

Hortland, I just want to say, that whe it comes to the thermodynamics question, you are wrong, MT is right. And if you would take two second with google, you would find that out.

Thank you.

Hortlund · « **Reply #261 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:05:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish
that's a biology question and i am straight up not qualified to answer that - i'd defer to myelo or mathman for that one probably. all the theories i have "seen on tv" seem solid enough but that's the extent of what i know about it.

but i think you've had more than enough lattitude already- if you won't state your alternative then you won't.

Why do I get the impression that you feel that I owe you an answer to that question? I mean by what right do you come here and talk about how much lattitude you have given me? It is a personal, private question that is entirely up to me to answer or not. I mean, its like I would be asking for explicit details about your sexlife and then keep demanding answers.

Hortlund · « **Reply #262 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:06:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Hortland, I just want to say, that whe it comes to the thermodynamics question, you are wrong, MT is right. And if you would take two second with google, you would find that out.

Thank you.

Thrawn, Ive taken all day with yahoo. Can you please point me to where the information is wrong?

Thrawn · « **Reply #263 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:07:00 PM »

No, MT has already explained it to you.

Hortlund · « **Reply #264 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:07:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
No, MT has already explained it to you.

But MT was wrong about 2nd law not applying in open systems.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #265 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:07:46 PM »

mrfish:

No one can prove to you that man was created, literally as related in Genesis or otherwise. The Bible is replete with obvious metaphors, and I see no reason why Genesis's creation story could not be metaphorical.

Nonetheless, if one, like me, believes that the universe and everthing within it were created, he is taking a leap of faith. There is no way around that, and I, for one, will not try to argue otherwise. What really irks me, however, is the hubris behind the claim that it is a fact that man resulted from unguided evolution. If you want to believe that, fine. Just don't claim that it is anything resembling a fact and don't deny that your belief, like mine, requires faith in the unseen and unproven.

- JNOV

p.s. Your monicker seems quite appropriate, given your apparent belief as to your origins.

Kanth · « **Reply #266 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:10:40 PM »

the second law applies to matter

not to the 'process' of evolution.

evolution is a process not matter and therefore isn't subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

It's like arguing that time doesn't exist because it has no mass.

mrfish · « **Reply #267 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:11:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Why do I get the impression that you feel that I owe you an answer to that question? I mean by what right do you come here and talk about how much lattitude you have given me? It is a personal, private question that is entirely up to me to answer or not. I mean, its like I would be asking for explicit details about your sexlife and then keep demanding answers.

how can you argue on behalf of creationism if you won't address it's inconsistencies? all of a sudden it's personal?

it's so christian, site the bible as your authority on creationism but then say it's all a matter of interpretation and symbolism and you don't want to talk about it. if it doesn't provide straight answers then how can you throw it out as an alternative -

you don't have to answer, you're a big boy but your argument becomes pretty limp if you won't defend your side - only attacking the other side.

Thrawn · « **Reply #268 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:16:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
But MT was wrong about 2nd law not applying in open systems.

Off course it does, but that doesn't matter does it.

"Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out"

If the energy input, into a system (hence it is open), is equal to the level of entropy then you have a steady state.

If the energy input, into a system (hence it is open), is greater then the level entropy, then you a system were usable energy can be stored, ie trees will grow.

You are wrong judge-boy.

Kanth · « **Reply #269 on:** December 02, 2002, 01:22:45 PM »

You should be banned!

Quote

Originally posted by Furious
Crap, I misread the subject. I thought it said, "How many here believe in the revolution?"

...and I am all for a good revolution.

my apologies, please continue with your previously scheduled semantics.

F.