Man destroys theory of evolution in 4 minutes!!!

[Kiddo716]

I don't think he's a troll. I don't think he's unintelligent either. I think he's just desperately trying to make his "faith" make sense, grasping at the few straws he can find.

 

[Jake Jarmell]

I thought the original argument was that another user was claiming the lineage of the bible pointed to an age that did not line up with how old the bible indicated the earth was. And i thought Hadron was illustrating why that interpretation could be wrong.

maybe i'm wrong. but that's what i thought was going on.

While that argument was mentioned, it wasn't the central part of the main argument. The main argument was that Hadron claimed that a literal interpretation or reading of the bible (specifically genesis, but I bet he thinks this for its entirety) is consistent and compatible with modern science. When we being up things like the 6 day creation, he argues the definition of a day...

 

[Hadron]

Hadron, I am going post something from my Christian up-bringing that will show you just how stupid your argument is. The bible does not mention the word "rain' until the flood story. My parents (and their congregation) believe that it did not rain on Earth until the flood.

Why would they assume that?

Not mentioning something is not the same as affirming it never happened.

If the Bible said "before the flood, it had never rained on Earth", they'd have a point, but it doesn't say that.

sounds silly right? that's how silly your argument is. If you are arguing that a "day" could have been millions of years, then one side of the Earth would have been baked to a crisp while the other side would be a block of ice. stop making these stupid rationalizations for a fairy tale.

Why would one side be baked? Why do you even presume their are sides at all. How many sides does a "formless" object have?


And a million years in whose reference frame? Someone traveling much slower than the earth could measure 1 million years for a rotation, while someone on the earth measured 24 hours, for example. This isn't even a faith based statement. It is simple science. That's how time works.

 

[Oak]

I guess he doesn't know what scientific theory is.

Yes, I mean how can you argue with the brilliant statements this guy makes. Game over, science is no more.

Bro, arguing with science is pretty stupid

I didn't watch the video, but I love how you guys keep using the term "science" in here like science is always proven to be 100% true. Science has facts and guessing involved.

The theory of evolution, and/or the Darwin theory, are just that, theories. None of them are proven. Claiming you are 100% correct is no different than a religious person who claims their ideas are correct.

At this point in history, the only thing we know is that we really don't know where we came from. Nothing has been truly proven and believing in religious ideas or evolution ideas is just a personal choice based on different personal reasons.

 

[Jake Jarmell]

I didn't watch the video, but I love how you guys keep using the term "science" in here like science is always proven to be 100% true. Science has facts and guessing involved.

The theory of evolution, and/or the Darwin theory, are just that, theories. None of them are proven. Claiming you are 100% correct is no different than a religious person who claims their ideas are correct.

At this point in history, the only thing we know is that we really don't know where we came from. Nothing has been truly proven and believing in religious ideas or evolution ideas is just a personal choice based on different personal reasons.

I guess you don't know what a scientific theory is.

 

[StotheQ]

While that argument was mentioned, it wasn't the central part of the main argument. The main argument was that Hadron claimed that a literal interpretation or reading of the bible (specifically genesis, but I bet he thinks this for its entirety) is consistent and compatible with modern science. When we being up things like the 6 day creation, he argues the definition of a day...

I would tend to disagree. The "literal reading" debate occurred far back in the thread. Although it was brought up again, i don't feel like it was the primary focus of the last 20 pages.


I think lots of what all of you have said has made sense, but....

It would be nice though if everyone could try not being assholes.... just saying. Not pointing at anyone specific, but the "TROLL!" and "your argument is STUPID" type comments make you look like nothing more than a keyboard warrior. Everyone knows that's not how you would talk to or debate someone in real life. so grow up.

 

[Hadron]

I didn't watch the video, but I love how you guys keep using the term "science" in here like science is always proven to be 100% true. Science has facts and guessing involved.

The theory of evolution, and/or the Darwin theory, are just that, theories. None of them are proven. Claiming you are 100% correct is no different than a religious person who claims their ideas are correct.

At this point in history, the only thing we know is that we really don't know where we came from. Nothing has been truly proven and believing in religious ideas or evolution ideas is just a personal choice based on different personal reasons.

There are of course specific details that need to be worked out, like exactly what environmental pressues caused species X to develop trait Y. Somethings are bound to be wrong, for example, we think species A is closely related to species B, but it will turn out it is actually a bit more related to species C.

But the concept of biological evolution is correct. Once we established that traits are inherited, and that there can be can be small genetic variations from generation to generation, the concept of evolution becomes simply a mathematical consequence.

 

[StotheQ]

I guess you don't know what a scientific theory is.

He didn't read my earlier posts ha. I learned pretty quickly how out of my league i was.

Better to sit back and watch the smarter ppl.

It would be nice to have another thread though debating the evidence/proof/science behind evolution being the origin of life.

 

[Jake Jarmell]

He didn't read my earlier posts ha. I learned pretty quickly how out of my league i was.

Better to sit back and watch the smarter ppl.

It would be nice to have another thread though debating the evidence/proof/science behind evolution being the origin of life.

Yeah, when it comes to evolution, I know a little, but I know more about physics than biology, so i try not to get into a deep detailed discussion about evolution, because I don't know as much as I should. But to be clear, evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. How life began isn't necessarily in evolution's range.

 

[StotheQ]

Yeah, when it comes to evolution, I know a little, but I know more about physics than biology, so i try not to get into a deep detailed discussion about evolution, because I don't know as much as I should. But to be clear, evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. How life began isn't necessarily in evolution's range.

I think i would argue that a combination of evolution/adaptation explains the diversity of life (i think i have to take that stance if i believe in a young earth).

But correct me if i'm wrong. But i though most atheists believed in the Big Bang Theory. and isn't Evolution the core concept of how life came to be on this planet if you believe in that theory?

 

[Satanical Eve]

 

[Hadron]

I think i would argue that a combination of evolution/adaptation explains the diversity of life (i think i have to take that stance if i believe in a young earth).

But correct me if i'm wrong. But i though most atheists believed in the Big Bang Theory. and isn't Evolution the core concept of how life came to be on this planet if you believe in that theory?

Evolution is a theory about life changes from generation to generation, and how diversity can arise from non-diversity.

Where that initial "life" came from is irrelevant to theory. All life on this planet descended from common ancestors. Those ancestors may have came about through natural processes (abiogensis), other planets/alien seeding (panspermia), or metaphysical processes (supernatural creation). How it happened doesn't matter. Its only what happened afterward that evolution describes.

 

[Jake Jarmell]

Evolution is a theory about life changes from generation to generation, and how diversity can arise from non-diversity.

Where that initial "life" came from is irrelevant to theory. All life on this planet descended from common ancestors. Those ancestors may have came about through natural processes (abiogensis), other planets/alien seeding (panspermia), or metaphysical processes (supernatural creation). How it happened doesn't matter. Its only what happened afterward that evolution describes.

This is an absolute perfect answer.

Also, Big Bang and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. Neither one says anything about the other. Big Bang describes the early development of our universe while evolution describes the diversity of life. The Big Bang occurred billions of years prior to the beginning of life on earth.

 

[StotheQ]

Evolution is a theory about life changes from generation to generation, and how diversity can arise from non-diversity.

Where that initial "life" came from is irrelevant to theory. All life on this planet descended from common ancestors. Those ancestors may have came about through natural processes (abiogensis), other planets/alien seeding (panspermia), or metaphysical processes (supernatural creation). How it happened doesn't matter. Its only what happened afterward that evolution describes.

Understood. The bible tells that God created man, and god created the animals of the planet. That would mean that each species evolved from a previous form of that species, not from a different type.

Whereas if i said i believed in the big bang, that would mean i believe that every living thing evolved from a single organism. Is that correct or am i wrong? I need to get this stuff straight.

 

[Hadron]

Understood. but the bible tells that God created man, and god created the animals of the planet. That would mean that each species evolved from a previous form of that species, not from a different type.

Sure, but the Bible does not give the details about how man was created. It says man was created from dust.

Maybe God picked up a clump of dust, sculpted a man out of it, and he began walking around.

Or maybe that dust contained just basic organic materials, which in the conditions of early earth, formed into primitive species. Over the next few billion years, the species branched off into man and all the animals.


Both start with dust and end with man, and so both seem consistent with that bible passage.

Whereas if i said i believed in the big bang, that would mean i believe that every living thing evolved from a single organism. Is that correct or am i wrong? I need to get this stuff straight.

No. The Big Bang is describes the rapid expansion of our early universe. At some point, billions of years ago, all matter in the universe was in the form basic particles, concentrated into an extremely small point in space, which was very hot. So hot that not even atoms could form. Then, it rapidly expanded outward, and as it did so, cooled down (Your refrigerator also uses expansion to cool things) allowing atoms to form. As it spread out, gravity pulled certain clumps together to form stars and planets.

Abiogenesis says that on at least one of these planets, conditions allowed certain basic molecules to catalyze chemical reactions which produced more of these basic molecules. This was precursor to DNA. When the chemical went wrong (a mistake was randomly made), sometimes it made a molecule that was even better at catalyzes reactions that produced itself. After a long time, molecules got so complex that they were in systems with other molecules that helped them do the catalysis, and this is what we call the first organisms.

At this point, the theory of evolution takes over. The theory of evolution tells us that some of these early organisms were better than others at reproducing. The ones that could reproduce more, and make good copies of themselves spread much quicker than ones who didn't. Some organisms were better at gathering the required resources needed to reproduce than others. They spread quicker. Of course, organisms in different environments needed different things to thrive. This process eventually lead to all the biodiversity on earth.

 

[eworden78]

One thing to keep in mind, that tends to confuse the evolution vs creation, conversations.

Some biblical literalist don't merely have issue with evolution as it applies to origins of species.
They use the word "evolution" in it's most base form:

"the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."

They object to the idea ANYTHING in nature develops any type of order or complexity gradually.
So galaxies, solar systems, complex organic molecules, and speciation all fall under the same umbrella for them.

So whenever you start a debate or conversation, it's good to establish what "evolution" means to them.

 

[Hadron]

One thing to keep in mind, that tends to confuse the evolution vs creation, conversations.

Some biblical literalist don't merely have issue with evolution as it applies to origins of species.
They use the word "evolution" in it's most base form, "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
They object to the idea ANYTHING in nature develops any type of order or complexity gradually.
So galaxies, solar systems, complex organic molecules, and speciation all fall under the same umbrella for them.

So whenever you start a debate or conversation, it's good to establish what "evolution" means to them.

I've never seen anyone argue that.

Thinking about the entropy change when forming the constituent components might be tricky (collapse of gas to form stars. Collapse of dust to form planets), but the forming of solar systems and galaxies should be straight forward from an entropy perspective. Its trivial to see that any positional entropy decrease when coupling two objects gravitational is made up for in an increase in the entropy of the objects momentum-space.

 

[eworden78]

I've never seen anyone argue that.

Thinking about the entropy change when forming the constituent components might be tricky (collapse of gas to form stars. Collapse of dust to form planets), but the forming of solar systems and galaxies should be straight forward from an entropy perspective. Its trivial to see that any positional entropy decrease when coupling two objects gravitational is made up for in an increase in the entropy of the objects momentum-space.

Trust me it's out there!

From apologetics.org

[NOTE: Evolution on a cosmic scale (i.e., Universal evolution, rather than localized Darwinian evolution on Earth) requires that an explosion billions of years ago produced the ordered Universe we have today. Since the Universe is, by definition, closed from a naturalistic perspective (i.e., the evidence indicates that there is nothing outside of the natural Universe that can add useful energy to it to counter entropy; cf. Miller, 2010), the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits cosmic evolution.]

From creationrevolution.com

In general, spiral galaxies are a problem for evolution and the Big Bang. E

 

[Hadron]

Trust me it's out there!

From apologetics.org

That's not the same as the examples you gave, but it is actually even more silly.

How could you possibly think the current Universe is more ordered than it was a few second after the Big Bang?

Just to increase in positional entropy alone is immense. If they will buy the idea stars, solar systems, and galaxies are ordered because they are systems of objects locked into close proximity to one another, and not allowed to travel away from each other.......then you logically also have to include that putting all the stars and galaxies and planets into one, extremely tiny point is even more ordered. You don't even have to argue anything from thermodynamics. That's the logical result that follows from their own definition, and yet it contradicts their conclusion.


EDIT: The second link you added is where your earlier examples came from.

 

[eworden78]

That's not the same as the examples you gave, but it is actually even more silly.

How could you possibly think the current Universe is more ordered than it was a few second after the Big Bang?

Just to increase in positional entropy alone is immense. If they will buy the idea stars, solar systems, and galaxies are ordered because they are systems of objects locked into close proximity to one another, and not allowed to travel away from each other.......then you logically also have to include that putting all the stars and galaxies and planets into one, extremely tiny point is even more ordered. You don't even have to argue anything from thermodynamics. That's the logical result that follows from their own definition, and yet it contradicts their conclusion.


EDIT: The second link you added is where your earlier examples came from.

Yeah, I agree they basically read the brief definition on things like "entropy", and "second law of thermodynamics" and think they understand what it means.

Sorry for the slow edit, the second example was better.