To conclude:
“Ok, how did the first song pop into existence?” …so for those of you who believe in music theory, please explain this to me.
If metal evolved from rock, how do people still make rock? Checkmate, musictheists.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
Finally found it. This article is really awesome. But long.
Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule
then this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerization
then this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromolecule
then this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid
You might also be interested in this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
Thanks, but i don’t see on those pages any explanation about how life could pop out of inanimate matter. Biochemists, microbiologists, etc. are even unable to create a living cell out of nothing in controlled lab environments, even if they know a lot about how living cells work. So, this would have occured just by blind luck, using the magical formula “over millions and millions of years”? (or even billions in this case) You have more odds of turning on your TV to static, and the random pixels just “magically” lining up to form the entire Star Wars trilogy, frame by frame, all in the right order, with sound and every single detail etc etc.
I’m not sure how the apes’ survival into the modern world proves natural selection and evolution false. While the apes might be doing well enough in their particular deep jungle environments, I haven’t see too many roaming around northern mexico, the united states or canada. I don’t expect they would do very well if they tried. I imagine many other inhabitants of non-jungle environments would report the same findings.
Ok, then why aren’t there any ape-men in the jungle, or anywhere else? Surely if they were the ancestors of modern humans they would be all over the place, right?
No, of course not. It was to show that if changes can happen at the level where you can see them with your own eyes. Then imagine what could be happening at the levels of cells or smaller; the lego blocks of life.
Yes, indeed changes can occur inside one or a few generations. But as observed, these changes will ALWAYS stay within the limitations of what makes up the species. If anything, such freak accidents should disprove the handful of so-called “intermediate” form fossils that have been found. If we can observe such drastic changes under our own eyes, in living specimens today, isn’t it logical to assume, the same could have happened to an animal that was fossilized and then later discovered? It comes right back down to what i said earlier, about the very few intermediate forms between species being simply diseased or somehow deformed individuals.
Which segways into “transition” and your concept of being able to find fossils, which by the way we use most of this stuff as GAS FOR YOUR CAR. Why is it reasonable to assume anything made of living tissue will ever be found by anyone? Things decompose.
Of course, most of them will decompose, but not all, we find some fraction of them. And what we have found - honest evolutionists admit this - indicates that lifeforms appeared suddenly, without any (or at least, very very very few) presumed transitional forms.
Here’s a short youtube video of Richard Dawkins “proving” the transitional forms between whales and several other species, by showing us… yep, that’s all they have: three broken, incomplete skulls of what they can claim to be anything they want to fit their theory. (see my above post about the pig tooth)
If metal evolved from rock, how do people still make rock? Checkmate, musictheists.
Haha, exactly 
There are still rock groups out there, even though metal “descended” from rock. Kind of a funny analogy though, can a musical style be considered more “apt to survive” than another? Good question… Plus, you can “interbreed” completely different musical styles in the way that is completely impossible with living beings.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
Finally found it. This article is really awesome. But long.
Yeah it quite is long. I’ll have to check that out.
BTW.:
science has limits - today and in future.
so not everything is explainable for us as humans and for ever.
but this is no proof of theories about existence in some religions.
religion is only the universe’s shadow on mankind’s intelligence!
just 2 cents. B)
Here’s the important stuff from Carbonthief’s link:
Misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.
CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.
CORRECTION: This misconception stems from a mix-up between casual and scientific use of the word theory. In everyday language, theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. Evolution is a well-supported and broadly accepted scientific theory; it is not ‘just’ a hunch. To learn more about the nature of scientific theories, visit the Understanding Science website.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.
CORRECTION: This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories. While we don’t know everything there is to know about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, does not yet explain everything we observe in the natural world. However, evolutionary theory does help us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), does make accurate predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity. To learn more about the nature of scientific theories, visit the Understanding Science website.
MISCONCEPTION: Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.
CORRECTION: While it’s true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we’d expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don’t have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we’ve only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record. To learn more about testing scientific ideas, visit the Understanding Science website. To learn more about evolutionary transitions and the fossils that document them, visit our module on this topic.
Misconceptions about the acceptance of evolution
MISCONCEPTION: The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won’t admit it.
CORRECTION: Scientists have studied the supposed “flaws” that anti-evolution groups claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These “flaws” are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of the evidence. As scientists gather new evidence and as new perspectives emerge, evolutionary theory continues to be refined, but that doesn’t mean that the theory is flawed. Science is a competitive endeavor, and scientists would be eager to study and correct “flaws” in evolutionary theory if they existed. For more on how evolutionary theory changes, see our misconception on this topic above.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory is not in crisis; scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life’s diversity because of the multiple lines of evidence supporting it, its broad power to explain biological phenomena, and its ability to make accurate predictions in a wide variety of situations. Scientists do not debate whether evolution took place, but they do debate many details of how evolution occurred and occurs in different circumstances. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.
MISCONCEPTION: Most biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism’ and no longer agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace.
CORRECTION: It is true that we have learned a lot about evolution since Darwin’s time. Today, we understand the genetic basis for the inheritance of traits, we can date many events in the fossil record to within a few hundred thousand years, and we can study how evolution has shaped development at a molecular level. These advances — ones that Darwin likely could not have imagined — have expanded evolutionary theory and made it much more powerful; however, they have not overturned the basic principles of evolution by natural selection and common ancestry that Darwin and Wallace laid out, but have simply added to them. It’s important to keep in mind that elaboration, modification, and expansion of scientific theories is a normal part of the process of science. For more on how evolutionary theory changes, see our misconception on this topic above.
I think this one is important, because it’s important to understand that science is not an attack on people’s faith.
Misconceptions about evolution and religion
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days_does_conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, seeVoices for Evolutionon the NCSE website. Tolearn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.
Theres just too much reading in previous comments and i’m going to disregard the ones contemplating whether evolution is real or not as , well, it is real…Im in my 4th year freshwater and marine biology and so this topic has come up a few times…one experiment done that may explain the start of life on this planet is the Muiller-rey experiment…they setup some conditions in a laboratory that simulated the climate and chemical conditions of what earth was like ~3.5 bya (when the earliest fossil were found) and hit it with lightning…and low and behold amino acids were made…now thats just amino acids, the building blocks of proteins…but if a few amino acids got together and formed a protein that had a defect in that it wanted to create more of itself you just might get a basic form of DNA…that only has to happen once for evolution to start working…random defects over generations giving some chains improvements in their environment…now how a string of sugar phosphated backboned DNA like proteins managed to engulf themselves in a prokaryotic wall (the cell wall of bacteria) is another subject…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis >>>>> also important reading…!!!
That’s fascinating. Going to read that wiki when I get off work.
Here’s the important stuff from Carbonthief’s link:
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.
CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.
Uh… this is completely false. Like i said in an earlier post, countless observations on bacteria have shown that they stay the same species of bacteria, no matter what we do to them - despite adaptation in certain cases (which evolutionists call “micro-evolution”). And about the fruit flies, as i also mentioned earlier, there have been experiments going on since the early 1900’s on fruit flies, doing all sorts of weird stuff to them to try to “encourage” mutations. Basically, they were trying to prove evolution. Conclusion: They “appear to be immune to evoltion”. Results of one such experiment. Oops, i had already linked it in an above post, sorry. Try this other one. Brian Thomas, quoted: “The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve - they just die.”
Or these quotes by Norman MacBeth –
“If a thousand mutations were combined into one specimen, we still would not have a new species.”
“These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.” […] "What do we see? Fruit flies. That is all we see. After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any different kinds of creatures from Drosophila. [fruit flies]"
And - as always, the same old pattern applies on the page linked by carbonthief - evolutionists drawing HUGE conclusions from extremely scarce and abiguous evidence. And then somehow convincing the world that it’s “the” one truth, because people want to believe in evolution. This is called credulity: “idea X is cool, i like idea X, therefore idea X is true.”
one experiment done that may explain the start of life on this planet is the Muiller-rey experiment…they setup some conditions in a laboratory that simulated the climate and chemical conditions of what earth was like ~3.5 bya (when the earliest fossil were found) and hit it with lightning…and low and behold amino acids were made…now thats just amino acids, the building blocks of proteins…
Amino acids are very simple molecular structures. You’re still a looooooong way from building a single protein - which is an unimaginably small fraction of getting even the simplest complete living cell.
but if a few amino acids got together and formed a protein that had a defect in that it wanted to create more of itself you just might get a basic form of DNA…that only has to happen once for evolution to start working…random defects over generations giving some chains improvements in their environment…now how a string of sugar phosphated backboned DNA like proteins managed to engulf themselves in a prokaryotic wall (the cell wall of bacteria) is another subject…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis >>>>> also important reading…!!!
Proteins don’t replicate. Bacteria (a very simple cell) is the smallest/simplest thing that can.
For those of you who have the time, i suggest at least checking out the first few minutes of this rather long 1 hour 20 min. video (yeah i know it has a kind of bold title, but… )
Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN’S EVOLUTION) (skip to about 1 hour into it for more information about the fruit fly experiment)
virus’s are smaller than bacteria and they replicate…ok only by using a host cell, but they do.
“The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve - they just die.”
This is not proof that evolution is false, this is proof that a cell will under go apoptosis once the variation in the genetic structure is far from what it is supposed to be.
And what about all the different species of wheat, vegetables, animals that we have created from their common ancestors by selecting for the best ones…(they do not die).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz3df2_bbc-horizon-2012-playing-god-720p_news…a very good doc on genetic modifiaction
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x11pe80_bbc-the-cell-1-of-3-the-hidden-kingdom_shortfilms same guy educating about the cell,
f f f f orget it
oh shit, i cant believe i found this kind of idiot in a technical forum.
evolution is proven false? wtf, our planet is about to be destroyed by stupidity
go and educate yourself, the good thing is that your brain is not fixed, you can make some effort and growth your mind.
and for the question, we dont have all the details obviously, but i think the first problem here is because we look at “life” and inanimate matter as fundamental different things, and that not the case. Life is matter arranged in a more complex way.
first all matter was the same, simple hydrogen atoms, then stars born and cooked a lot of new elements with the same fundamental particles, then organic matter that isnt “life” emerged, then things get more complicated and life emerged, then we are here talking about this.
I doubt he’s an idiot, he’s just been indoctrinated. He’s obviously been fed a ton of creationist propaganda throughout his life.
virus’s are smaller than bacteria and they replicate…ok only by using a host cell, but they do.
They are also much more complex than bacteria.
“The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve - they just die.”
This is not proof that evolution is false, this is proof that a cell will under go apoptosis once the variation in the genetic structure is far from what it is supposed to be.
Isn’t that the whole argument of evolution? Slow, cumulative mutations “creating” new species from old ones? If so, this has been proven false, like i said, by countless observations, including the above mentioned fruit fly and bacteria experiments - most of which were trying to prove evolution in the first place.
And what about all the different species of wheat, vegetables, animals that we have created from their common ancestors by selecting for the best ones…(they do not die).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz3df2_bbc-horizon-2012-playing-god-720p_news…a very good doc on genetic modifiaction
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x11pe80_bbc-the-cell-1-of-3-the-hidden-kingdom_shortfilms same guy educating about the cell,
This is genetic manipulation, and it always results in the same species you had to begin with. Variations of this species, but still the same species
oh shit, i cant believe i found this kind of idiot in a technical forum.
evolution is proven false? wtf, our planet is about to be destroyed by stupidity
go and educate yourself, the good thing is that your brain is not fixed, you can make some effort and growth your mind.
and for the question, we dont have all the details obviously, but i think the first problem here is because we look at “life” and inanimate matter as fundamental different things, and that not the case. Life is matter arranged in a more complex way.
first all matter was the same, simple hydrogen atoms, then stars born and cooked a lot of new elements with the same fundamental particles, then organic matter that isnt “life” emerged, then things get more complicated and life emerged, then we are here talking about this.
…so, besides childish name calling, do you have any valid arguments? I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again: It is a phisical and mathematical impossibility for a living cell, with all of its components in place, its DNA code, etc etc… to pop into existence from inanimate matter, even in the perfect living conditions, even in the 4.xx billions of years our planet has existed, at least according to experts. Classic example: there’s more chances of a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and “randomly” creating a boeing 747.
Even intelligent (relatively) microbiologists are completely unable to create a living cell out of lifeless matter in lab experiments.
I doubt he’s an idiot, he’s just been indoctrinated. He’s obviously been fed a ton of creationist propaganda throughout his life.
No, i’m just able to put 2 and 2 together. Evolution theory is just too full of holes to be considered plausible - even if you give it the “head start” of (a)biogenesis, and many other “head starts”, like violating the basic principle of entropy, and i won’t even get into the position of the earth in the solar system, and the position of the solar system in the galaxy, etc etc… Plus, there’s just too much mathematical perfection in the universe for it all to be random junk from a “big bang”. The more you study these things, the more you realize this. I mean real studying, not propaganda from arrogant so-called “scientists” drawing pages and pages of conclusions (family trees of entire classes of species, illustrations of completely imagined transitional forms, etc etc) from a single tooth fossil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
We threw a telescope camera into orbit, took a long exposure photo of darkness, the size of which represents an almost incalculably small fraction of our sky, and we found 3 thousand entire galaxies that we did not even know existed prior. Every single patch of darkness we have photographed since has shown similar results, more thousands of galaxies. Thousands of galaxies with millions of stars, so far away we could not reach them in a life time moving at light speed.
We took a picture of what we thought was darkness, and we found the galaxy within which we reside to be utterly unremarkable in any way, except that we are there in it. There’s millions of others like it. The idea that our position in our galaxy is somehow special is statistical insanity.
We can throw a dune buggy at just the right speed and angle to catch a gravitational boost and land perfectly on a red rock so small we can’t even see it with the naked eye most of the time, so far away it takes radio waves several minutes to report back, and we landed that fucker and started driving it around and taking pictures of shit.
We have measured the rate at which gravity warps time itself, and used these calculations to adjust the clocks of our GPS satellites, lest their measurements be off.
We found the microwave background radiation leftover from the big bang, predicted long before we measured it. We directly measured, at long last, the higgs boson. We made a massive network of computers that allows us to share ideas, music, art, and news with people all over the world instantaneously.
But somehow, you think when it comes to 2 of the most well documented and evidence supported scientific models of all time, you think there’s some kind of conspiracy, that these same scientists that gave you pictures of thousands of galaxies lifetimes away, that gave you the internet, that gave you relativity adjusted GPS, are somehow, for some reason, lying/making shit up, when it comes to these just 2 items. You say you put 2 and 2 together, but really, you’re just parroting the shit you hear in the youtube videos you posted.
I’ve never seen a picture of god, I’ve never heard a recording of his voice, I’ve never seen replicated any of the kinds of miracles the Bible speaks of (the god in the Bible was much more open to making his existence known, apparently, than the god that exists today. The god today is nothing like the god in the Bible, it would be pretty obvious to us if that god was real.), but I HAVE seen photographic proof of thousands of galaxies beyond our own taking up an infinitesimal fraction of our sky. I have seen the red shift calculations, I have seen the visualized measured microwave background radiation, I have seen the transitional fossils, I have seen the mapped genomes, I have eaten the genetically modified foods, I have observed with my own eyes these things, I have used the massive computer network to see and hear things undreamed of 100 years ago, I wouldn’t have a job today if we didn’t have Einsteins theories to set our GPS by.
The Catholic Church accepts evolution and the big bang, because they know, they’ve been there before, they were the ones that said the Earth was the center of the universe, to say otherwise was heresy. They’ve learned from their past mistakes, and they know if they deny science now, if they don’t somehow find a way to force their faith to fit into the things we know now, they will simply be abandoned in time because the evidence and proof is there for all to see.
You’re clearly quite passionate and well-read when it comes to the subject matter. I’m just curious to know what you hoped to achieve by starting this thread, or what kind of new (and potentially ground-breaking) information you hoped to uncover here?
Based on what you’ve said so far, it seems pretty clear to me that the global scientific community is currently incapable of providing you with any satisfactory answers… so I’m left wondering what chance we humble Renoise users have of convincing you of anything?
If we flip this around a little bit and try to have a real two-sided argument, I wonder if you’d be willing to share some of your own personal beliefs and theories about exactly what happened — how we humans got to be here, what the origins of life were, and so on?
With all of the things mentioned in this thread so far — notably the scientific theories that you’ve quite firmly shot down and labelled as total mathematical impossibilities — I wonder if you might be able to provide a more compelling and believable theory that explains how we all came to exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
We threw a telescope camera into orbit, took a long exposure photo of darkness, the size of which represents an almost incalculably small fraction of our sky, and we found 3 thousand entire galaxies that we did not even know existed prior. Every single patch of darkness we have photographed since has shown similar results, more thousands of galaxies. Thousands of galaxies with millions of stars, so far away we could not reach them in a life time moving at light speed.
We took a picture of what we thought was darkness, and we found the galaxy within which we reside to be utterly unremarkable in any way, except that we are there in it. There’s millions of others like it. The idea that our position in our galaxy is somehow special is statistical insanity.
Indeed, the observable universe is immensely, unimaginably huge. I don’t personally think there is life on other planets, but even if there was, it would be so unimaginably far away from us, that it wouldn’t concern us very much.
We can throw a dune buggy at just the right speed and angle to catch a gravitational boost and land perfectly on a red rock so small we can’t even see it with the naked eye most of the time, so far away it takes radio waves several minutes to report back, and we landed that fucker and started driving it around and taking pictures of shit.
Yeah, quite a feat, isn’t it? Things like this take a HUGE amount of calculation and planning, at insane levels of precision to pull off. Now imagine how just the solar system came into existence, with tons of parameters exactly the way they need to be in order for life to exist: simple things like earth’s size, its distance from the sun, the speed of its orbit around the sun, speed of its rotation, the same for the moon’s orbit around the earth… anything deviating by less than 1% would mean no life on earth – except for, apparently, earth’s distance from the sun, according to some sources it could be up to 4% closer, and earth could still potentially sustain life as we know it… at least kind of. (i find this surprising, but anyway) Nevertheless, this is an extremely delicate balance, and to sustain life, another planet would presumably need a similar set of parameters.
Now combine this with the fact that our atmosphere and the earth’s magnetic field create a “shield” that lets in beneficial elements (light and heat from the sun) and rejects those that would threaten life, like (afaik most) meteorites and radiations, and the fact that the atmosphere contains a very exact mixture of gases that would be lethal by themselves, but together are essential to life.
Such an immensely delicate set of parameters is not likely to happen by chance, even in the vast observable universe. (if the universe itself is infinite, then of course the odds are also theoretically infinite, that’s simple math… but anyway) I’m not an expert in astronomy, i’m just citing some common knowledge, maybe someone else can comment…?
But somehow, you think when it comes to 2 of the most well documented and evidence supported scientific models of all time, you think there’s some kind of conspiracy, that these same scientists that gave you pictures of thousands of galaxies lifetimes away, that gave you the internet, that gave you relativity adjusted GPS, are somehow, for some reason, lying/making shit up, when it comes to these just 2 items.
Which 2 scientific models? Evolution and astronomy? Astronomy is a real science, and a fascinating one at that. Evolution on the other hand…? Languages have evolved over time. Technology has evolved over time. We have more than ample recorded proof of that. For evolution however? We have about the equivalent proof of a few lines of poorly written text to represent each century of human history. This is the “undeniable, empirical evidence” evolutionists claim to have. Look up any web page or video about transitional fossils, you see tons of hypothetical drawings, illustrations, sketches etc etc… but very, very little actual fossils. (some sources, at least some books that i know of, even present them out of proportion to each other, to make them look more like what they want) I was only a bit surprised btw, when i saw pictures of presumed ape-men on the famous smithsonian museum’s site, i was like… “seriously, that’s ALL they have???” Not to mention the bizarre claims they make about testing DNA on fossils they say date from millions of years, when we know DNA decays after thousands of years, not millions.
but really, you’re just parroting the shit you hear in the youtube videos you posted.
Ok, i used a few examples/arguments from those videos because i thought they were good examples/arguments =) Besides since no one commented on them i thought no one had watched them.
The Catholic Church accepts evolution and the big bang, because they know, they’ve been there before, they were the ones that said the Earth was the center of the universe, to say otherwise was heresy. They’ve learned from their past mistakes, and they know if they deny science now, if they don’t somehow find a way to force their faith to fit into the things we know now, they will simply be abandoned in time because the evidence and proof is there for all to see.
The catholic church is corrupt to the bone, and has nothing much to do with the Bible anymore. For example Christmas is simply the day following winter solstice, which was celebrated as sun worship by the romans, who got it from the greeks, who got it from the medo-persians, etc etc… and it was mixed with Christianity in the 4th century AD by the roman emperor Constantine. Pretty much the same kind of story with many, if not most, so-called “christian” holidays and beliefs.
You’re clearly quite passionate and well-read when it comes to the subject matter. I’m just curious to know what you hoped to achieve by starting this thread, or what kind of new (and potentially ground-breaking) information you hoped to uncover here?
Based on what you’ve said so far, it seems pretty clear to me that the global scientific community is currently incapable of providing you with any satisfactory answers… so I’m left wondering what chance we humble Renoise users have of convincing you of anything?
Sorry if i broke any rules… i just wanted to start a debate about the subject, and honestly i was hoping there would be a wider range of different opinions. Didn’t want to cause any trouble 
If we flip this around a little bit and try to have a real two-sided argument, I wonder if you’d be willing to share some of your own personal beliefs and theories about exactly what happened — how we humans got to be here, what the origins of life are, and so on?
Personally i believe in the Bible. When you closely examine its contents, it quickly becomes clear that the Bible contains wisdom and knowledge far, far beyond and superior to what it was possible to know in the time it was written. For example, very specific prophecies that have come true to the last detail, and are still coming true today. Or scientific knowledge that was impossible to obtain 3500 years ago, but that we now understand today.
For example, under mosaic law, there was a list of “unclean” animals (ruminants) that the Israelites weren’t allowed to eat (see Deut.14:7, Lev.11:6) Camel, hare, rock badger, …wait a minute, the hare? How did Moses know it was a ruminant? This was only discovered by zoologists in the 19th century. Before that, these passages were often cited by biblical critics as being false. Other examples in the mosaic law include periods of quarantine when people had certain symptoms of diseases, which all correspond perfectly to the gestation times of the respective bacteria as we know them today, not to wash in stagnant water even if it appears to be completely clean, the fact that the 8th day is the optimal age to circumcize a baby, etc etc.
An example of prophecy: around 730 BC, Isaiah predicted, with many specific details, how exactly the Babylonian empire would fall. He even predicted the name of Babylon’s conqueror (Cyrus) and the method he would use to enter the city (drying up the Euphrates river bed by diverting the waters elsewhere) and the fact that the city gates would for some reason not be locked …and historians generally agree that this happened exactly as written by Isaiah, about 200 years later. Some even say it’s impossible, that the book of Isaiah was actually written later, but that’s a whole other debate by itself.
Another interesting bit of science, more relevant to this topic, is referred to in the first few pages of the Bible: the six “days”, or “periods” of the appearance of the earth. In the original Hebrew, the word for “day” can also mean a “period”. This is why it makes no sense when some creationists argue that the earth was created in 6 literal days of 24 hours. Each “day”, or step, of creation, obviously occured over a much longer period. The creation account of Genesis chap. 1 and 2 is presented from the point of view of someone who would be on earth:
First “step”: Beginning, appearance of light, distinction between daytime and nighttime.
Second “step”: Distinction between water bodies and earth bodies.
Third “step”: Formation of land masses (continents), appearance of the first plants on land.
Fourth “step”: Direct visibility of sun, moon and stars.
Fifth “step”: Appearance of sea creatures and birds.
Sixth “step”: Appearance of land animals, creation of first humans.
The 10 main elements in these six “steps” occur in Gen. chapters 1 and 2 in pretty much the order geologists agree they actually happened. Assuming Moses had all 10 of these elements, the chances of him putting them spontaneously in the right order are one in 3628800 …well, ok, granted it wouldn’t be very hard to guess where “beginning” goes
Orbits are elliptical, not circular. The distance between us and the sun varies by over 5 million miles throughout a year. There is considerable leeway in the other conditions as well. Mars theoretically could have supported life at one time, which is why there has been considerable study done to determine if that was the case. Actually, the Earth would be quite cool, except that the carbon in our atmosphere traps the heat. That is why we are quite literally killing ourselves by pumping more of the shit up there. We’re pumping more in there than our trees can filter out, and it’s heating things up. Life will likely survive (extremophiles etc, life is pretty resilient) but we won’t if we continue. The delicate balance you describe is not nearly as delicate as creationists make it out to be. And just by the weight of sheer statistics, there is going to be other planets in the green zone that have life. We may never directly observe them, but we can’t simply brush them off when one of your biggest arguments is how special our Earth’s various attributes seem to be.
I’ll grant you the Catholic Church is corrupt. That doesn’t mean all Catholics are though. The reasoning for their acceptance of science is sound. In time this creationist nonsense will be the next Geocentric universe (that time is now for most people honestly).
So you interpret the Bible literally apparently. I assume you know your creation and flood myths were stolen from other religions? Not that that’s anything to be particularly ashamed of, tons of religions borrow various myths from each other. It’s quite a fascinating process really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
And no, the version in the Bible is not the oldest.
How far does this go? Do you also think gays should be stoned to death? Or that a women who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist? Or do you reject these things as outdated old testament commandments, while at the same time thinking this doesn’t apply to the flood myth? By what metric do you decide what in the Bible to believe?
How do you verify the Bible (whichever of the many, many versions there are) describes the one true religion, but the Quran is not? What evidence do you have that they don’t?
Are you aware that Islam holds Jesus to be the messiah, just like you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
Which makes their religion’s relationship to yours much like yours is to Judaism. You think the messiah came, therefore christianity is updated Judaism, and Muslims think that also but they also believe Muhammad was a prophet, therefore Islam is updated Christianity.
Are you aware of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero
Are you aware that the 4 gospels were most likely not first hand accounts, but written down stories handed down from oral tradition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
If you’re going to take the Bible seriously, you should really, REALLY do your research and know what you’re getting into. The Bible has one hell of an origins story to it. If you’re going to let it dictate your worldview, you need to know where it came from. I’m not trying to get you to abandon your faith. I am however trying to get you to think very very hard about it. And the reason I am doing that, is because people’s worldview being tinted by religion effects us all in profound ways. Religion slinks its way into politics with dire consequences. In the middle east we have ISIS, doing essentially the same thing christians did in the past. In the western world we have science denial preventing us from taking measures to stop global warming, which WILL kill our species if we don’t do something about it.
are virus’s more complex than bacteria?
“Isn’t that the whole argument of evolution? Slow, cumulative mutations “creating” new species from old ones? If so, this has been proven false, like i said, by countless observations, including the above mentioned fruit fly and bacteria experiments - most of which were trying to_prove_evolution in the first place.”
Are you under the influence of spontaneous generation? is itreallythat hard to grasp that eventually the "slow, cumulative mutations"eventually form a differentspecies…the proofreallyis in the science. Mitochondrial DNA, DNA, RNA will link two species together e.g the hippo and the cetaceans,archaeological fossilsprovethegradual change from both species to a common ancestor, geographical evidencewillprove the exaption and movements ofthespecies, climate recordscananswer reasons for speciesdivergences…and what is a species anyway? have a look at the 27 species concepts to find ananswerto that…my favorite is the Genetic Cluster Definition.
Mars theoretically could have supported life at one time, which is why there has been considerable study done to determine if that was the case.
It would have needed to be much warmer than it is now. Of all the temperatures that can exist, from absolute zero (-273 celsius iirc?) to thousands and thousands of degrees, there’s only a “window” of 100 degrees celsius in which water is liquid, and therefore “theoretically” makes life possible. But there’s very few lifeforms that strive in boiling water or nearly freezing water, so that “window” is probably actually quite smaller. I don’t know the exact temperature on Mars, but at least according to wikipedia, almost all water on mars is frozen. And, even if a planet “could” support life, it doesn’t mean that it does, or did in the past.
I assume you know your creation and flood myths were stolen from other religions?
Creation as it appears in Genesis, nope. It’s originally from the Bible itself. As for legends of a great flood, one of the earliest instances of such a legend was called the “epid of Gilgamesh”, the sumerian parallel story of the biblical flood. The fact that so many different cultures from all over the world, most of which never interacted with each other, all have/had one version or another of this legend, with striking similarities, points to the (rather peculiar) conclusion that it’s one of the oldest and most widely told tales ever told in mankind’s history. Here’s an interesting article about the subject. Now, how all the animals once again spreaded to the 4 corners of the earth after getting out of the ark, one can only conjecture. But they had several thousands of years to do that, didn’t they =)
How do you verify the Bible (whichever of the many, many versions there are) describes the one true religion, but the Quran is not? What evidence do you have that they don’t?
The Quran doesn’t have the internal harmony of the Bible. Nor does any other religious book that i know of. The Bible is also the only book that, like i mentioned, contains knowledge and wisdom vastly surpassing what was known at the time, and still today. Its track record for predicting the future is absolutely legendary. In the Bible’s case, it’s also like if 40 different sculptors from different eras, different jobs, different levels of education, different personalities, etc etc. all decided to sculpt different pieces of a statue (ok, with some having seen the work of others) and then were able to assemble all these 66 pieces into one magnificent seamless piece of art, with each piece fitting perfectly at its place.
Are you aware that the 4 gospels were most likely not first hand accounts, but written down stories handed down from oral tradition?
Matthew and John were direct disciples of Jesus. Mark and Luke became Christians in the years following his death. Luke did exhaustive research about Jesus’s life, his teachings, his ancestry, this is evident when you read his writings (he also wrote the book of Acts, which relates events in the Christian congregation he personally experienced)
Overall, the Bible’s message has changed very little over copies of copies, of tranlations of translations, we know this by comparing very old manuscripts (some recently found) to modern versions. Scribes and monks who were in charge of copying or translating were extremely meticulous in their work.
If you’re going to take the Bible seriously, you should really, REALLY do your research and know what you’re getting into. The Bible has one hell of an origins story to it. If you’re going to let it dictate your worldview, you need to know where it came from. I’m not trying to get you to abandon your faith. I am however trying to get you to think very very hard about it.
I started studying the Bible around 2006, and now i’m quite happy to be a Jehovah’s Witness. Before that, i was agnostic, but with an open mind, although somewhat skeptical towards religion in general. After, like you said, really doing my research and knowing what i was getting into - and most importantly - honestly and sincerely studying all aspects of the question, with no preconceived ideas, well… convincing and tangible evidence forced me to reconsider my position in the universe, and realize that the truth is the truth, no matter what i want(ed) to believe. (And no, even before i didn’t believe in evolution) A few of the beliefs that the Bible really teaches are:
- God’s name is Jehovah, or Yahweh, which in Hebrew means “He causes to become”.
- Jesus Christ and Jehovah God are two separate entities. The holy spirit is God’s energy, or acting force.
- There is no hell, and we don’t go to heaven when we die.
- We humans are meant to live on earth, and this has never changed. Once we’re dead, we don’t exist anymore.
- The only hope for the dead is to be resurrected.
- The Messianic Kingdom came into rule in heaven in 1914 (calculated by several prophecies)
- The Earth will be restored to a paradise state, with God’s faithful subjects living forever in perfect health and harmony.
- There are many, many more, but i don’t feel like typing all of them right now, it would take all day.
…anyway, sorry for making really long posts, i just type moderately fast, and sometimes i get carried away on a subject
Are you under the influence of spontaneous generation? is it really that hard to grasp that eventually the “slow, cumulative mutations” eventually form a different species…the proof really is in the science.
You’re just re-repeating the same argument, and i’ll tell you again: look up “transitional fossils”. Count how many imagined drawings you see, and how many pictures of actual transitional fossils. Look at the smithsonian museum’s website, and see for yourself what “evidence” evolutionists have to prove their biased, arrogant claims: a handful of incomplete, deformed fossils. Compare this to the millions of other fossils that prove the sudden appearance and disappearance of pretty much all life forms that have existed on earth, including dinosaurs which went extinct 65 million years ago. That’s what’s in “the science”.