Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[james bond]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Didn't Einstein prove that time is relative? This proof has been validated by atomic clocks on space ships. So the age of earth is.... relative. We have no idea relative to what.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?"

Did you mean: existence ?

 

[esalla]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

The bible was written by idiots rocking by the mountain and eating locust

 

[Turtlesoup]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival. Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

So that's why there's intelligent life on Titan

 

[esalla]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival. Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.

Completely wrong because that is not evolution but adaptation. Why? because when it warms up the hair thins as the organism readapts

 

[Hollie]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

 

[esalla]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Again absolute nothingness can not evolve

Except in the minds of the feeble

 

[Turtlesoup]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival. Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.

Completely wrong because that is not evolution but adaptation. Why? because when it warms up the hair thins as the organism readapts

You are assuming that the climate would warm back up enough to make thicker hair an issue-----------or that thicker hair wouldn't have another purpose such as making one more attractive and thus more likely to mate. You also assume that shedding somehow negates a specialized need for a warmer coat during cooler months creating a change (evolution)..which isn't the case. A thicker coat for cooler climate could evolve in a species in a cooler climate----whether they shed in the summer or not would not change this.

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----one member then one family then one group or region develops an unique often tiny tiny tiny trait that they use to aid the individual and then group passing the change gene for. Eventually regional changes become widespread in the group creating a new species with its own unique traits. Only after many many many generations of breeding in countless traits do we see a new species assuming that those that carry the traits live and continue to breed based on their special traits providing an advantage.

 

[esalla]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival. Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.

Completely wrong because that is not evolution but adaptation. Why? because when it warms up the hair thins as the organism readapts

You are assuming that the climate would warm back up enough to make thicker hair an issue-----------or that thicker hair wouldn't have another purpose such as making one more attractive and thus more likely to mate. You also assume that shedding somehow negates a specialized need for a warmer coat during cooler months creating a change (evolution)..which isn't the case. A thicker coat for cooler climate could evolve in a species in a cooler climate----whether they shed in the summer or not would not change this.

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----one member then one family then one group or region develops an unique often tiny tiny tiny trait that they use to aid the individual and then group passing the change gene for. Eventually regional changes become widespread in the group creating a new species with its own unique traits. Only after many many many generations of breeding in countless traits

You are clueless, as longer hair is not evolution. Northern wolves have longer, thicker and whiter hair than southern wolves. This is really true now, they are not different evolved species as they can and do interbreed.

Evolution means wolves turn into turtles and squid

Grow up fool

 

[ChemEngineer]

Basically *EVOLUTION* means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival. Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.

"It's better that way." *Science*, 1850's style. NO biochemistry necessary. NO statistical analysis of polypeptide synthesis.

Now let us suppose that this "developer" of a "trait" is a homosexual, or otherwise does not breed, or that it is killed by a predator or competitor before passing on its *advantage*. Where does your tautology go then?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----

You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built. One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years. It's always 1 in 20. Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body. "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed. Equal to 0. No different from 0. Impossible is the word.
Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power." Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450? Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?

 

[esalla]

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----

You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built. One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years. It's always 1 in 20. Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body. "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed. Equal to 0. No different from 0. Impossible is the word.
Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power." Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450? Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?

It's far simpler than that as evolution can not happen until the organism exist. Exactly as a computer program can not run without a computer. Both life and evolution are molecular computer programs that did not create themselves in the mud out of mud

 

[schmidlap]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Even though some rabid religionists have raged against Darwinian evolution, it's certainly as viable a notion as claiming that the gods took a fancy to it.

Why does everything exist? I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.​

 

[esalla]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Even though some rabid religionists have raged against Darwinian evolution, it's certainly as viable a notion as claiming that the gods took a fancy to it.

Why does everything exist? I don't pretend to know.

Learn a few words before you babble.

Religionist

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[schmidlap]

Learn a few words before you babble.

Religionist

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Compose yourself.

Take care of the people; let the gods take care of themselves.

 

[esalla]

Learn a few words before you babble.

Religionist

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Compose yourself.

Take care of the people; let the gods take care of themselves.

In English next time please

 

[james bond]

I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang. To the creation scientists, that is definitely not natural. Nor something before the big bang. Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either. Dark energy is definitely not natural.

I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things..."

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Certainly an interesting comment.

You seem like a nonsensical fellow, what does what you quoted from Darwin mean to you?

 

[esalla]

I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang. To the creation scientists, that is definitely not natural. Nor something before the big bang. Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either. Dark energy is definitely not natural.

I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things."

Yo simpleton religionist is not a word

Not that you use real vurdz enyvayz