A question for Rosie about religion | Page 2 | Vital Football

A question for Rosie about religion

  • Thread starter Villan Of The North
  • Start date
Green Tea - Evolution has been proven. All you are doing is showing your complete lack of understanding about how it works. Perhaps if you bothered to learn more about it you would also see how obvious it is.

Perhaps you could start by learning about Evolution and then learning about Social Darwinism, which would show you they are two completely different, distinct things.

Survival of the fittest!!! LOL. :19: :19: :19: :19:
 
Evolution is a funny thing, i have watched documentries on BBC2 Horizon and Sky History that are baffled and stumped at the sudden change in man from being monkey like then suddenly becoming intelligent and building things etc

Also if Evolution is correct then why do some species still survive today even though nature has produced a more successful version of that species a long time ago yet just like the monkeys they still are here yet we evolved at a sudden rapid rate unlike them, and also many other animals this is the case and why haven't ants etc evolved intelligence or another life form on earth?
 
ClivetheVillan - 29/5/2013 21:47

Evolution is a funny thing, i have watched documentries on BBC2 Horizon and Sky History that are baffled and stumped at the sudden change in man from being monkey like then suddenly becoming intelligent and building things etc

Also if Evolution is correct then why do some species still survive today even though nature has produced a more successful version of that species a long time ago yet just like the monkeys they still are here yet we evolved at a sudden rapid rate unlike them, and also many other animals this is the case and why haven't ants etc evolved intelligence or another life form on earth?

Because a genetic flaw gives a small proportion of a species an advantage, which may lead to them going on to form a new species, it doesn't mean the original species just ceases to exist, does it. The Wolf is not extinct, despite every Dog now out there being a direct descendant of them.

It's not then inconceivable that some change in the environment could wipe out that second species, but the original one is better adapted.

It's just pure damned luck. It's not like someone is sitting there saying "lets give that Ape a big Brain, and see what happens". It's just changes in environment, genetic mutations and a lot of death that allows us to change over massively long periods of time.
 
Clive,

Every living thing has a genetic code which is programmed with the exact info to produce, preserve and repair that living thing. It has no less than that necessary information and no more than that necessary information.

Which basically means that the genes in every organism limit that said organism to what it is. It cannot be less than it is, and it cannot be more than it is. There is no genetic information to transform it into something other than what it is.

There can only be variations within its kind. ie a dog is still a dog, it cannot spend an evening with a cat and then have offspring that are half cat, half dog.

Variations within a kind are widely seen today but we do not observe a change from one kind to another. No fossil record proves such. If yiou think the world is billions of years old, then the T-Rex walked the Eart for 5 million years and never evolved anything in that time. Cockroaches, centipedes, many reptiles, sea horses etc etc are all the same now as they were millions of years ago. No changes.

The fossil record shows us either extinct species or same species we still have with us today. Even the extinct species were all fully developed.
 
Hmm. I wonder what genetic mutations are, then? That doesn't seem to fit into your nice little "theory".

There were 1,000s of different Tyrannosaurus - T. Rex being just one. They changed quite markedly during their time on this planet.
 
Progeria syndrome is evidence of genetic mutation in humans. Like most genetic mutations, Virtually all observed are in the category of loss of information. Yes some have gained(again its rare).

For a single-celled organism like an amoeba, to evolve into a human, new information would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm. This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything (e.g., it doesn’t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.
Like I said, information-gaining mutations are rare, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. Yet we don’t ever observe any of this in nature, we see the opposite of organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction. :8:
 
After reading that post I agree it does seem bonkers to think that we evolved from algae

It's far more believable to think we all came from Adam and Eve.
 
Now, now Prep. Lets not mock the less fortunate.

I do find it funny when someone tries to argue about something they know nothing about. It's amazing how quickly Google becomes a liability!!!!
 
ClivetheVillan - 29/5/2013 21:47

Evolution is a funny thing, i have watched documentries on BBC2 Horizon and Sky History that are baffled and stumped at the sudden change in man from being monkey like then suddenly becoming intelligent and building things etc

Also if Evolution is correct then why do some species still survive today even though nature has produced a more successful version of that species a long time ago yet just like the monkeys they still are here yet we evolved at a sudden rapid rate unlike them, and also many other animals this is the case and why haven't ants etc evolved intelligence or another life form on earth?

Simples. Xenu!
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 29/5/2013 23:19

Now, now Prep. Lets not mock the less fortunate.

I can see why VOTN stopped posting.

It does seem that sensible conversation or debate on religion can turn an Atheist into a power freak. Its almost like they feel superior because they dont believe in a creator.

Its just a pointless exercise. I dont recall being rude to any posters in any threads?

What do you mean by less fortunate?



 
Well, you obviously did not have access to the fine Education that I was lucky enough to receive. The evidence is there for all to see. You have misunderstood, misrepresented or just completely gone off track whilst trying to discuss Evolution.

I don't blame you, I blame the education system in this Country, which is falling behind other Countries very quickly.
 
Heath, for an obvioulsy fairly intelligent person you have no idea how to discuss a topic without being aggressive, patronising, sarcastic or all three.

By reading through this thread, one thing i can ascertain is that it is the atheists who are the aggressors and the religious folk who are the pacisfists. So much for religion causing all the problems - can you have extreme atheism?!!
 
James06 - 30/5/2013 09:33

Heath, for an obvioulsy fairly intelligent person you have no idea how to discuss a topic without being aggressive, patronising, sarcastic or all three.

By reading through this thread, one thing i can ascertain is that it is the atheists who are the aggressors and the religious folk who are the pacisfists. So much for religion causing all the problems - can you have extreme atheism?!!

So, tying to educate someone is now aggressive, patronising and sarcastic? I've read back through the thread, and at worst I've had a little chuckle at how poor Green Tea's knowledge actually is. Maybe if he had been taught the actual facts about Evolution, rather than his absurd misconceptions, he would actually see it makes sense.
 
DeanoVilla - 30/5/2013 09:56

So are muslims aggressors or pacifists then Jim, you've got me all confused now.

I take it you mean in life in general as there aren't any on the forum or in this thread as far as I know?

In life it would be argued by them I think, that it is the non-believers, the atheist west who seek oil and riches who are the aggressors.

But obviously extremist islamists also show aggression to devastating effect as we have seen.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 30/5/2013 10:05

James06 - 30/5/2013 09:33

Heath, for an obvioulsy fairly intelligent person you have no idea how to discuss a topic without being aggressive, patronising, sarcastic or all three.

By reading through this thread, one thing i can ascertain is that it is the atheists who are the aggressors and the religious folk who are the pacisfists. So much for religion causing all the problems - can you have extreme atheism?!!

So, tying to educate someone is now aggressive, patronising and sarcastic? I've read back through the thread, and at worst I've had a little chuckle at how poor Green Tea's knowledge actually is. Maybe if he had been taught the actual facts about Evolution, rather than his absurd misconceptions, he would actually see it makes sense.

Well to suggest you are 'trying to educate someone' is already patronising I reckon.
 
If somebody demonstrates consistently, time and time again, that they have no knowledge on a subject, yet continue to post their version, am I not allowed to correct them?

Oh, sorry. That's how the Church did so well for 1,700 years!!! Silly me.
 
Prepared - 29/5/2013 23:07

After reading that post I agree it does seem bonkers to think that we evolved from algae

It's far more believable to think we all came from Adam and Eve.

Sarcastic a tad? However to think we descended from other humans as described in the biblical sense, is far more believable than to think we came from pond scum.

Have you read into the complexity of a cell? Many scientists are now thinking that it had to originated by a designer. It is way too complex to have come about by chance. At the time of Darwin, he didnt realise the complexity of a single cell. He assumed that the cell was like a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions.

Yet Modern technology/science has allowed biochemists to delve deeper than in the days of Darwin. Thus revealing a micro-world of mind-boggling complexity. Leading scientists of evolution have all acknowledged this complexity.

Bruce Alberts wrote, "The complexity in the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."

Darwin wrote "any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional "genetic code" in order to survive. A code that has to have been invented/designed and cannot possibly have come about by chance.