Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Shadowlord]

(Wow, 10 posts in the 10 minutes it takes me to read the first 16 posts on this page and reply to this thread...)

[Evil Knevil]

I just think it's sloppy, thats all, especially since you lose an 'i' and somehow gain an 'e' for the word fossil --->fossle

I'd of though you'd pick up the right spelling considering all your sources bang on about the fossil record.

I can't think of anything more to add at the moment, but I'll be back in a while..

[Draco aka Se7eN]

LOL i do know the meaning of E=Mc^2 how ever i am wondering if you do. which is why i give up. It wasnt very wise of me to pick a fight with several evolutionists. Its a losing battle even if i am right. I think even you all can agree with me.

How many of you would pick a fight with several creationists and hope to change their minds? You probably wouldnt try. but of course your explaniation why you couldnt change their minds with facts would be because they are biased and ignorant.

LOL how ironic, because i gonna say the same thing about you all. It was a winless battle to change your minds with facts because you are all biased and ignorant.

Do you wish to argue that? i dont see why.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its a losing battle even if i am right.

But you aren't .

I mean, are scientists trying to trick you? Is that their MO?

[Shadowlord]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
you are all biased and ignorant.

Thank you. You're quite biased and ignorant yourself.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Imran did you even read what i said.

Oh well by all have a nice life.

maybe i am biased. However i am not ignorant like some of you have showed.

[MrBaggins]

Posted by Draco aka Se7eN in first impressions and response to crazy Avault review
31-10-2001 11:08

quote:

Are you afraid it could do any damage to your brain? Short on free time? Too lazy?



I know that im not going to read it, and probably randomturns review just gives me a reason not to read it.

So im going to be honest, yes im afraid it will damage my brain, and i have plenty of free time but im extreamly lazy

PS. sounds to me like the avault guy needs to clean his mouse, or get a new one. Funny how faulty testing equipment can skew a review.

hey that rymes, skew a review.

You are just one big joke. You say you read 22 books about science... but are 'extreamly lazy'.

You lost... just give up and go back to reading the 'Big Crisjun Book of Syince'

[KrazyHorse]

LOL i have also read 22 books on physics. hehehe believe it or not

LOL i have also gotten a joint honours degree in math&physics from a real, accredited university. hehehe believe it or not.

And believe it or not, all of your arguments that have anything to do with physics are based on spurious deductions or out-and-out lies.

[loinburger]

LOL i do know the meaning of E=Mc^2

If you knew the meaning, then you wouldn't have asked your asinine question about "how many explosions have created matter."

how ever i am wondering if you do.

Seeing as how I haven't presented fallacious arguments, I must conclude that you only doubt my grasp of the subject in order to feel more comfortable in your own ignorance.

[loinburger]

It was a winless battle to change your minds with facts because you are all biased and ignorant

Maybe if you'd actually provided some facts then you'd have had a chance. Instead all you provided were fallacies.

You sound like the guy from timecube.

[Skanky Burns]

Thank you everyone for a very entertaining thread!
I haven't had a good laugh like this in ages.

And excellent trolling too, Draco, 10/10. A job well done.

[MrBaggins]

If you say you're pretending to be an idiot but are really smart... but there's proof (posted for posterity) that you really are an idiot, are you :

a) a clever troll
b) an idiot trying to find a way out

i'll give you a clue... the answer is b

[Lincoln]

Answers to Various Objections
From R.J. Riggins:

“. . . watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved. The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils", then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert.”

Mr. Riggins here is trying to refute the requirement of a designer behind a watch (or biological machine) by suggesting that “evolution” can do it without any help from an intelligent source i.e. God. Of course the fact that watches improved over time into their present form does not explain the necessity of a human being behind each evolutionary improvement of the watch. Nor does it solve the problem of the existence of the first watch which regardless of its supposed primitive form was still quite complicated and required a designer.

“OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of simple chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating, if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve.”

Here Mr. Riggins explains how molecules spontaneously form into more complex molecules. He is correct, but that fact, as we showed in the example of snowflakes and DNA, does not solve the information problem. Nor does it solve the problem of regulation and complex interaction of biological machinery. This is what I call the “snowflake argument” and we find it in many forms. The flaw in reasoning though is always the same. A machine may be composed of naturally formed elements but these interesting shapes and patterns and combinations of molecules cannot form themselves into a complicated interactive machine that is analogous to a living organism. Nor are these complex molecules analogous to information.

His assertion that some compounds are “self replicating” also is misleading because they are replicating themselves. This proves that a gear designed by a human being can be stamped out in a factory automatically by machine. A living cell is not just a container full of parts that float around looking for a function or another chemical to randomly interact with. Even if one does not assume a designer behind the chemical reactions that are self replicating we are still not any closer to solving the problem of assembling the machinery of life into the intelligent order that they are in.

“. . . the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?”

Finally Mr. Riggins sums up his argument without apparently seeing his mistake in analogy. No, watches do not require miraculous intervention but they do require a creator. The human creator of course (in the analogy) is in the place of God. He succeeds, as other skeptics before him, in proving again the absolute necessity of a creator. As far as trying to prove through the watchmaker analogy that animals were created in their present forms he makes a good point. The analogy does not prove the method of creation, only the absolute necessity of a creator. The final form of the creation however came into being (either gradually are instantly), by necessity, as the result of intelligent intervention at some point.

The ability of chemical compounds to “assemble themselves” he incorrectly states proves the irrelevance of the watchmaker analogy but he again misses the point. The ability of chemicals to assemble themselves into more complex chemicals or shapes or patterns does not even solve the basic problem of a gear on a rotating shaft meshing with another gear in a perfect ratio necessary for just the beginning stages of watch assembly. Likewise, the ability of chemicals to interact spontaneously with others to form what we might call objects is analogous to a transmission case full of gears, tubes, clutches, nuts and bolts and various other parts that have been dropped into the case by the mechanic. Chemicals do not have the ability to “assemble themselves” into a fully functioning machine and the odds of that happening are about the same as those that would require a watch case full of a random assortment of gears and shafts etc. to assemble themselves into a fully functioning watch.

His assertion that “it only had to happen once” is also misleading. This argument is often used by atheists to try and show that given enough time anything is possible. Of course even in an infinity a watch case full of gears will never assemble themselves into a logical order necessary for keeping time. Likewise, no amount of time or varied circumstance will assemble any amount or combination of chemicals, energy or whatever into the information based machinery in even one cell.

The watchmaker analogy is still just as relevant as when it was first used to appeal to the common logic of man so that he could have is eyes opened to the absurd notion of some, that design exists without a designer.

The Blind Atheist

[KrazyHorse]

I can show you the equations for this, but I don't think you would follow them. Suffice it to say they show the Moon would end up in its current position after it was created about 3 billion years ago

Did you (or the person who derived it) assume constant tidal deformation wrt time, or did they take into account changes in terrestrial conditions (temperature, presence of liquid oceans)? That sounds like a nasty poblem to solve...

[KrazyHorse]

A machine may be composed of naturally formed elements but these interesting shapes and patterns and combinations of molecules cannot form themselves into a complicated interactive machine that is analogous to a living organism. Nor are these complex molecules analogous to information

a) They can if there is constant pressure on them to assemble

b) This "information" b.s. that creationists seem to bandy about so often requires a rigorous, scientific definition. Do you mind providing one? Can you please tell me how much information the average human being contains? Can you explain why the amount of information cannot increase from generation to generation? Arguments from the second law of thermodynamics will not be accepted, as entropy as a measure of disorder is inadmissible; you would find that a crystal of human size would contain many, many times less "disorder" than the human.