Evolution

[Darnoc]

But so it is your choice now and not what is really true. And when it is your chosen way you want to belief, it is also not the absolute prove.

 

You would agree then that both sides have some arguments for and against them and that the truth lies in the middle between both theories? Perhaps you know the principle of dialectic: Theory-Antitheory-Synthese. Evolution and Creation are Theory and Antitheory, now someone must come and bring the Synthese which combines the right elements of both theories.

[ThetaOrionis01]

It would interest me, how you counter-argument the arguments of the theory I stated above

 

I do apologize for reviving this rather old topic, but I just noticed it, and also noted that no one has responded to Darnoc's challenge yet.

 

 

I just don't know where to start....

 

Acctually, did you ever observe, how the process of a burning happened on a molecular level? Did you ever observe, how the moleculs inside the paper begann to change and became CO2 and H2O? No, nobody has. We acctually see a paper and a fire. we see how the paper is consumed by flames. We see how H2O and CO2 are left, after the paper has dissappeared. We assume that these are the rests of the paper which has burnt down. With our logic we conclude that those remains must be what was earlier the paper, but in fact we don't know. Now no one is doubting that this isn't the way it happend (if you did, you're stupid). But still you can't say that someone is wrong, when he gives you another explanation, because you aren't even able to prove that you are right (of course it is very likely that the process of burning is happening the way we think nowadays it does).

 

Actually, you can 'observe' chemical reactions on a molecular level, by carrying them out in a controlled environment and using radioactive isotopes of the elements involved in the reaction as markers. The radioactive nuclei are not altered by the chemical reaction.

Of course, aliens could just be using matter transmitters to fool us into believing this, but I prefer the rather simpler explanation of chemistry. :lol:

 

 

Why does almost every culture on this planet have a legend of a huge flood covering the whole earth (fact)? We know from ethnology that only really remarkable moments are remembered through several thousands of years and in different cultures (fact). Now almost every culture (and on every continent) has a flood legend (fact). It must have been such a remarkable moment in history that it was remembered by almost every culture on this planet through thousand of years (assumption)!

 

All cultures on this planet have a common root. It is, I believe, now accepted that Homo Sapiens evolved in what is modern day Tanzania, and migrated from there. If your population is small and restricted to a small area, an event such as a flood can be very localized and yet still kill most of the population, leaving the survivors with the memory of this catastrophic event. The event would become part of the oral history of each culture. Such an event could even be a cause of the migration which would eventually see Homo Sapiens colonize the other continents.

 

 

When almost half of the water, which is now mostly in our oceans, was in the atmosphere and then would have fallen down through a catastrophic event (meteorite? The remains of a huge meteoric impact were found in Yucatan several years ago), this would have covered the whole earth.

 

Are you sure the atmosphere can hold that much water?

 

 

An atmosphere with a lot of water in it would provide a very good protection from solar radiation and would give an equal climate on the whole planet, even on the north pole and in the deserts, because of the green-house-effect provided by the water in the atmosphere. This could be the paradise, golden age etc. which does exist in legends of every culture.

 

Warm air holds more moisture. To have an atmosphere saturated with water it would have to be hot. The heat and humidity would certainly not constitue a climate which could be described as a golden age. You would have near permanent cloud cover - again not what you would associate with a golden age paradise. As soon as the temperature drops at night you would have torrential rain as the cooler atmosphere cannot hold as much water. This does not sound much like paradise to me. Since I am not a meteorologist I don't want to speculate on the storms produced by such a climate.

 

 

The meteorite hitting the earth could have started the movement of our tectonic plates, which are still moving, but very slow. After the hit, the plates would have moved very fast which resulted in our present situation.

 

 

Ok.....can someone work out the total mass of the Pangaean ur-continent, and the energy needed to displace the tectonic plates, and the calculate the size of such a meteorite? The shockwaves and blastwave of such an impact wouldn't have left anything on Pangaea alive.

As far as I am aware tectonic plates move because of the fluid dynamics of the magma in the earth's mantle.

 

 

BTW, there have been several extinction events in the earth's history, as the fossil record shows.

 

Now you will say that this theory can only be true, when our earth is still young, but geologists have found out that it is in fact 4.5 Billion years old! This is only the case, when you do assume that such a big catastrophe as described above never happened and everything is going as slow as it is today (principle of uniformitarinism).

 

Well, that disproves your theory then, doesn't it? If the experimental data doesn't fit, then your theory has to be discarded.

 

The lack of neutrinos in solar radiation.

 

How do you know there is a lack of neutrinos in solar radiation? Do you know how neutrinos are measured?

 

Neutrinos are particles which do not carry an electric charge. If they do have a mass - and I am not certain if that has been determined yet - it is vanishingly small. Therefore neutrinos are almost impossible to detect as they have a minute probability of interacting with matter. The probability that a neutrino would interact with matter where there happens to be a particle detector nearby is vanishingly small. During a supernova explosion a few years ago (meaning that electromagnetic radiation from the event reached earth a few years ago) neutrinos from that supernova were recorded by accident in a particle detector set up to measure proton decay. The experimental setup for this experiment, IIRC, involved several tons of water in an underground facility. If this experiment had not been set up for another purpose, the neutrinos wouldn't even have been detected.

So first of all, neutrinos are very hard detect.

Secondly, nuclear fusion takes place in the sun's core, not on the surface. The density of mass within the sun is such that, if I understood a lecture on solar physics I attended last year correctly, it takes photons from the nuclear reactions in the core 500000 years to travel to the surface due to the frequent collisions with matter in the sun. Equally, neutrinos would find it hard to escape before interacting with matter. Only a fraction of the neutrinos produced make it to the surface, due to the difficulties in detecting them, a tiny fraction of that fraction can be detected.

During the aforementioned supernova event, the star in question exploded, thereby releasing the neutrinos trapped within.

 

 

But the solar radition doesn't have this amount, so it can't have have enough hydrogen to burn for such a long time. In fact there are so little neutrinos, that our sun could only burn a little more than ten thousand years. Which fits perfectly with the theory stated above.

 

This does not make sense. Let's say the sun did release all its neutrinos immediately - they would pass straight through planet earth. Let's also assume that you could measure accurately the amount of neutrinos produced. All that would give you is an indication of the number of fusion reactions going on at the time the neutrinos were produced. Not for how long fusion has been going on already.

I believe that current estimates of the sun's hydrogen stores predict that the sun will have enough hydrogen for another 4 billion years, after which it will start burning helium.

 

 

Furthermore, if the earth and the sun are no more than 10000 years old, how do you explain carbon dating? How do you explain ancient human artifacts older than 10000 years? How do you explain the fossil record?

 

Evolution may be a theory, but a theory which fits experimental data. Your alternative does not fit experimental data.

[Peregrine]

I do apologize for reviving this rather old topic, but I just noticed it, and also noted that no one has responded to Darnoc's challenge yet.

 

Probably because we all got tired of a hopeless argument. The evidence has been presented, and Darnoc refuses to concede no matter what. But nicely done, I think you've pretty clearly shown how poor a theory Darnoc has presented.

 

I just have one comment to make:

 

You would agree then that both sides have some arguments for and against them and that the truth lies in the middle between both theories? Perhaps you know the principle of dialectic: Theory-Antitheory-Synthese. Evolution and Creation are Theory and Antitheory, now someone must come and bring the Synthese which combines the right elements of both theories.

 

Golden Mean fallacy. The fact that you say the truth is white and I say it is black does not make the truth some shade of gray. If the truth is black, then you are just wrong. There is no Synthese required just because you present an argument. Creation has exactly zero evidence in its favor, and many against. If there is some middle theory, it is 99% evolution and 1% creation. For all relevant purposes, evolution is the correct answer.

 

So in summary, concession accepted and thanks for debating. Please study a list of logic/debating flaws before you try to debate again.

[Darnoc]

@ Peregrin: That is because I like hopeless causes. They just attract me somehow. I'll never ever accept what the majority is thinking, I'll never accept the way society is and I'm always question the momentary beliefs of the majority. I'm never content and I'll never let someones opinion be. This is the way I am and I don't want to change it. There has to be someone who question things, or else this world will become soon a very bad place. Then when there is no one to question the beliefs and oppinions of the majority, everything that happens would be accepted by all. There has to be the sting which twinges the society. Even when this sting is only as big as a mosquito... But sometimes a small thing like a mosquito can cause a lot of mayham. Just think of all those diseases they are carrying.

 

And because it is the oppinion of the majority (at least in my country) that evolution is right and that god doesn't exist, I'll question. You can be assured, Peregrin, that when it would be the other way round I'll be on the side of Evolutionists. Always on the loosing side it seems. But we can't be all winners, someone has to losse :P

[Akrid]

I"m back!!!!!!! at least for now, I hope my connection to this site holds up. Hmm.. and what better place to make my much anticipated return than the debate forum!

 

Ok yep, Pergrine Theta, right, and Darny baby is so confused. Let me first say you should form your own opinions, not just leap to the lossing side in a debate, thats nonsense. Not to say you can't explore what is thought be wrong, like I don't belive in creationism but I explore it's validty and often take note of things that refer to the bible and proficies, so you can have a open mind but somwhere you need to find what you belive based on what makes sense not what is less likely.

(SP all) Well I'm off to see if I can get into the other threads now.

[Darnoc]

I don't really take part in discussions because I believe in something. I take part in discussion because I like the thrill of the fight. Discussing is my life. I can discuss almost anything (as long it is interesting and intellectuall challenging). I have my own oppinion, but I can switch sides in a discussion if I want. I always try to study my enemies, you know, and to learn about their arguments. So, if I wanted to, I could easily discuss as a pro-Evolutionist. But I don't want to, for the reasons stated above. OK, here it is more easy to discuss a pro-creationist, because I acctually believe in creation. But I could switch sides, if I wanted to. Maybe I should. Would be funny somehow to first support one side and then suddenly support the other side.

 

So, now you know why I can lead discussion all by myself. I can give arguments for both sides. In fact, it is quite interesting to discuss with yourself. Very enlighting in fact, you should do it yourself sometime. It is just that I have to talk to an intelligent person once a day :D Sorry, no offense meant.

 

So, shall we continue with our game?

[Peregrine]

Concession accepted. If you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, then you don't really believe what you're arguing. If you don't believe what you're arguing, then the evidence in favor of your arguments is clearly not enough to prove to you that they are right.

[Indoril Nerevar]

"Most people laugh when they think of monky's being related to us despite the fact that there is siginficant scientific facts to support it, and don't think the idea of religion is strange although with the help of some fellow modders we proved it's unlikey (see topic "God") Well I think all life came from one orginism, and believe evolution is what followed. What your ideas?"

 

Ever heard of the shroud of turin? That should be enough to make anyone look into God. There are also many historical and scientific ways to prove God exists aswell. elaborate a little more please. (that is if you can)

[Peregrine]

Ever heard of the shroud of turin? That should be enough to make anyone look into God.

 

Please explain how and why the shroud is significant, and proves the existence of god, especially one responsible for creating life as we see it. And please include details on why this single artifact outweighs the massive evidence in favor of evolution.

 

There are also many historical and scientific ways to prove God exists aswell. elaborate a little more please. (that is if you can)

 

I would definitely love to hear these "scientific" ways of proving the existence of god, since god by definition is not provable by the scientific method.

 

And please, explain these historical methods of proof, using records other than the bible (which has too many flaws to be used as the only proof).

 

====================================

 

And finally, since you are posting this "argument" in a debate about evolution, why do these things disprove evolution? You are aware of the deist form of "god", which can coexist with evolution with no conflicts, right? And that is just one version of god, even the catholic church (and I'm sure others) considers evolution to be fact.

[Akrid]

"Most people laugh when they think of monky's being related to us despite the fact that there is siginficant scientific facts to support it, and don't think the idea of religion is strange although with the help of some fellow modders we proved it's unlikey (see topic "God") Well I think all life came from one orginism, and believe evolution is what followed. What your ideas?"

 

Ever heard of the shroud of turin? That should be enough to make anyone look into God. There are also many historical and scientific ways to prove God exists aswell. elaborate a little more please. (that is if you can)

 

Wow, one of my old threads was horribly resurected. Um no dude. Thier is no scientific proof, show me and ill selll you my right nut for a nickel.